Detecting Level-of-Detail Inconsistencies in Volunteered Geographic Information Data Sets

Whereas defining the level of detail (LoD) of authoritative data sets is possible, the opposite is true for volunteered geographic information (VGI), which is often characterized by heterogeneous LoDs. This heterogeneity is a curb for map-making, particularly when using traditional map derivation processes such as generalization. This paper proposes a method to infer the LoD of VGI features. Then, inconsistencies between features with different LoDs that get in the way of good map-making can be automatically identified. Some proposals are made to harmonize LoD heterogeneities. The inferring of LoDs is implemented, and results are presented on OpenStreetMap data. Il est possible de définir le niveau de détail (NdD) des ensembles de données qui font autorité, mais le contraire est vrai dans le cas de l’information géographique fournie volontairement (IGV), souvent caractérisée par des NdD hétérogènes. Cette hétérogénéité nuit à la cartographie, particulièrement lorsqu’on utilise les processus traditionnels de dérivation cartographique comme la généralisation. Cette communication propose une méthode d’inférence du NdD à partir des caractéristiques IGV. Il est alors possible de déterminer automatiquement les incohérences entre les caractéristiques de différents NdD qui nuisent à une bonne cartographie. On présente des propositions pour harmoniser les hétérogénéités au niveau des NdD. Les NdD sont établis par inférence et les résultats sont présentés sur OpenStreetMap.

[1]  R. Likert “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  Patrick Taillandier,et al.  Multi-criteria diagnosis of control knowledge for cartographic generalisation , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Anne Ruas,et al.  The CartACom model: transforming cartographic features into communicating agents for cartographic generalisation , 2012, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Peter Mooney,et al.  The Annotation Process in OpenStreetMap , 2012, Trans. GIS.

[5]  Tao Cheng,et al.  Trust in Web GIS: the role of the trustee attributes in the design of trustworthy Web GIS applications , 2011, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[6]  M. Haklay How Good is Volunteered Geographical Information? A Comparative Study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey Datasets , 2010 .

[7]  Glen Hart,et al.  Geospatial Information Integration for Authoritative and Crowd Sourced Road Vector Data , 2012, Trans. GIS.

[8]  Dirk Burghardt,et al.  Approaches for enhancing tile-based mapping with cartographic generalisation , 2012 .

[9]  Cécile Duchêne,et al.  Capitalisation Problem in Research - Example of a New Platform for Generalisation: Cartagen , 2010 .

[10]  Anne Ruas,et al.  Generalisation, symbol specification and map evaluation: feedback from research done at COGIT laboratory, IGN France , 2011, Int. J. Digit. Earth.

[11]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Advancing geoinformation science for a changing world , 2011 .

[12]  Nathalie Abadie,et al.  Specifications for User Generated Spatial Content , 2011, AGILE Conf..

[13]  Menno-Jan Kraak,et al.  Conflicts in Neogeography Maps , 2012 .

[14]  Yuanzhen Li,et al.  Measuring visual clutter. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[15]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[16]  Guillaume Touya,et al.  State-of-the-art of automated generalisation in commercial software , 2010 .

[17]  Guillaume Touya,et al.  Quality Assessment of the French OpenStreetMap Dataset , 2010, Trans. GIS.

[18]  Guillaume Touya,et al.  EuroSDR research on state-of-the-art of automated generalisation on commercial software : Main findings and conclusions , 2010 .

[19]  Lars Harrie,et al.  Evaluation of Analytical Measures of Map Legibility , 2011 .