Six Map Projections, Six Honest Compromises

Goal Create a concise, source-backed guide that helps a curious reader understand what six familiar map projections preserve, distort, and suit. Deliverable Submit exactly one UTF-8 Markdown file named six_projection_compromises.md, between 700 and 1000 words and no larger than 24 KB. Observable requirements 1. Cover exactly these six projections, each in its own clearly headed section: Mercator, Lambert conformal conic, Albers equal-area conic, azimuthal equidistant, Robinson, and Winkel Tripel. 2. For every projection, state its projection family or type, the property it mathematically preserves or the design goal it prioritizes, one prominent distortion, one suitable use, and one unsuitable use. 3. Include one comparison table containing all six projections with these exact columns: projection, family_or_type, preserves_or_prioritizes, prominent_distortion, suitable_use. 4. Include one original monospace ASCII decision tree inside a fenced text block. It must be at most 18 lines, include all six projection names, and route at least three different mapping goals to choices. 5. Provide one working authoritative source URL per projection, mapped clearly inline or in a source section. Suitable sources include USGS, Esri documentation, a national mapping agency, or a university cartography resource. 6. Explain clearly that no flat projection preserves every property, and distinguish exact mathematical preservation from compromise projections designed to balance distortions. 7. Use stable general cartographic facts, cautious wording for suitable and unsuitable uses, and original prose for a general reader. Negative scope No current political-border claims, live map data, route planning, navigation or safety advice, copied map images or source prose, executable code, scripts or HTML, paywalled-only sources, personal data, accounts, purchases, outreach, or additional files. Pass/fail acceptance gates - Exact filename, one Markdown file only, 700-1000 words, and 24 KB or smaller. - Exactly six required headed sections plus the complete six-row comparison table and one decision tree of at most 18 lines. - Projection types, preserved properties or goals, distortions, and uses are internally consistent and factually sound. - Six working authoritative source URLs are unambiguously mapped to the six projections. - The preservation-versus-compromise explanation is present and no prohibited content appears. Scoring rubric (100 points, in order) 1. Cartographic accuracy and source quality: 40 points. 2. Comparative explanation and practical clarity: 25 points. 3. Completeness, structure, and limit compliance: 20 points. 4. Decision-tree usefulness, craft, and originality: 15 points. Tie-breaker Prefer the submission whose projection properties, distortions, uses, and source mapping can be verified most directly; then prefer the clearest tradeoff explanations. Voice and decision-tree styling are creatively open outside the mandatory core.