Abstract
There are various methods, algorithms and automated tools for geometry generalization, however cartographers’ knowledge and experiences are crucial for a decision of what generalization level is suitable for the final visualization. This decision of experienced cartographer is usually correct but still quite subjective. Due to this reason we introduce the shape metrics as a tool to support objective evaluation of a generalization level. Shape metrics were originally applied in the landscape ecology in order to quantify landscape patches. Since then many scientific disciplines, including Geosciences, have adopted their principles. Generally, shape metrics serves as a quantitative description of any planar object (e.g. ground projection of a building) in order to measure its shape complexity or compactness. We used 15 shape metrics to calculate complexity of four buildings ground plans at 22 generalization levels in our case study. First, we performed shape generalization of four architecturally different buildings ground plans in consecutive levels. Then, we calculated shape metrics for each generalization level to quantify generalized shape complexity. We found out that shape metrics confirmed the fact that the higher level of geometry generalization the lower shape complexity. Nevertheless some shape metrics revealed that, in certain levels of generalization, the shape was not simplified. Aim of this paper is to introduce shape metrics application on geometry generalization in a case study and to propose suitable shape metrics to identify particular levels of an improper geometry generalization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Agent (1999) Selection of basic measures. Technical report C1, Agent Consortium, 81 p
Angel S, Parent J, Civco DL (2010) Ten compactness properties of circles: measuring shape in geography. Can Geogr 54(4):441–461. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00304.x
Bard S, Ruas A (2005) Why and how evaluating generalised data? In: Fisher PF (ed) Developments in spatial data handling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 327–342
Bayer T (2009) Automated building simplification using a recursive approach. In: ICA symposium on cartography for Central and Eastern Europe, LNG&C. Springer, Vienna, pp 121–145. ISBN: 978-3-642-03293-6
Bernhardt MC (1992) Quantitative characterization of cartographic lines for generalization. Report no. 425, Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 142 p
Burghardt D, Steiniger S (2005) Usage of principal component analysis in the process of automated generalisation. In: Proceedings of 22nd international cartographic conference, pp 9–16
Cheng T, Li Z (2013) Effect of generalization on area features: a comparative study of two strategies. Cartogr J 43(2):157–170
ESRI (1996) Automation of map generalization: the cutting-edge technology. ESRI White Paper Series, 12 p
Filippovska Y et al (2008) Quality evaluation of generalization algorithms. In: The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Beijing, pp 799–804
Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscape and region. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 656 p
Gao W, Gong J, Yang L, Jiang X, Wu X (2012) Detecting geometric conflicts for generalisation of polygonal maps. Cartogr J 49(1):21–29
Girres JF (2011) An evaluation of the impact of cartographic generalisation on length measurement computed from linear vector databases. In: Proceedings of the 25th international cartographic conference, Paris, 11 p
Jasinski MJ (1990) The comparison of complexity measures for cartographic lines. NCGIA Report 90-1, NCGIA, Santa Barbara, 73 p
Kimerling AJ et al (2011) Map use: reading, analysis, interpretation, 7th edn. ESRI Press Academic, 620 p
Lee D, Hardy P (2006) Design and experience of generalization tools. In: Proceedings of AutoCarto 2006, Vancouver, 25 June
Maling DH (1988) Measurements from maps: principles and methods of cartometry. Pergamon, 577 p
McGarigal K (2013) FRAGSTATS help. University of Massachusetts, 168 p. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats_documents.html
Mesev V (2007) Integration of GIS and remote sensing, 1st edn. Wiley, 312 p
Parent J (2014) Shape metrics tool overview. University of Connecticut. http://clear.uconn.edu/tools/Shape_Metrics/index.htm
Peter B (2001) Measures for the generalization of polygonal maps with categorical data. In: Fourth ICA workshop on progress in automated map generalization, 2–4 August 2001, Beijing, 21 p
Savino S (2011) A solution to the problem of the generalization of the Italian geographical databases from large to medium scale: approach definition, process design and operators implementation. Dissertation thesis, Universita di Padova, 141 p
Schmid S (2008) Automated constraint-based evaluation of cartographic generalization solutions. Doctoral dissertation, Geographisches Institut der Universität Zürich, 163 p
Skopeliti A, Lysandros T (2001) A methodology for the assessment of generalization quality. In: Fourth ICA workshop on progress in automated map generalization, 2–4 August 2001, Beijing, 13 p
Stoter J et al (2009) Specifying map requirements for automated generalization of topographic data. Cartogr J 46(3):214–227
Acknowledgments
The article was created within the project CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0170, supported by the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pászto, V., Brychtová, A., Marek, L. (2015). On Shape Metrics in Cartographic Generalization: A Case Study of the Building Footprint Geometry. In: Brus, J., Vondrakova, A., Vozenilek, V. (eds) Modern Trends in Cartography. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07926-4_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07926-4_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07925-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07926-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)