Search

The continuous development of machine learning procedures and the development of new ways of mapping based on the integration of spatial data from heterogeneous sources have resulted in the automation of many processes associated with cartographic production such as positional accuracy assessment (PAA). The automation of the PAA of spatial data is based on automated matching procedures between corresponding spatial objects (usually building polygons) from two geospatial databases (GDB), which in turn are related to the quantification of the similarity between these objects. Therefore, assessing the capabilities of these automated matching procedures is key to making automation a fully operational solution in PAA processes. The present study has been developed in response to the need to explore the scope of these capabilities by means of a comparison with human capabilities. Thus, using a genetic algorithm (GA) and a group of human experts, two experiments have been carried out: (i) to compare the similarity values between building polygons assigned by both and (ii) to compare the matching procedure developed in both cases. The results obtained showed that the GA—experts agreement was very high, with a mean agreement percentage of 93.3% (for the experiment 1) and 98.8% (for the experiment 2). These results confirm the capability of the machine-based procedures, and specifically of GAs, to carry out matching tasks.

The continuous development of machine learning procedures and the development of new ways of mapping based on the integration of spatial data from heterogeneous sources have resulted in the automation of many processes associated with cartographic production such as positional accuracy assessment (PAA). The automation of the PAA of spatial data is based on automated matching procedures between corresponding spatial objects (usually building polygons) from two geospatial databases (GDB), which in turn are related to the quantification of the similarity between these objects. Therefore, assessing the capabilities of these automated matching procedures is key to making automation a fully operational solution in PAA processes. The present study has been developed in response to the need to explore the scope of these capabilities by means of a comparison with human capabilities. Thus, using a genetic algorithm (GA) and a group of human experts, two experiments have been carried out: (i) to compare the similarity values between building polygons assigned by both and (ii) to compare the matching procedure developed in both cases. The results obtained showed that the GA—experts agreement was very high, with a mean agreement percentage of 93.3% (for the experiment 1) and 98.8% (for the experiment 2). These results confirm the capability of the machine-based procedures, and specifically of GAs, to carry out matching tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Point-based standard methodologies (PBSM) suggest using 'at least 20' check points in order to assess the positional accuracy of a certain spatial dataset. However, the reason for decreasing the number of checkpoints to 20 is not elaborated upon in the original documents provided by the mapping agencies which develop these methodologies. By means of theoretical analysis and experimental tests, several authors and studies have demonstrated that this limited number of points is clearly insufficient. Using the point-based methodology for the automatic positional accuracy assessment of spatial data developed in our previous study Ruiz-Lendínez, et al (2017) and specifically, a subset of check points obtained from the application of this methodology to two urban spatial datasets, the variability of National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) estimations has been analyzed according to sample size. The results show that the variability of NSSDA estimations decreases when the number of check points increases, and also that these estimations have a tendency to underestimate accuracy. Finally, the graphical representation of the results can be employed in order to give some guidance on the recommended sample size when PBSMs are used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]