Skip to main content

On Shape Metrics in Cartographic Generalization: A Case Study of the Building Footprint Geometry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography ((LNGC))

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agent (1999) Selection of basic measures. Technical report C1, Agent Consortium, 81 p

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng T, Li Z (2013) Effect of generalization on area features: a comparative study of two strategies. Cartogr J 43(2):157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (1996) Automation of map generalization: the cutting-edge technology. ESRI White Paper Series, 12 p

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscape and region. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 656 p

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasinski MJ (1990) The comparison of complexity measures for cartographic lines. NCGIA Report 90-1, NCGIA, Santa Barbara, 73 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimerling AJ et al (2011) Map use: reading, analysis, interpretation, 7th edn. ESRI Press Academic, 620 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee D, Hardy P (2006) Design and experience of generalization tools. In: Proceedings of AutoCarto 2006, Vancouver, 25 June

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling DH (1988) Measurements from maps: principles and methods of cartometry. Pergamon, 577 p

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid S (2008) Automated constraint-based evaluation of cartographic generalization solutions. Doctoral dissertation, Geographisches Institut der Universität Zürich, 163 p

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoter J et al (2009) Specifying map requirements for automated generalization of topographic data. Cartogr J 46(3):214–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vít Pászto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics