Take the 2-minute tour ×
Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.

could someone clear this up for me please. i remember reading an article not long ago on the web about the problems associated with buffering points on a globe due to the fact that a globe uses angles instead of cartesian coordinates on a plane. the implication was that the usual buffer visualization of concentric rings was totally false when using large areas...ie 500km+.

i just saw this graphic on a bbc site, and wanted to find out if this representation is correct or not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22131316

scroll down for the graphic.

is this graphic accurate?

share|improve this question
    
oringal article was here.esri.com/news/arcuser/0111/geodesic.html –  Robert Buckley Apr 13 '13 at 10:41
    
It looks fine to me (assuming the distances are right). The equidistant projection is distorting areas, but the "is this country inside this distance" part looks fine. Perhaps you can explain your concern with it again? –  BradHards Apr 13 '13 at 11:13
    
my original concern lied with the fact that i couldnt assess whether it was correct or not –  Robert Buckley Apr 13 '13 at 13:10
1  
The problem is nicely illustrated in the answer at gis.stackexchange.com/a/8031. –  whuber Apr 13 '13 at 14:44

1 Answer 1

The graphic is accurate. The projection is azimuthal and centred on North Korea, so all the ranges are concentric circles. I checked it on Google Earth with this GE circle generator tool, and here is the result

Google Earth

Although not exactly the same projection, but you can see the range circles match. They would have encountered trouble with this specific projection if the range was greater than a quarter of earth's circumference, (But then I guess it would be the least of our problems, I mean, NK has a missile with 10,000Km range...) .

share|improve this answer
    
If you more carefully compare the radii in the graphic to the radii in your image, you will find the original graphic contains considerable distortion: it can be read only qualitatively, not quantitatively. –  whuber Apr 13 '13 at 14:46

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.