<p><strong>Yes.</strong></p>
<p>Every <em>equal-area</em> map displays all countries (and other areas) in their correct relative size. Inevitably, they don't show the correct shape (unless you're looking at a globe). Personally, my favourite projections are pseudocylidrical equal-area projections, such as:</p>
<h2><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Equal Earth projection</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg/1024px-Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg/1024px-Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg" alt="Equal Earth projection" /></a></p>
<h2><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mollweide projection</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/5X1NP.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/5X1NP.jpg" alt="Mollweide projection" /></a></p>
<h2><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckert_IV_projection" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Eckert IV projection</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Dpkk6.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Dpkk6.jpg" alt="Eckert IV projection" /></a></p>
<h2><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler_hyperelliptical_projection" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tobler hyperelliptical projection</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/jmH1u.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/jmH1u.jpg" alt="Tobler hyperelliptical projection" /></a></p>
<p>There are others; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections#Table_of_projections" rel="nofollow noreferrer">see this list on Wikipedia</a>.</p>
<p>The pseudocylindrical part means that lines of latitude are horizontal lines. I think that for any non-polar projection in the Earth sciences, this is a highly desirable property. A truly cylindrical projection means a projection onto a rectangle, but that just makes distortions even worse than they need to be.  There are other practical considerations, such as whether the poles are points or lines and whether the outer lines of longitude are ellipsoids or sinusoids, which differ between the various examples I've listed above.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2016-06-23T11:55:10.297Z
2020-10-31T17:56:08.287Z
2020-10-31T17:56:08.287Z
gerrit
<p>This is pretty straight forward.  The traditional map is very good for longitude and latitude.  It's pretty lousy for the shapes and sizes of the continents cause everything close to the poles is expanded.</p>

<p>A more accurate map has to look like a carved up sphere on a flat sheet of paper.  </p>

<p>This one claims to be the most accurate:  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/KamoV.jpg" rel="noreferrer">https://i.sstatic.net/KamoV.jpg</a></p>

<p>Here's another nice accurate one but, I think, harder on the eyes.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/nGqzU.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/nGqzU.png" alt="http://www.read.seas.harvard.edu/~kohler/z/icsilogo/isf-n9.png"></a></p>

<p>Any 2D map that bulges in the middle is significantly improved over the traditional flat map.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/WEmi9.gif" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/WEmi9.gif" alt="http://kartoweb.itc.nl/geometrics/Bitmaps/robinson1.gif"></a></p>

<p>and I like this method as a clever heart shape, which more accurately shows the countries in real size.   </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/pOeSv.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/pOeSv.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>and the Peters projection is sometimes used but I don't like it because it doesn't accurately show the shapes of the nations near the poles.   It flattens them when it should squash them so in some ways it's even less accurate.  link <a href="http://livelearnevolve.com/peters-projection-world-map/" rel="noreferrer">here</a></p>

<p>I think the most accurate are easily the first two, or just use a globe and a 2D map, knowing it's inaccurate.   All this is easily available with a quick google search "best 2D world map".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T11:57:54.403Z
What is the projection in your second example?  Eckert IV?  Robinson?  Wagner VI?
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T18:35:17.950Z
@gerrit  the first is the Waterman Butterfly, which I like the best cause you get clear views of size and shape of every land mass, but I didn't link it cause the picture is too big.  Here's a direct link.   http://i.imgur.com/O6lCFWC.jpg      The 2nd, which I don't like as much is the first picture above in my answer.   I'm not sure what that one is called.  It's accurate but ugly.   The full globe views, even with the narrowed poles tend to skew land around the corners.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-24T16:23:02.383Z
We can agree to disagree.  I shudder when seeing the oceans cut into pieces and fear for the tremendous geophysical consequences!
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-24T18:05:22.523Z
@gerrit fair enough  :-)
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-04T11:14:39.720Z
In terms of area (which is what the question asks), the Waterman Butterfly is certainly not the most accurate. It misprepresents area by [up to 10%](http://watermanpolyhedron.com/deploy/). As detailed in @gerrit's answer, there are plenty of **equal-area** projections which do not distort areas at all. In fact, assuming that your third example is Eckert IV, every projection that you show *except* for the Waterman is an equal-area projection!
Pont
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-07T16:52:17.070Z
The second map uses the [Werner projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_projection).
Spencer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-22T22:33:59.990Z
2016-06-22T22:33:59.990Z
userLTK
<p>Found in <a href="https://twitter.com/amazingmap" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://twitter.com/amazingmap</a> I can't personally vouch for accuracy.</p>

<hr>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/8QPGL.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<p>From <a href="https://twitter.com/amazingmap/status/1027976155700371456" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tweet</a>, several complaints about Antarctica, "wrong pole", etc.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>New favourite map projection. Hellereal Boreal Triaxial Projection</p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XeQHw.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<p>From <a href="https://twitter.com/amazingmap/status/1164221705113526272" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tweet</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>World Mercator map projection with true country size and shape added #Map #Maps #Amazingmap #Amazingmaps #Mercator</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-04T01:12:53.187Z
2019-09-04T01:12:53.187Z
uhoh
<p>I know that the standard Mercator projection is completely wrong when it comes to the relative sizes of countries (Greenland appears relatively much larger than in reality, for example). AFAIK they do this because the focus of Mercator isn't realism, but to keep routing working correctly (ships and airplanes for example).</p>

<p>But: is there a map that correctly displays the relative size of every country?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-22T17:10:14.420Z
Just check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection#Projections_by_preservation_of_a_metric_property It depends of what you call "correct size". If you mean area as size, then there are several, but while equal-area maps preserve the area measured, they generally distort the shapes (e.g., angles, distances).
arkaia
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-22T18:46:39.640Z
the best solution is to get a globe!
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-22T18:51:34.997Z
In line with @farrenthorpe comment, the only way to get every country in its actual (correct) size is to have the entire world, otherwise there are scaling problems...
arkaia
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-22T21:42:51.997Z
@user6194: I don't think you mean 'size' — 'relative area' maybe? Or shape? You can edit your question to clarify.
Matt Hall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-22T22:17:01.080Z
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLqC3FNNOaI  (one of my favorites).
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T11:58:54.813Z
@aretxabaleta Any equal-area projection shows the relative sizes correctly, by definition.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T11:59:43.707Z
Maps are commonly used in Earth sciences, so this question is on-topic here.  For more technical details about studying and displaying geographical information, you might also be interested in the [GIS.SE] site.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T13:49:04.230Z
@gerrit, I was kidding with my second comment. The question is about "correct" size, not "relative" size. The only way to have the "correct" size is to have something of the exact same size as Earth. Relative sizes need some scaling down. That's all.
arkaia
<geography><cartography><mapping><projection>
Is there a map that displays every country at its correct relative size?
user6194
# Is there a map that displays every country at its correct relative size?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-22)

I know that the standard Mercator projection is completely wrong when it comes to the relative sizes of countries (Greenland appears relatively much larger than in reality, for example). AFAIK they do this because the focus of Mercator isn't realism, but to keep routing working correctly (ships and airplanes for example).

But: is there a map that correctly displays the relative size of every country?

**Tags:** geography, cartography, mapping, projection

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Just check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection#Projections_by_preservation_of_a_metric_property It depends of what you call "correct size". If you mean area as size, then there are several, but while equal-area maps preserve the area measured, they generally distort the shapes (e.g., angles, distances).  
> **username_2**: the best solution is to get a globe!  
> **username_1**: In line with @farrenthorpe comment, the only way to get every country in its actual (correct) size is to have the entire world, otherwise there are scaling problems...  
> **username_3**: @username_0: I don't think you mean 'size' — 'relative area' maybe? Or shape? You can edit your question to clarify.  
> **username_4**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLqC3FNNOaI  (one of my favorites).  
> **username_5**: @aretxabaleta Any equal-area projection shows the relative sizes correctly, by definition.  
> **username_5**: Maps are commonly used in Earth sciences, so this question is on-topic here.  For more technical details about studying and displaying geographical information, you might also be interested in the [GIS.SE] site.  
> **username_1**: @username_5, I was kidding with my second comment. The question is about "correct" size, not "relative" size. The only way to have the "correct" size is to have something of the exact same size as Earth. Relative sizes need some scaling down. That's all.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-06-23. Score: 13

**Yes.**

Every *equal-area* map displays all countries (and other areas) in their correct relative size. Inevitably, they don't show the correct shape (unless you're looking at a globe). Personally, my favourite projections are pseudocylidrical equal-area projections, such as:

