Advertisement

GeoInformatica

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 425–452 | Cite as

Automated processing for map generalization using web services

  • Moritz NeunEmail author
  • Dirk Burghardt
  • Robert Weibel
Article

Abstract

In map generalization various operators are applied to the features of a map in order to maintain and improve the legibility of the map after the scale has been changed. These operators must be applied in the proper sequence and the quality of the results must be continuously evaluated. Cartographic constraints can be used to define the conditions that have to be met in order to make a map legible and compliant to the user needs. The combinatorial optimization approaches shown in this paper use cartographic constraints to control and restrict the selection and application of a variety of different independent generalization operators into an optimal sequence. Different optimization techniques including hill climbing, simulated annealing and genetic deep search are presented and evaluated experimentally by the example of the generalization of buildings in blocks. All algorithms used in this paper have been implemented in a web services framework. This allows the use of distributed and parallel processing in order to speed up the search for optimized generalization operator sequences.

Keywords

Map generalization Data enrichment Cartographic constraints Combinatorial optimization Parallel processing Web services Service oriented architecture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partially funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 20-101798, project DEGEN). Thanks go to Ingo Petzold, Stefan Steiniger and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    AGENT Consortium. “Deliverable D1—Specification of Basic Algorithms”. University of Zurich: Department of Geography, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bader, M. Barrault, and R. Weibel. “Building displacement over a Ductile Truss,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 19(8-9):915–936, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bard. “Quality assessment of cartographic generalization,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 8(1):63–81, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Barrault, N. Regnauld, C. Duchêne, K. Haire, C. Baeijs, Y. Demazeau, P. Hardy, W. Mackaness, A. Ruas, and R. Weibel. “Integrating multi-agent, object-oriented and algorithmic techniques for improved automated map generalization,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Cartographic Conference, Beijing, China, pp. 2110–2116, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Beard. “Multiple representations from a detailed database: a scheme for automated generalization”, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Beard. “Constraints on rule formation,” in B. Buttenfield and R. McMaster (Eds.), Map Generalization: Making Rules for Knowledge Representation. Longman: London, 121–135, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Burghardt and S. Meier. “Cartographic displacement using the snakes concept,” in W. Foerstner and L. Pluemer (Eds.), Semantic Modeling for the Acquisition of Topographic Information from Images and Maps. Birkhaeuser: Basel, 59–71, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Burghardt, M. Neun, and R. Weibel. “Generalization services on the web—a classification and an initial prototype implementation,” Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 32(4):257–268, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Burghardt and S. Steiniger. “Usage of principal component analysis in the process of automated generalisation,” in Proceedings of 22nd International Cartographic Conference La Coruña, Spain, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Burghardt and M. Neun. “Automated sequencing of generalisation services based on collaborative filtering,” in M. Raubal, H.J. Miller, A.U. Frank, and M. Goodchild (Eds.), Geographic information science, 4th International Conference on Geographical Information Science (GIScience), IfGIprints 28, pp 41–46, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Burghardt and A. Cecconi. “Mesh simplification for building typification,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 21(3):283–298, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Burghardt, S. Schmid, and J. Stoter. “Investigatios on cartographic constraint formalisation,” in 10th ICA Workshop on Generalization and Multiple Representation, Moscow, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Buttenfield and R. McMaster. Map Generalization: Making Rules for Knowledge Representation. London: Longman, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Gray, L. Painton, C. Phillips, M. Trahan, J. Wagner. “A survey of global optimization methods,” Technical report, http://www.cs.sandia.gov/opt/survey/main.html (accessed 02/2007), 1997.
  15. 15.
    L. Harrie. “The constraint method for solving spatial conflicts in cartographic generalization,” Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 26(1):55–69, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Harrie and R. Weibel. “Modelling the overall process of generalisation,” in A. Ruas, W.A. Mackaness, and T. Kilpeläinen (Eds.), Generalisation of Geographic Information: Cartographic Modelling and Applications. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 67–87, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Heuvelink and E. Pebesma. “Spatial aggregation and soil process modeling,” Geoderma, Vol. 89(1-2):47–65, 1999 April.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    JUMP. “The JUMP Unified Mapping Platform,” http://www.jump-project.org, 2007.
