Test Charts for Evaluating Imaging and Point Cloud Quality of Mobile Mapping Systems for Urban Street Space Acquisition

Mobile mapping is in the process of becoming a routinely applied standard tool to support administration of cities. For ensuring the usability of the mobile mapping data it is necessary to have a practical method to evaluate the quality of different systems, which reaches beyond 3D accuracy of individual points. Such a method must be objective, easy to implement, and provide quantitative results to be used in tendering processes. We present such an approach which extracts quality figures for point density, point distribution, point cloud planarity, image resolution, and street sign legibility. In its practical application for the mobile mapping campaign of the City of Vienna (Austria) in 2020 the proposed test method proved to fulfill the above requirements. As an additional result, quality figures are reported for the panorama images and point clouds of three different mobile mapping systems.

[1]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  Roughness Spectra Derived from Multi-Scale LiDAR Point Clouds of a Gravel Surface: A Comparison and Sensitivity Analysis , 2018, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[2]  Eija Honkavaara,et al.  Digital Airborne Photogrammetry - A New Tool for Quantitative Remote Sensing? - A State-of-the-Art Review On Radiometric Aspects of Digital Photogrammetric Images , 2009, Remote. Sens..

[3]  Rémi Marie,et al.  Google Street View: navigating the operative image , 2014 .

[4]  Stefan Hinz,et al.  Semantic point cloud interpretation based on optimal neighborhoods, relevant features and efficient classifiers , 2015 .

[5]  Fabio Remondino,et al.  ISPRS benchmark for multi - platform photogrammetry , 2015 .

[6]  Christian Früh,et al.  Google Street View: Capturing the World at Street Level , 2010, Computer.

[7]  Klaus Debes,et al.  Improving Visual Road Condition Assessment by Extensive Experiments on the Extended GAPs Dataset , 2019, 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[8]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  A Comparison and Evaluation of Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction Algorithms , 2006, 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06).

[9]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  Dense Image Matching vs. Airborne Laser Scanning – Comparison of two methods for deriving terrain models , 2016 .

[10]  Yanjun Wang,et al.  A Survey of Mobile Laser Scanning Applications and Key Techniques over Urban Areas , 2019, Remote. Sens..

[11]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  Georeferenced Point Clouds: A Survey of Features and Point Cloud Management , 2013, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[12]  Rainer Sandau.  Digital Airborne Camera , 2010 .

[13]  K. Nurminen,et al.  A Permanent Test Field for Digital Photogrammetric Systems , 2008 .

[14]  Timothy J McCarthy,et al.  Improving MMS Performance during Infrastructure Surveys through Geometry Aided Design , 2016 .

[15]  J. J. Collins,et al.  Legibility and readability of light refecting matrix variable message road signs† , 1992 .

[16]  Xi Wang,et al.  High-Resolution Stereo Datasets with Subpixel-Accurate Ground Truth , 2014, GCPR.

[17]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  International benchmarking of terrestrial laser scanning approaches for forest inventories , 2018, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

[18]  Timothy McCarthy,et al.  Calculation of Target-Specific Point Distribution for 2D Mobile Laser Scanners , 2014, Sensors.

[19]  Jaewook Jung,et al.  Results of the ISPRS benchmark on urban object detection and 3D building reconstruction , 2014 .

[20]  Juha Hyyppä,et al.  Benchmarking the Performance of Mobile Laser Scanning Systems Using a Permanent Test Field , 2012, Sensors.

[21]  Kevin Heaslip,et al.  Analysis of factors temporarily impacting traffic sign readability , 2016 .

[22]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  OPALS - A framework for Airborne Laser Scanning data analysis , 2014, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[23]  N. Pfeifer,et al.  Neighborhood systems for airborne laser data , 2005 .