## [Equal Earth projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection)

[![Equal Earth projection](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg/1024px-Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg/1024px-Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg)

## [Mollweide projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection)

[![Mollweide projection](https://i.sstatic.net/5X1NP.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/5X1NP.jpg)

## [Eckert IV projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckert_IV_projection)

[![Eckert IV projection](https://i.sstatic.net/Dpkk6.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Dpkk6.jpg)

## [Tobler hyperelliptical projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler_hyperelliptical_projection)

[![Tobler hyperelliptical projection](https://i.sstatic.net/jmH1u.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/jmH1u.jpg)

There are others; [see this list on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections#Table_of_projections).

The pseudocylindrical part means that lines of latitude are horizontal lines. I think that for any non-polar projection in the Earth sciences, this is a highly desirable property. A truly cylindrical projection means a projection onto a rectangle, but that just makes distortions even worse than they need to be. There are other practical considerations, such as whether the poles are points or lines and whether the outer lines of longitude are ellipsoids or sinusoids, which differ between the various examples I've listed above.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-06-22. Score: 6

This is pretty straight forward. The traditional map is very good for longitude and latitude. It's pretty lousy for the shapes and sizes of the continents cause everything close to the poles is expanded.

A more accurate map has to look like a carved up sphere on a flat sheet of paper.

This one claims to be the most accurate: <https://i.sstatic.net/KamoV.jpg>

Here's another nice accurate one but, I think, harder on the eyes.

[![http://www.read.seas.harvard.edu/~kohler/z/icsilogo/isf-n9.png](https://i.sstatic.net/nGqzU.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/nGqzU.png)

Any 2D map that bulges in the middle is significantly improved over the traditional flat map.

[![http://kartoweb.itc.nl/geometrics/Bitmaps/robinson1.gif](https://i.sstatic.net/WEmi9.gif)](https://i.sstatic.net/WEmi9.gif)

and I like this method as a clever heart shape, which more accurately shows the countries in real size.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/pOeSv.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/pOeSv.jpg)

and the Peters projection is sometimes used but I don't like it because it doesn't accurately show the shapes of the nations near the poles. It flattens them when it should squash them so in some ways it's even less accurate. link [here](http://livelearnevolve.com/peters-projection-world-map/)

I think the most accurate are easily the first two, or just use a globe and a 2D map, knowing it's inaccurate. All this is easily available with a quick google search "best 2D world map".

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: What is the projection in your second example?  Eckert IV?  Robinson?  Wagner VI?  
> **username_4**: @username_5  the first is the Waterman Butterfly, which I like the best cause you get clear views of size and shape of every land mass, but I didn't link it cause the picture is too big.  Here's a direct link.   http://i.imgur.com/O6lCFWC.jpg      The 2nd, which I don't like as much is the first picture above in my answer.   I'm not sure what that one is called.  It's accurate but ugly.   The full globe views, even with the narrowed poles tend to skew land around the corners.  
> **username_5**: We can agree to disagree.  I shudder when seeing the oceans cut into pieces and fear for the tremendous geophysical consequences!  
> **username_4**: @username_5 fair enough  :-)  
> **username_6**: In terms of area (which is what the question asks), the Waterman Butterfly is certainly not the most accurate. It misprepresents area by [up to 10%](http://watermanpolyhedron.com/deploy/). As detailed in @username_5's answer, there are plenty of **equal-area** projections which do not distort areas at all. In fact, assuming that your third example is Eckert IV, every projection that you show *except* for the Waterman is an equal-area projection!  
> **username_7**: The second map uses the [Werner projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_projection).  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2019-09-04. Score: 3

Found in <https://twitter.com/amazingmap> I can't personally vouch for accuracy.

---

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/8QPGL.jpg)

From [tweet](https://twitter.com/amazingmap/status/1027976155700371456), several complaints about Antarctica, "wrong pole", etc.

> New favourite map projection. Hellereal Boreal Triaxial Projection

---

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XeQHw.jpg)

From [tweet](https://twitter.com/amazingmap/status/1164221705113526272)

> World Mercator map projection with true country size and shape added #Map #Maps #Amazingmap #Amazingmaps #Mercator


---

