Exploring the Distribution Patterns of Flickr Photos

In recent years, volunteered-geographic-information (VGI) image data have served as a data source for various geographic applications, attracting researchers to assess the quality of these images. However, these applications and quality assessments are generally focused on images associated with geolocation through textual annotations, which is only part of valid images to them. In this paper, we explore the distribution pattern for most relevant VGI images of specific landmarks to extend the current quality analysis, and to provide guidance for improving the data-retrieval process of geographic applications. Distribution is explored in terms of two aspects, namely, semantic distribution and spatial distribution. In this paper, the term semantic distribution is used to describe the matching of building-image tags and content with each other. There are three kinds of images (semantic-relevant and content-relevant, semantic-relevant but content-irrelevant, and semantic-irrelevant but content-relevant). Spatial distribution shows how relevant images are distributed around a landmark. The process of this work can be divided into three parts: data filtering, retrieval of relevant landmark images, and distribution analysis. For semantic distribution, statistical results show that an average of 60% of images tagged with the building’s name actually represents the building, while 69% of images depicting the building are not annotated with the building’s name. There was also an observation that for most landmarks, 97% of relevant building images were located within 300 m around the building in terms of spatial distribution.

[1]  Vincent Lepetit,et al.  LIFT: Learned Invariant Feature Transform , 2016, ECCV.

[2]  Jan-Michael Frahm,et al.  Geo-registered 3D models from crowdsourced image collections , 2013, Geo spatial Inf. Sci..

[3]  Michael Isard,et al.  Total Recall: Automatic Query Expansion with a Generative Feature Model for Object Retrieval , 2007, 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[4]  William A. Mackaness,et al.  Assessing the Veracity of Methods for Extracting Place Semantics from Flickr Tags , 2013, Trans. GIS.

[5]  Robert C. Bolles,et al.  Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography , 1981, CACM.

[6]  Steven M. Seitz,et al.  Scene Summarization for Online Image Collections , 2007, 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[7]  Jan-Michael Frahm,et al.  Modeling and Recognition of Landmark Image Collections Using Iconic Scene Graphs , 2008, ECCV.

[8]  Jan-Michael Frahm,et al.  Modeling and Recognition of Landmark Image Collections Using Iconic Scene Graphs , 2008, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[9]  Yang Song,et al.  Tour the world: Building a web-scale landmark recognition engine , 2009, 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[10]  Anthony Stefanidis,et al.  Accuracy Of User-Contributed Image Tagging In Flickr: A Natural Disaster Case Study , 2016, SMSociety.

[11]  Hans-Peter Kriegel,et al.  A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise , 1996, KDD.

[12]  G LoweDavid,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004 .

[13]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Generating diverse and representative image search results for landmarks , 2008, WWW.

[14]  Christopher Hunt,et al.  Notes on the OpenSURF Library , 2009 .

[15]  Adrian Popescu,et al.  Gazetiki: automatic creation of a geographical gazetteer , 2008, JCDL '08.

[16]  Dennis Zielstra,et al.  Positional accuracy analysis of Flickr and Panoramio images for selected world regions , 2013 .

[17]  Yannis Avrithis,et al.  Retrieving landmark and non-landmark images from community photo collections , 2010, ACM Multimedia.

[18]  Hansi Senaratne,et al.  Using Reverse Viewshed Analysis to Assess the Location Correctness of Visually Generated VGI , 2013, Trans. GIS.

[19]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  Building Rome in a day , 2009, 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[20]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  Modeling the World from Internet Photo Collections , 2008, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[21]  Ying Zhou,et al.  Combining Content and Quality Indicators in Ranking Ambiguous Query Results On Flickr , 2012, ADC.

[22]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  Size Does Matter: Improving Object Recognition and 3D Reconstruction with Cross-Media Analysis of Image Clusters , 2010, ECCV.

[23]  Claudia Hauff,et al.  A study on the accuracy of Flickr's geotag data , 2013, SIGIR.

[24]  Steven M. Seitz,et al.  Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D , 2006, ACM Trans. Graph..

[25]  Bolei Zhou,et al.  Learning Deep Features for Scene Recognition using Places Database , 2014, NIPS.

[26]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  Skeletal graphs for efficient structure from motion , 2008, 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[27]  B. S. Manjunath,et al.  Not all tags are created equal: Learning flickr tag semantics for global annotation , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.

[28]  Carsten Keßler,et al.  Bottom-Up Gazetteers: Learning from the Implicit Semantics of Geotags , 2009, GeoS.

[29]  Hansi Senaratne,et al.  A review of volunteered geographic information quality assessment methods , 2017, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..