skip to main content
10.1145/3148150.3148159acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Recommending OSM Tags To Improve Metadata Quality

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper an application is developed that functions similar to a recommender system and allows to find appropriate OpenStreetMap (OSM) tags by querying co-occurring keys and tags, as well as similar sets of tags in the database. A user may enter key(s) or key-value pair(s), even using wildcard substitution for both, in order to find keys or key-value pairs that are used in combination with the entered ones. Moreover, the top-k matching tag sets are also presented. The results are then top-k ranked, based on the frequency of the occurrence of each distinct set in the database. This information may enable a user to find the most comprehensive and best fitting tag set for an OSM element. This assumption is examined in an evaluation where the precision and recall metrics for both approaches are computed and compared. Our approach helps discovering combinations of tags and their usage frequency in contrast to common recommender systems that focus on classifying or clustering elements and finding the most accurate (single) class or cluster rather than sets of tags.

References

  1. 2017. PostGIS. (2017). Retrieved 2017-05-17 from http://www.postgis.netGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2017. PostgreSQL. (2017). Retrieved 2017-05-17 from http://www.postgresql.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed Loai Ali, Zoe Falomir, Falko Schmid, and Christian Freksa. 2016. Rule-guided human classification of Volunteered Geographic Information. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmed Loai Ali, Falko Schmid, Rami Al-Salman, and Tomi Kauppinen. 2014. Ambiguity and plausibility: managing classification quality in volunteered geographic information. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. ACM, 143--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Christopher Barron, Pascal Neis, and Alexander Zipf. 2014. A comprehensive framework for intrinsic OpenStreetMap quality analysis. Transactions in GIS 18, 6 (2014), 877--895. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ciro Cattuto, Dominik Benz, Andreas Hotho, and Gerd Stumme. 2008. Semantic analysis of tag similarity measures in collaborative tagging systems. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Ontology Learning and Population (OLP3) (2008), 39--43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. OSM Foundation. 2017. OpenStreetMap Wiki. (2017). Retrieved 2017-05-17 from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. OSM Foundation. 2017. Wiki OpenStreetMap Osmosis. (2017). Retrieved 2017-05-17 from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OsmosisGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Giorgos Giannopoulos, Nikos Karagiannakis, Dimitrios Skoutas, and Spiros Athanasiou. 2015. Automatic recommendations of categories for geospatial entities.. In LocalRec@ RecSys. 9--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Geofabrik GmbH. 2017. Geofabrik. (2017). Retrieved 2017-05-17 from http://www.geofabrik.deGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Anita Graser, Markus Straub, and Melitta Dragaschnig. 2014. Towards an open source analysis toolbox for street network comparison: Indicators, tools and results of a comparison of OSM and the official Austrian reference graph. Transactions in GIS 18, 4 (2014), 510--526. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Mordechai Haklay. 2010. How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and planning B: Planning and design 37, 4 (2010), 682--703. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jonathan L Herlocker, Joseph A Konstan, Loren G Terveen, and John T Riedl. 2004. Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 22, 1 (2004), 5--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Willi Mann, Nikolaus Augsten, and Panagiotis Bouros. 2016. An empirical evaluation of set similarity join techniques. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 9, 9 (2016), 636--647. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Peter Mooney and Padraig Corcoran. 2012. The annotation process in OpenStreetMap. Transactions in GIS 16, 4 (2012), 561--579. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Peter Mooney, Padraig Corcoran, and Adam C Winstanley. 2010. Towards quality metrics for OpenStreetMap. In Proceedings of the 18th SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems. ACM, 514--517. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Pascal Neis, Dennis Zielstra, and Alexander Zipf. 2013. Comparison of volunteered geographic information data contributions and community development for selected world regions. Future Internet 5, 2 (2013), 282--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Suphakit Niwattanakul, Jatsada Singthongchai, Ekkachai Naenudorn, and Supachanun Wanapu. 2013. Using of Jaccard coefficient for keywords similarity. In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. 1. 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Guy Shani and Asela Gunawardana. 2011. Evaluating recommendation systems. In Recommender systems handbook. Springer, 257--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Börkur Sigurbjörnsson and Roelof Van Zwol. 2008. Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 327--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jochen Topf. 2017. OpenStreetMap Taginfo. (2017). Retrieved 2017-09-11 from http://taginfo.openstreetmap.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Arnaud Vandecasteele and Rodolphe Devillers. 2015. Improving volunteered geographic information quality using a tag recommender system: the case of OpenStreetMap. In OpenStreetMap in GIScience. Springer, 59--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Howard Veregin. 1999. Data quality parameters. Geographical information systems 1 (1999), 177--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dennis Zielstra, Hartwig H Hochmair, and Pascal Neis. 2013. Assessing the effect of data imports on the completeness of openstreetmap--a united states case study. Transactions in GIS 17, 3 (2013), 315--334. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Dennis Zielstra and Alexander Zipf. 2010. A comparative study of proprietary geodata and volunteered geographic information for Germany. In 13th AGILE international conference on geographic information science, Vol. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Recommending OSM Tags To Improve Metadata Quality

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            LocalRec'17: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL Workshop on Recommendations for Location-based Services and Social Networks
            November 2017
            45 pages
            ISBN:9781450354998
            DOI:10.1145/3148150

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 7 November 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            LocalRec'17 Paper Acceptance Rate8of10submissions,80%Overall Acceptance Rate17of26submissions,65%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader