Disagree completely.

Your map should be bottom-heavy for stability.

Good point. If south-up were the default, we would probably be manufacturing globes without any mounting system, and just leave them lying around with the Eurasian landmass facing down due to gravity.

It's true, that's how Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.

Also if the map is flat on a table, more stuff is closer to you.

But if you pin it to a wall, it's easier to reach the top pins with the most earthful bits at face height if the earthful bits are at the top.

No no no.

We should put Asia at the top, Europe bottom left, Africa bottom right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map

You're all fools! We should put the north pole in the center so that Antartica makes a pretty frame around the rest of the world!

We called it the Orient because at one time to orient yourself meant to face east towards the rising Sun. So maps with east at the top make sense.

Only if gravity was on the down side

Split it at the equator, make them north south edges and make everyone angry.

You forgot to tilt it and to push the Greenwich meridian out of the center.

It hurts my head to even try to visualize this

It’s because to make it work you split just half the equator. Think of the prime meridian and the antimeridian (by the date line). They make a circle that goes all the way around like the equator, but you only split on half.

That's one that not even XKCD made yet. I guess everybody will agree about it, but the people in tropical countries will agree louder.

If it’s at the bottom and you put it on a table, more of the land is closer to you and therefore easier to read.

Its all arbitrary, and we can all make up random minor pro/cons all we like but it don’t change that.

> more of the land is closer to you and therefore easier to read.

As most people age, that gets less true. The optimum placement ends up being around an arms length away, so being away from the edge could help.

But if you're showing the whole world, typically the details aren't that important, so it's mostly arbitrary.

Haha, don’t read into my random example too hard, it was only there to prove you can make an argument for anything if you try hard enough.

I do wonder if early world explorers had been from the southern hemisphere and a tradition of "south up" was already established, if it would still look better to us to have more land on top.

> I do wonder if early world explorers had been from the southern hemisphere and a tradition of "south up" was already established, if it would still look better to us to have more land on top.

No, the preference is conventional.

I should note, though, that Chinese maps were traditionally south-up. There's no reason to expect what hemisphere people are from to control that decision.

(Not only did the Chinese come from the northern hemisphere - they had an official orthodoxy holding that the north of China, where they originated, was morally superior to the south!

Nevertheless, they drew their maps with south at the top and referred to compasses as "south-pointing needles".)

…except when they put East at the top. The compass points go 東南西北, after all.

I think the convention was born by magnetic north. I suppose it might also point to non magnetic south. Maybe a combination of the explorers and compass convention.

How would magnetic north decide this? There's no asymmetry to magnetic north and south.

I'm not 100% sure what you are asking. If the established convention is that a compass points north. Orienting a map to that convention makes sense to me. I thought I provided for the possibility that a compass also points south.

The southern hemisphere historically navigated using wave patterns and stars with maps made of sticks and stones. So I expect they have different navigational conventions. I have heard of an southern hemisphere island that provided on their navigational orientation based on a mountain top.

The pole star could also be part of this convention. The pole star appearing in a consistent point may also contribute to this standard.

I suppose we can ask Australians and the kiwis.

Kiwis are just happy New Zealand is on the map (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapsWithoutNZ/).

Though it appears we don't have any cities.

…why? Why is it better for it to be in the upper half of the map than the lower half?

Let's say you have a globe. It's easier to look at the top half than the bottom half.

Two axis globe is best globe.

People read things top to bottom. If you have half a page worth of content will you put it at the top and leave the bottom half of the page empty or the opposite? If you are writing a TL;DR will you put it at the top or bottom of the page?

> People read things top to bottom.

Even in Berber?

Berbers are in the top half of the map so all good. /s

By this logic, should we put east Asia on the top and have the less populated western hemisphere on the bottom? Why not have East be up?

Why?