Due to different acquisition methods and not synchronized updating periods the topographic content of geoscientific data sets and the German digital topographic map (ATKIS) differs in geometry, accuracy and actuality. In former times these differences between printed analogue maps were not as apparent as today, when different data sets are overlaid in modern GIS-applications. Integrating different data sets – in our case topographic and geoscientific data – allows for a consistent representation and for the propagation of updates from one data set to the other. To enable the integration of these data sets a workflow is in development, based on harmonization, geometric alignment, change detection, and updating. These steps are necessary to ensure consistency, but they are hardly practicable when performed manually. Taking into account that corresponding objects from different data sets have been acquired at different points of time, it is obvious that parts of the geometry have been changed and that the comparison based only on the object geometry using standard algorithms will lead to unsatisfying results. The manual examination of the different data sets shows very obvious similarities in large parts of corresponding objects geometry. A simple matching using overlay for the selection of candidates is recorded as an XML relation set. According to these relations different geometric alignment strategies have been implemented and evaluated which allow the adaptation of the geometry. Based on different parameters and thresholds these strategies are capable of aligning geometries to avoid discrepancies, but they still enable the identification of changes which occurred between different acquisition steps. Beside the automated alignment and change detection, the automatic derivation of an updated geoscientific map is possible, which is performed using a rubber-sheeting transformation based on the different alignment strategies. This paper shows the integration workflow but concentrates on the different alignment methods. BACKGROUND
[1]
Martien Molenaar,et al.
Ontology-Based Geographic Data Set Integration
,
1999,
Spatio-Temporal Database Management.
[2]
Monika Sester,et al.
DEFINITION OF GROUND-CONTROL FEATURES FOR IMAGE REGISTRATION USING GIS-DATA
,
2007
.
[3]
Teuvo Kohonen,et al.
Self-Organizing Maps
,
2010
.
[4]
Volker Walter,et al.
Matching spatial data sets: a statistical approach
,
1999,
Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..
[5]
Yerahmiel Doytsher,et al.
A rubber sheeting algorithm for non-rectangular maps 1 1 Code available at http://www.iamg.org/CGEditor/index.htm
,
2000
.
[6]
DoytsherYerahmiel.
A rubber sheeting algorithm for non-rectangular maps
,
2000
.
[7]
Paul J. Besl,et al.
A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes
,
1992,
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..
[8]
G. V. Goesseln,et al.
INTEGRATION OF GEOSCIENTIFIC DATA SETS AND THE GERMAN DIGITAL MAP USING A MATCHING APPROACH
,
2004
.
[9]
Frederick E. Petry,et al.
A Rule-based Approach for the Conflation of Attributed Vector Data
,
1998,
GeoInformatica.
[10]
Peter F. Fisher,et al.
Integrating land-cover data with different ontologies: identifying change from inconsistency
,
2004,
Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..
[11]
Monika Sester,et al.
SEMANTIC AND GEOMETRIC INTEGRATION OF GEOSCIENTIFIC DATA SETS WITH ATKIS – APPLIED TO GEO-OBJECTS FROM GEOLOGY AND SOIL SCIENCE
,
2003
.
[12]
Soe-tsyr Yuan,et al.
Development of Conflation Components
,
1999
.
[13]
C. Heipke,et al.
MODELLING THE INTEGRATION OF HETEROGENEOUS VECTOR DATA AND AERIAL IMAGERY
,
2003
.