[GRASSLIST:894] Re: Contracted Grass support?

[Paul Kelly]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Brent Wood wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
>
> >
> > If your goal is good looking maps,
> > many cartographers prefer to do the map development and analysis
> > with GRASS and produce vector output formats which are then
> > processed with more general Free Software graphic applications.
> >
>
> I have found GMT (Generic Mapping Tools) creates very attractive maps for
> screen or publication. As this is command line driven, GRASS scripts can
> easily export the required data to plot with GMT commands in teh same
> script, integrating pretty seamlessly.

See here for some discussion about including vector drawing attributes in
the 5.1 vector format:
http://grass.baylor.edu/grass51/grass51_vector_discussion.txt
Search for '----' and read below that.
It is kind of a nice idea but would need to be thought through very
clearly so it wasn't implemented messily.

At the minute I agree also now it seems GMT may be the way to go, or
possibly something like Thuban depending on how interactive it needs to
be. But certainly it would be possible to do a nice comprehensive
solution within GRASS if staying within GRASS was a prime aim, and the
database support makes the 5.1 vector architecture very extensible and
useful. Certainly though I would look at ps.map instead of p.map; p.map
doesn't even exist in 5.7.x(5.1) GRASS and ps.map can do vector labels.

Paul Kelly