This question asks "Is there a package for R to plot Schmidt nets, like it is done in geology?"; the first answer posted said "Try the RockFab library on CRAN", which at least at first glance seems to me to answer the question. It's not entirely clear whether the asker wants a stereographic or Lambert equal-area projection, but at least for the first case RockFab seems to do the job. So it might not be the right answer, and it could certainly be more detailed, but it's an entirely possible answer given that the question hasn't yet been clarified. In fact, someone else posted the same answer after this one was deleted.

Since the answer gathered a quorum of close votes on grounds of "does not answer the question", I assume there's something I'm missing here. Why does it not answer the question?

• I agree that it should not have been deleted. – bon Jun 2 '16 at 15:52
• Although it answer completely answered the question (Is there an R package ...?-> Yes, there is. Use RockFab), I would expect a brief code example on how to actually plot a Schmidt net with RockFab. The 'answer' "Try Package XY" is a comment from my point of view. However, it would be fair to give the answering user the opportunity to improve his answer. – daniel.heydebreck Jun 2 '16 at 21:06
• To the topic of the original question: According to this appendix (p.695), the Schmidt net is an equal-area projection. Hence the function StereoWeb in the RockFab package might be appropriate. Although, if there was no function in RockFab being able to plot a Schmidt net, the answer was be definately wrong ... . – daniel.heydebreck Jun 2 '16 at 21:14
• @daniel.neumann As I understand it, a Schmidt net is actually a type of graph paper used to plot Lambert azimuthal equal-area projections by hand. But I suspect that the questioner doesn't actually want a program that draws a Schmidt net, but a program that produces an equal-are projection of data. Or possibly a program that produces a stereographic projection of data, as the title implies. On reflection, the question is so confused that maybe it should be closed until the asker edits it to be more specific. – Pont Jun 2 '16 at 21:45
• @Pont I completely agree with your last point. – daniel.heydebreck Jun 2 '16 at 21:54