The Alber Equal Area project system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albers_projection) is common in USGS maps of course. Below is a standard for North America. The latitude of origin and the parallels are good enough. Our study area shown below with the -96 central meridian.
But our study area is asymmetric to -96 longitude, perhaps -89 longitude is better as some of the perceived rotation is removed.
What are your thoughts? At the end of the day, I guess it does not much matter. It is trivial to transform of course, but the complication if we ever use a soap film smoother is that it is a sort of pain to get the polygon boundary prepared as library(mgcv) needs it.
The Alber Equal Area project system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albers_projection) is common in USGS maps of course. Below is a standard for North America. The latitude of origin and the parallels are good enough. Our study area shown below with the -96 central meridian.
ALBEA <- paste0("+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 ", "+x_0=0 +y_0=0 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs +ellps=GRS80 +towgs84=0,0,0") ALBEA <- sp::CRS(ALBEA)
But our study area is asymmetric to -96 longitude, perhaps -89 longitude is better as some of the perceived rotation is removed.
What are your thoughts? At the end of the day, I guess it does not much matter. It is trivial to transform of course, but the complication if we ever use a soap film smoother is that it is a sort of pain to get the polygon boundary prepared as library(mgcv) needs it.