Here's what I mean by the problem with your depicted map extent stretching all the way to the north and south poles. I'll assume you intend an Equirectangular projection. Not super useful when you get too high in latitude, but easy to concieve of and easy to draw. First problem is an equirectangular world map is going to be 1:2 in proportion height to width. So you've left out a third of the planet - assume it's water. I just show it as blank white.
Crud, somehow I flipped your map east-west. No matter; the principles are the same.
If you wrap that on a globe and look at it from nearly north and nearly south (off-axis a smidgen; helps to see it as a sphere) see how extremely pinched the landmasses really are? It's the equirectangular view that's distorted; these are closer to true shape (at least the polar-most bits are; on the orthographic view the bits around the outside are horribly distorted - okay here since you intuitively expect the periphery of a ball to be smooshied, what with viewing it at such a slant.
See how the south pole red dot on the equirectangular view is a long line?
If I asume you aren't showing this map all the way to the poles, the distortion differential between the two views goes down some. Here I backed it off so the N & S edges of your blue-and-beige map are at maybe 78 degrees N & S.
See how the "real" shape is less pinched poleward now?
THe other way to think of this is that if you're going to draw your map in equirectangular or mercator or the like, you have to manually "stretch sideways" details that are close to the poles, and not run any landmass right up to the pole unless you want a razor-sharp peninsula that just happens to touch the pole. If you need polar landmass, it's easier to visualize one that's centered (-ish) on the pole, since we're used to seeing Antarctica stretch all the way across the bottom of an earthly map.
Reply With Quote