Talk:Quincuncial map

Author has granted permission for the referenced page to be licensed under GDFL. Author's email forwarded upon request. - CobaltBlueTony 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four meridians?

The article states, without proof or reference, that: "The Equator and four meridians are straight but broken lines; all other graticule lines are complex curves." This is wrong. There are four meridians that are unbroken straight lines, specifically the 45°E, 135°E, 45°W and 135°W meridians. In addition to these, there are four broken (and split) straight-line meridians at 0°, 90°E, 90°W and 180°. This makes a total of eight. I hesitate to simply change the article with this piece of OR but then, what is there now is also OR and dead wrong at that. Also, the expression complex curves is unfortunate, as it is quite ambiguous in this context. I flagged the data, for now. Freederick 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have removed the offending statement (it doesn't really add much to the article, anyways), but an image with meridians and parallels will go a long way to illustrate this. In the meantime I have enhanced the article.Dmgerman 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quincunx not a cross

The article was stating (incorrectly) that quincuncial was derived from cross. This is incorrect. It is derived from quincunx.Dmgerman 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article to Peirce Quincuncial Projection

I moved it to the Peirce Quincuncial Projection, and created a redirect link. Quincuncial map is a wrong title, in my opinion. ALso, most of the description in the article applies to the projection, not the maps directly.Dmgerman 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]