Hi Mats, Your post is actually right on the button. Excellent insight and a good idea.
Best regards/Med venlig hilsen Lars V. Nielsen GisPro, Denmark http://www.gispro.dk/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mats Elfstr�m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lars V. Nielsen (GisPro)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Ellingham Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:45 PM Subject: MI-L Mixed entity types - Differences between MapInfo and ArcView Hi Lars - and the list! I would like to offer another point of view on this question. I have always regarded the ability to mix object types in a MapInfo table as a great advantage. The advantage of being able to store geographic information grouped on subject matter, rather than its more or less arbitrary geometric representation, is so obvious that it needs no argument. Then why is not used, or regarded as a less desirable feature, or even a problem? I think the problem lies in the way MapInfo handles mixed topology tables, when drawing them, making selections or thematic maps. Then, it's true that mixed tables can create problems, and questions posed by users often fall into these categories. For instance, no one can be sure that points appear on top of regions when drawing a table where both object types occur, but this could be taken care of in the draw engine, by allowing an internal draw order for each table. Thematic maps are virtually impossible to create from mixed tables, but this could be taken care of in the thematic engine by allowing different schemes for points, lines and so on. Neither seems to be an impossible programming task. So my advice to MI Pro would be, continue to allow mixed tables but follow this up in the interface and give users the tools to process these in an intelligent and controlled fashion. H�lsning / Best regards Mats.E ________________________ FB Engineering AB S�dra F�rstadsgatan 26 211 43 Malm� Tel: 040-660 25 50 Mobil: 0705-27 60 27 Fax: 040-660 25 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.fbe.se "Lars V. Nielsen (GisPro)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-02-21 18:34 S�nd svar till "Lars V. Nielsen (GisPro)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Till "Ellingham Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kopia <[email protected]> �rende Re: MI-L Differences between MapInfo and ArcView. Hi Morgen, > Ahh the never ending debate True, but even more relevant today, after years of stand-still on MapInfo's part ! >One comment in this string of emails I would like to pick up on. > >Handy maybe, but mixed topography tables usually throw MapInfo users >into a fit. Single topology tables is not a severe limitation, >and I'll wager that the vast majority of MapInfo tables are single >topology anyway. > >Absolutely incorrect in my experience (..) As the culprit behind the statement, I need to ask you whether this is your personal experience as a super user, or an opinion ordinary users have given you ? My point wasn't that it was a bad feature - for super users - on the contrary. I personally think it's a neat thing with many applications. But I fear this sentiment isn't shared by too many ordinary users. And the majority of data I've seen at multiple customers is de-facto single topology. Best regards/Med venlig hilsen Lars V. Nielsen GisPro, Denmark http://www.gispro.dk/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellingham Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:36 AM Subject: RE: MI-L Differences between MapInfo and ArcView. Ahh the never ending debate, I used the ESRI products at uni and found them excellent to conduct my research and present my results graphically, I am now in the workforce and use MI extensively - and have found it good enough to do my work easily and efficiently. Neither is technically better or worse, or may I say easier to learn. ESRI's base packages are pretty simple, it's the weird and wonderful extensions that get people worried (network analyst any1?). One comment in this string of emails I would like to pick up on. >Handy maybe, but mixed topography tables usually throw MapInfo users into a fit. Single topology tables is not a severe limitation, and I'll wager that the vast majority of MapInfo tables are single topology anyway. Absolutely incorrect in my experience, this excellent MapInfo feature has allowed me to combine open space areas (turf, sports fields) with infrastructure data (points - lights, litter bins etc) - on many occasions this has proven to be the difference between going ahead with our surveillance and not. I would estimate that 75% of all of our civil spatial data has a mixed topology - something I would assume would be universal across local government institutions. Each has their Positives and negatives Arc+ = Layouts, high end advanced analysis, X tools! Arc- = Cost, compartment syndrome. MI+ = stand alone package, cost, universal translator, labelling ! MI- = printing, map creation. Just my opinion as a humble end user people - thanks for letting me waste my morning whilst looking like im working Morgan -----Original Message----- [ANCIENT SCROLL DELETED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 15390
