As some of you may be aware, the UK never looks quite as small as it actually is on maps because of the Mercator projection, the fact we're a weird shape and the fact that we're centrally placed.
This website is pretty cool for comparing other countries with us and giving perspective, but i still think it has the Mercator projection problem. For instance, i don't think many would realise metropolitan France is over twice the land area of the UK, and if we were an African country, we'd be about the size of uganda (UK is 244,000 KM2 and Uganda is 241,038 km2)
It's strange to think that it takes 3 hours to drive from south west wales to north east wales, yet how small it is!
This website is pretty cool for comparing other countries with us and giving perspective, but i still think it has the Mercator projection problem. For instance, i don't think many would realise metropolitan France is over twice the land area of the UK, and if we were an African country, we'd be about the size of uganda (UK is 244,000 KM2 and Uganda is 241,038 km2)
It's strange to think that it takes 3 hours to drive from south west wales to north east wales, yet how small it is!
The whole point being made was that we all have been taught geography mainly based on the Mercator projection - as the background in daily television news, the cover of my school atlas, in general the ubiquitous depiction of the planet.
But the basic fact is that a three-dimensional sphere being shown as a single two-dimensional flat image will always be subject to a conversion loss: something has to give…
The reason why Mercator was such an important advance is simple: on it one can draw straight lines to account for travel routes - in the days of the gigantic merchant fleets and naval battles an immensely valuable attribute.
But that ability to use lines instead of curves came at a cost: areas near the poles would be greatly exaggerated. Greenland looks deceivingly as if it were the size of all of South America for instance…
In other words: if things are normal near the equator, everything further north and south is familiar to us in a stretched and enlarged version, veering further and further away from the proper size. And conversely: if we kept the shapes as we intuitively know them now, Africa ought to be stretched massively larger to keep it in true proportion.
Hence the fact that in everyday thinking, Africa is just about always hugely underestimated - even by college grads, off by factor of 2 or 3