Interesting. The face is quite elegant and beautiful at first appearance. I especially like the form of the C, c, and e.

However the discussion of the “typographic requirements of cartography” on the page (as distinguished from the Arnold’s actual design process) is quite shallow, perhaps even contradictory. For example, among the reasons cartographic type is distinguished from text-setting is “The eye reads text on a map letter-by-letter, instead of through word shapes.”, but then, among the benefits of Cisalpin, we read that, “the typeface must be able to form good word shapes, which will also directly increase legibility.”

As indicated in the blurb, good cartographic type depends much more on how it is used than on how the letters are formed, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with this face. I would encourage readers hoping for insight into those typographic requirements to seek out excellent examples (Such as Swiss topo maps, UK Ordnance Survey maps, the work of Imhoff, and the researches of Tufte) and then to trust their eyes.