[GRASS-dev] Re: discussion: replacing ps.map

[Jachym Cepicky]

Hi,
for having general picture, here [1] is PDF [11MB] with map symbols
used in czech forestry (NOTE: symbol pictures are starting on page
31).

It would be great to be able to create such maps in GRASS. Currently,
I think that the biggest problem is line styling. Maybe it would be
interesting to follow the polygon way: If lines could be drawn using
some eps pattern, this would be solved.

Jachym

[1] http://les-ejk.cz/tmp/czech-forest-maps.pdf

2007/3/27, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>:
> Hallo,
>
> while ps.map is nice tool for creating hard copy maps in GRASS, it is
> not sufficient for some more complicated tasks and correct me if I'm
> wrong, there is no _real_ maintainer of it's code, who would be able
> to write new functions for it.
>
> Now, when new wxPython GUI is stepping forward, I'm thinking about,
> how to write future GRASS mapcomposer.
>
> I see two interesting tools in today's FOSS4G world, which could be
> used as back end for new Mapcomposer, and which would so replace
> functionality of ps.map:
>
> 1) UMN MapServer
> 2) GMT
>
> MapServer
> -------------
> UMN MapServer is far known tool, which has well documented
> configuration file and large community. I suppose, most of the
> GRASS-users are already familiar with it. MapServer produces nice
> graphical output in desired resolution and format. I is possible to
> use PDF as output format:
> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/howto/pdf-output Tasks, like label
> placement and so on are already solved in MapServer. GRASS would
> became also a GUI for MapServer configuration file. It is possible to
> access GRASS (vectors and rasters) from MapServer (both are using
> gdal).
>
> Size (ubuntu package): 7548kB + python-mapscript 1500 kB
>
> GMT
> ------
> Sorry, I do not know much about GMT. I just know, this is a tool,
> which is able to create nice maps and there are already some bindings
> for GRASS. I would say, it has not as large community as MapServer
> has.
>
> Size (ubuntu package): 9904 kB
>
> Both solutions are introducing new dependency. The benefit would be
> "outsourcing" of our efforts. Why to reinvent a wheel, if there are
> already tools, which are able to produce nice maps, tested and used?
>
> What do you think? Any experience with some of this tools? I would
> vote for MapServer.
>
> Jachym
> --
> Jachym Cepicky
> e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
> URL: http://les-ejk.cz
> GPG: http://www.les-ejk.cz/pgp/jachym_cepicky-gpg.pub
>


-- 
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
URL: http://les-ejk.cz
GPG: http://www.les-ejk.cz/pgp/jachym_cepicky-gpg.pub