Description
The Tobler cylindrical II projection is a compromise cylindrical map projection. It was developed and introduced by Waldo Tobler in 1997 as his second simpler alternative to the Miller cylindrical projection. As is the case with the Miller projection, distortion is severe at the poles. This projection is a bit taller than Miller projection, but they are almost identical between 45° north and south latitudes.
The Tobler cylindrical II projection is available in ArcGIS Pro 2.5 and later and ArcGIS Desktop 10.8 and later.
Projection properties
The subsections below describe the Tobler cylindrical II projection properties.
Graticule
The Tobler cylindrical II projection is cylindric. The meridians are equally spaced straight lines. Parallels and both poles are straight lines, perpendicular to meridians and the same length as the equator. The spacing between parallels perceptually grows from equator to poles. The graticule is symmetric across the equator and the central meridian. The height-to-width ratio of the whole map is 0.83, a bit larger than the Miller cylindrical projection.
Distortion
This projection is neither conformal nor equal-area. Shapes, areas, distances, directions, and angles are all generally distorted. Distortions are minimal in equatorial areas and become severe in polar areas. Polar areas are even more distorted than the polar areas on Tobler's first alternative, Tobler cylindrical I projection. Distortion values are symmetric across the equator and the central meridian.
Usage
This projection can be used for general world maps not requiring accurate areas, and whose phenomena change with longitude. But its use is not recommended due to extreme distortion in polar regions.
Limitations
This projection is supported on spheres only. For an ellipsoid, the semimajor axis is used for the radius.
Parameters
Tobler cylindrical II parameters are as follows:
- False Easting
- False Northing
- Central Meridian
Sources
Tobler, W. (1997). "Alternatives to Miller's projection." Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 24 (2), p. 110-112. DOI:10. 1559/152304097782439358