Bob,
Nice summary of strengths & weaknesses. I'm not as much into making maps as
I used to be (yes, I've been regulated to a 'managers' role). However, two
things you said MapInfo can't do, I think it can:
1. Varying line widths thematically. I think I used to do this, using
range maps. I don't have time to check, but yes, I believe it can be done.
2. Named views - there's a little program, nviews.mbx, I think that let's
you set named views for maps. I must confess, I've never used it, but that
is the iintent-i think!
Just trying to be helpful! Hope I was.
Dan Munson
Director of Sales & Marketing
CDS Business Mapping
800-746-7797
Mapping for the Next Millennium
-----Original Message-----
From: Leore, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Mapinfo list' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 6:06 AM
Subject: MI My take on Maptitude versus Mapinfo
>I have used both packages extensively but rely increasingly on Maptitude
and
>its big daddy TransCAD to do my routine map work. The main reason is
>Caliper's GISs produce better looking maps in less time than Mapinfo. When
>you compare output, you notice a big difference immediately: Maptitude's
>maps come with a proper legend and a scale bar that is drawn automatically
>and not distorted by projections; Mapinfo sort of gives you a legend but it
>is cumbersome to use and I'm still waiting for a proper scalebar. One of
>the key features of any map and Mapinfo comes up woefully short after how
>many chances?
>
>The other big difference is in thematic mapping: Maptitude rules here,
>hands down. It can graduate lines as well as points, where Mapinfo still
>can only do the latter; this is a huge shortcoming, especially in the
>transport field where bandwidth maps are frequently used to display traffic
>counts or highway lanes. Another thing Maptitude does really well is allow
>multiple themes to be shown on the same map. For example if I want to
>depict traffic counts as well as the number of lanes, I can create a
>bandwidth map illustrating traffic levels and overlay a colour theme on top
>of the traffic bands with different colours indicating different numbers of
>lanes. Mapinfo can do bivariate thematics but in a very limited way.
>
>The other feature I use a lot with Maptitude is shortest path routing. If
>you have a line map that is topologically clean (i.e. no breaks between
line
>segments) you can pick two or more points in the network and Maptitude will
>draw in the shortest path connecting these points. Mapinfo? no way. This
>functionality is useful as well for detecting topological errors in line
>files. You can quickly find gaps or incomplete joins where in Mapinfo,
>unless you zoom in very closely, you can easily miss bad topology.
>
>Another feature that is underappreciated is the ability in Maptitude to
>preset fixed zoom levels with markers. This is a clever way to navigate
>around big areas; I can jump to the Maritime provinces from British
Columbia
>with a couple of clicks of the mouse where in Mapinfo I would have to zoom
>out and pan numerous times to cross the country. A real time saver.
>
>Other features:
>
>Translation utilities are superior in Maptitude; Mapinfo has made strides
>with its universal translator but still lags behind.
>
>Bands, overlays and related spatial analyses are handled better in
Maptitude
>owing primarily to its use of topology, I think.
>
>These features alone justify Maptitude's use over Mapinfo for routine work,
>but the program comes up short in two areas relative to Mapinfo.
>
>In map development, the flexibility of Mapinfo's spaghetti topology makes
me
>reach for it when I need to revise line files and the like. I can cut and
>paste line segments between .tab files in MI with ease, move lines around
>the map and edit nodes with no problem, and append two tables together with
>no effort. There is simply complete control over the vector objects in MI
>that is largely absent from Maptitude. The latter with its rigorous
>topology model does not allow appending records from other files into a
>given file or messing around with line segments in the way MI does.
>Everything is joined in Maptitude so if you change one line all of its
>neighbours change accordingly. This is fine for analytical work later on
>when you have a clean file, but immensely difficult if you don't have a
>clean file to start with. I use MI exclusively for line editing but use
>Maptitude as a helper to find topological errors.
>
>The other thing MI is superior in is SQL. Constructing queries of a layer
>is the bread and butter of the program and is so good, MI could probably
act
>as a dedicated database program for many people even if they didn't have
any
>graphic objects to display. The function set is more extensive than
>Maptitude's by a long shot and its ability to group and aggregate data is
>without peer. I frequently do queries in which I tally the number of km of
>road by various groups (e.g. province, road number). In MI it is a simple
>sum and group query; in Maptitude I have to do a select by condition, open
>the subset's dataview (i.e. the browser table) and then calculate
statistics
>on the subset. These extra steps in Maptitude frustrate a very simple
>procedure and make me pine for MI when I am doing aggregations.
>
>Another thing Maptitude could beef up on is producing graphic output. Its
>paper map output is absolutely top-notch but leaves something to be desired
>when you want to save to a metafile or bitmap. It seems as if the graphic
>file resolution is much lower than the screen resolution and is a source of
>some frustration. Mapinfo's metafile output is identical to its screen
>resolution.
>
>Lastly, the other thing I would like to see improved in Maptitude is
>labelling. There is not enough control over labelling compared to MI,
which
>is very thorough indeed.
>
>To sum up, MI is great as a map development tool but lacking on the
>analytical and presentation side, while Maptitude is strong in the opposite
>direction. The key message is both products have their niche and should be
>viewed largely as complementary products than as competitors. If you have
>the money buy both; if you tend to produce paper maps from good, clean data
>and don't want to mess around with the geographic objects get Maptitude; if
>you are developing maps from scratch, stick to MI. If you want the best
>value for money, it's Maptitude, hands down.
>
>I hope this helps,
>
>Bob Leore
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
>"unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
"unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
