Why map Hammersley 2D set's (u,v) to sphere's (θ, φ) coordinates (and not to (φ, θ) )?
You can of course, as you suggested, map (u, v) to (φ, θ). Unfortunately, it does not solve the problem for 5 points:



I've changed Holger Dammertz' code a bit (switched u and v), and you see that the problem still persists. For a higher number of points, it really doesn't seem to make a (visual) difference.

The Hammersley point set is a way to very quickly determine points on a sphere that have good, but don't need to have a perfect distribution. In the problematic case of very few points, Hammersley might just not be the tool for the job. Pre-calculating and storing points sounds like a better option to me.