Peters Map vs Mercator Projection

I’ve been putting it off for a while now, but I’ve finally gotten around to framing my Peters Map. Placed above where I spend most of my time at home, so I think it will serve as some inspiration for future travels.


The Peters Map projection is very different from the normal Mercator projection you typically see. It turns out that mapping a 3D surface onto a 2D surface is really hard, and so there are many different “map projections” in order to accomplish this.

For instance, a huge distortion in the size of Greenland occurs in the Mercator projection:

Greenland: 0.8 million sq. miles
Africa: 11.6 million sq. miles

The Peters Map treats the area of each country equally, but distorts the shape and position.

I always looked at maps thinking that it was a 1:1 representation of how the world looked. It’s more complicated than that though. If you’d like to learn more check out the following links:

  • Kara Cavazos

    I’ve been trying to find a side-by-side (or overlapping) comparison of the two, with no luck. But thanks for actually having a decently sized image. I think the Peter’s map is fascinating!

  • Myname Here

    I’m amused at the rubbish published on the petersmap.com page. The most blatant is this page: http://www.petersmap.com/page4.html.

    What on earth do “The North”, and “The South” mean? Surely the only reasonable meanings are north and south of the equator, respectively? In which case, the north is far bigger than the south! The same applies to human population, only even more so – only about 10% of the world’s people live south of the equator.

    So much for political/social “perspective” being improved by the Peters projection…

More in Informative (17 of 41 articles)
Vlog-setup