Have you looked at https://foldingglobes.com/how-it-works It compares a globe and a rotating version of the icosahedrum. Also read the description there, the distortion is small.
* from West to East covers 69°, i.e. 1/5.2 of 360°. In the maps of foldingglobes the width of Africa is close to 1/5 of the map. The same applies to the other maps, I don't see too much disagreement on the width.
* From South to North, coves 72°, i.e. 1/2.5 of 180°. In the maps of foldingglobes the width of Africa is close to 1/4 of the map. The same applies to the other maps, I don't see too much disagreement on the width.
Here I pasted a 4x2 grid of Africas over the map https://imgur.com/a/huMJgbG
I hope it's clear there is room for one more copy on the side (like half on one side and half on the other) and half a copy at the bottom, so I consider it a 5x2.5 grid. So the size on the map is pretty close to the globe.
>> Africa is fine in Mercator
> here's a reality check:
I don't understand what you mean. Africa is near the Equator and is fine in the Mercator projection. A circle is mapped to almost a circle. The problem is that Europe and North America have a bigger scale. (I'd try to print the maps and make a collage later.)
An interesting comparison in the map you linked is Norway, that is very North and has a huge scale difference in the Mercator projection.
In the map you linked, if you move slowly Norway from the center of the Sahara to the North, when it reach the cost it goes approximately form the southest part of the gulf in Libya (near Rā's Lānūf) to the frontier between Morocco and Algleia (near Nador).
Using a plastic rule on the screen on the screen on my computer in whatever resolution I have now in Google Maps (Mercator), I get 5.5cm from Rā's Lānūf to Nador. But when I measure Norway with the same method I get 9.5cm form Sandnes to Berlevåg. That shows that the scale of Norway is like x2 the scale of the north cost of Africa, but I think we both strongly agree in that Mercator use different escales.
If I repeat the same measurement in the map in foldingglobes, I get 3cm for Norway. The cost of North Africa is hard to measure because it is split, but it looks like 4cm. Can I claim a 1 to 1 scale? I think the north cost of Africa that I'm measuring is slightly bigger in the map. I guess the cost is closer to the edges and then they have a slightly bigger escale.
Anyway, the conclusion is that the huge x2 difference of escale disappears.
For completeness:
If I use the distance measurement in Google Maps I get 1700km for Norway and 2000 for the part of the north cost of Africa. So close enough for me, not a huge x2 mistake in the comparison.
If I use a plastic ruler in the map you pasted I get I get 6cm for Norway and 6cm for the part of the north cost of Africa.
If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Africa considering only the mainland that is easy to see in the map:
* from West to East covers 69°, i.e. 1/5.2 of 360°. In the maps of foldingglobes the width of Africa is close to 1/5 of the map. The same applies to the other maps, I don't see too much disagreement on the width.
* From South to North, coves 72°, i.e. 1/2.5 of 180°. In the maps of foldingglobes the width of Africa is close to 1/4 of the map. The same applies to the other maps, I don't see too much disagreement on the width.
Here I pasted a 4x2 grid of Africas over the map https://imgur.com/a/huMJgbG I hope it's clear there is room for one more copy on the side (like half on one side and half on the other) and half a copy at the bottom, so I consider it a 5x2.5 grid. So the size on the map is pretty close to the globe.
>> Africa is fine in Mercator
> here's a reality check:
I don't understand what you mean. Africa is near the Equator and is fine in the Mercator projection. A circle is mapped to almost a circle. The problem is that Europe and North America have a bigger scale. (I'd try to print the maps and make a collage later.)
An interesting comparison in the map you linked is Norway, that is very North and has a huge scale difference in the Mercator projection.
In the map you linked, if you move slowly Norway from the center of the Sahara to the North, when it reach the cost it goes approximately form the southest part of the gulf in Libya (near Rā's Lānūf) to the frontier between Morocco and Algleia (near Nador).
Using a plastic rule on the screen on the screen on my computer in whatever resolution I have now in Google Maps (Mercator), I get 5.5cm from Rā's Lānūf to Nador. But when I measure Norway with the same method I get 9.5cm form Sandnes to Berlevåg. That shows that the scale of Norway is like x2 the scale of the north cost of Africa, but I think we both strongly agree in that Mercator use different escales.
If I repeat the same measurement in the map in foldingglobes, I get 3cm for Norway. The cost of North Africa is hard to measure because it is split, but it looks like 4cm. Can I claim a 1 to 1 scale? I think the north cost of Africa that I'm measuring is slightly bigger in the map. I guess the cost is closer to the edges and then they have a slightly bigger escale.
Anyway, the conclusion is that the huge x2 difference of escale disappears.
For completeness:
If I use the distance measurement in Google Maps I get 1700km for Norway and 2000 for the part of the north cost of Africa. So close enough for me, not a huge x2 mistake in the comparison.
If I use a plastic ruler in the map you pasted I get I get 6cm for Norway and 6cm for the part of the north cost of Africa.