  19. 19.
    S. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gelatt, and M.P. Vecchi. “Optimization by simulated annealing,” Science, Vol. 220(4598):671–680, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Langran. “Generalization and parallel computation,” in B. Buttenfield and R. McMaster (Eds.), Map Generalization: Making Rules for Knowledge Representation. Longman: London, 204–216, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Linden, B. Smith, and J. York. “Amazon.com recommendations. Item-to-item collaborative filtering,” IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 7:76–80, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. McMaster and S. Shea. Generalization in Digital Cartography. Association of American Geographers: Washington, USA, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Mustière. “Cartographic generalization of roads in a local and adaptive approach: a knowledge acquisition problem,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 19(8-9):937–955, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Mustière, J.-D. Zucker, L. Saitta. “An abstraction-based machine learning approach to cartographic generalization,” in 9th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH 2000), Beijing, China, 50–63, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Neun, D. Burghardt, and R. Weibel. “Web service approaches for providing enriched data structures to generalisation operators,” International Journal of Geographic Information Science, Vol. 22(2):133–165, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    I. Petzold, D. Burghardt, and M. Bobzien. “Workflow management and generalisation services,” in 9th ICA Workshop on Generalization and Multiple Representation, Portland, 2006.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    N. Regnauld. “Constraint based mechanism to achieve automatic generalization using agent model,” in Proceedings of the GIS Research UK (GISRUK 2001), pp. 329–332, University of Glamorgan, 2001.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    N. Regnauld. “Spatial Structures to Support Automatic Generalisation,” in Proceedings of the XXII International Cartographic Conference, A Coruña, Spain, 2005.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Richardson and J.-C. Muller. “Rule selection for small-scale map generalization”, in B. Buttenfield and R. McMaster (Eds.), Map Generalization: Making Rules for Knowledge Representation. Longman: London, 136–149, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Ruas and C. Plazanet. “Strategies for automated generalization,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH 1996), pp. 319–336, Delft, the Netherlands, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Ruas. “Modèle de généralisation de données géographiques à base de contraintes et d’autonomie,” Ph.D. thesis, IGN France and Université de Marne La Vallée, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Ruas and C. Duchêne. “A prototype generalisation system based on the multi-agent system paradigm,” in A. Ruas, W.A. Mackaness, and T. Kilpeläinen (Eds.), Generalisation of Geographic Information: Cartographic Modelling and Applications. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 269–284, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Sester. “Generalization based on least-squares adjustment,” International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. XXXIII:931–938, 2000 Part B4, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swiss Society of Cartography. Topographic Maps—Map Graphics and Generalisation. Swiss Society of Cartography: Wabern, Switzerland, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W. Staufenbiel. “Zur Automation der Generalisierung topographischer Karten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung großmaßstäbiger Gebäudedarstellungen,” Institute of Cartography and Geoinformatics, University of Hannover, No. 51, 1973.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Steiniger and R. Weibel. “Relations among map objects in cartographic generalization,” Cartography and Geographic Information Science (CaGIS), Vol. 34(3):175–197, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. Timpf. “Hierarchical structures in map series,” Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Vienna, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    I.D. Wilson, J.M. Ware, and J.A. Ware. “A genetic algorithm approach to cartographic map generalization,” Computers in Industry, Vol. 52(3):291–304, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J.M. Ware and C.B. Jones. “Conflict reduction in map generalization using iterative improvement,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 2(4):383–407, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    J.M. Ware, C.B. Jones, and N. Thomas. “Automated map generalization with multiple operators: a simulated annealing approach,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 17(8):743–769, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. Weibel, S. Keller, and T. Reichenbacher. “Overcoming the knowledge acquisition bottleneck in map generalization: the role of interactive systems and computational intelligence,” in Proceedings of 2nd International Configuration on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 95), pp. 139–156, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    R. Weibel and G. Dutton. “Constraint-based automated map generalization,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, pp. 214–224, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations