What are the pros and cons of Robinson projection?

Answer 1

The only realy accurate representation of the spherical Earth is a spherical globe, but you can't fold up a globe and put it in your backpack or briefcase. In order to make flat maps, we use various "projections". Imagine the globe as transparent, with a light bulb in the center. Hold a sheet of flat paper touching the map at one point or line, and let the light streaming out make your map.

Trying to make a flat map that represents a spherical Earth, therefore, involves some compromises and inaccuracies. The classical "Mercator" projection map is a rolled-up cylinder of paper touching the Earth at the equator, and represents the equatorial areas pretty well, and allows you to view the lines of longitude as "straight". But when you get into polar areas, the distortion becomes pretty bad. For example, a Mercator projection of the Earth shows Greenland as larger than South America, which isn't even close.

The Robinson projection "squeezes" the polar areas so that they aren't too bad, and does a pretty good job with the tropical and mid-latitude areas as well. There's still some distortion, but it isn't as bad, but the longitude lines are displayed as curves. Which is correct, but sometimes difficult to measure. But in many cases, it's the best compromise.

Maps of smaller areas use what's known as a "conic" projection to achieve pretty good accuracy over the whole map. But you can't use conic projections to display large areas, such as continents.

Some cartographers use a "peeled orange" technique, which does a good job of depicting larger areas, at the expense of having to figure out exactly where the orange rinds go together.