On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Graham Jones wrote: >> >> I picked Carto over Cascadenik for the same reason - that it seems to be >> developing actively, and is reported to be significantly faster. > > Has anyone done a proper comparison between MapCSS and Carto? Does Carto > have any advantages?
No comparison that I'm aware of, but carto certainly has advantages. I would say that MapCSS is very primitive when you consider the range of symbolizers and attributes that mapnik (and hence cascadenik/carto) support compared to any of the engines that use MapCSS. Also MapCSS is (somewhat pointlessly) tied up dreadfully into OSM syntax with selectors based on not-quite-OSM-primitives like "relation" and "way", as well as suffering hugely from the NIH syndrome when it comes to having named every single attribute just slightly differently from those which were already available in the mapnik/cascadenik world, for no fathomable gain. The suggestion to "fix tilemill to support MapCSS like everyone else does" is laughable, really. I would certainly promote convergence in the syntaxes, but that's more likely to be by MapCSS tacking towards everyone else than the other way around. But there is a fundamental issue with resolving the two approaches, in that in the "mapnik world" they are rendering more-or-less Simple Geometries, so you need to pre-process OSM primitives into point, lines, polygons. MapCSS takes the (misguided, imho, see my SOTM-EU talk) aim to support rendering OSM data directly, so it's full of nitty gritty OSM-specific data processing in the syntax. I've no idea what would be needed to hook that up to something like pgsql+mapnik. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev