The validation process of a 3D multisource/multiresolution model for railway infrastructures

  • Grazia TucciEmail author
  • Manuela Corongiu
  • Franco Flamigni
  • Andrea Comparini
  • Francesca Panighini
  • Erica Isabella Parisi
  • Lorenzo Arcidiaco
Original Paper


The technological evolution that marks the passage from traditional cartographies towards topographic databases in term of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) is characterised, at the surveying level, by the availability of different sources and tools for acquiring data: remote sensing, drones, laser scanners, etc. These multi-diversity sources have a significant impact during the dataset evaluation phases: above all, for each individual step, a specific sensor is used and its technical characteristics are taken into account, as well as the connections between the different steps that contribute to create the final database. Therefore, data product specification is the first step towards understanding which spatial database quality and requirements must be satisfied. At this transitional time, while the sources and tools have yet to be established in the processing and methodologies, this article will try to focus on critical issues encountered during a validation process of a geographical infrastructure in the railway context. The validation process has been carried out by a step-by-step approach. Basically, a consolidated validation methodology has been adopted for traditional products also carried out by new sensors, while a comparison with ISO (International Standard Organization) standard specifications has been followed for innovative survey (Mobile Mapping Systems (MMS)). Finally, for the GeoTopographic DataBase (GTDB) both massive (informatics procedures) and traditional thematic evaluation of accuracy have been combined. Therefore, the adherence with standards has been referred to take into account both the quality of data and the conformity to data product specifications. The considerable variety and the amount of the provided data, the harmonisation between different evaluation processes, the need to validate with short time and the lack of on-the-field surveys have been hardly considered as requirements, as well as the compliance with standards together with traditional cartography evaluating approaches.


Geographic data quality Data product specification Railway infrastructure data Evaluation procedures Certification Multi-source spatial databases BIG data 



For the collaboration provided to the authors for the writing of this manuscript all the authors wish to express their gratitude to Brig. Gen. Enzo Santoro. The authors would like to thank also the Italian Railway Network (RFI) for making the MUIF datasets available for this case study.

Author contributions

Legend: AC Andrea Comparini, EIP Erica Isabella Parisi, FF Franco Flamigni, FP Francesca Panighini, GT Grazia Tucci, MC Manuela Corongiu, LA Lorenzo Arcidiaco. Conceptualisation: GT, MC. Data curation: AC, EIP, FF, FP, MC. Formal analysis: AC, EIP, FF, FP, LA, MC. Investigation: AC, FF, LA, MC; Methodology: AC, FF, GT, LA, MC; Project administration: GT; Resources: AC, FF, GT; Supervision: GT; Validation: AC, FF, FP, EIP, LA, MC; Writing—original draft preparation: MC, AC, FF; Writing—review and editing: EIP, MC; Visualisation: MC.


  1. Biljecki F, Stoter J, Ledoux H, Zlatanova S, Çöltekin A (2015) Applications of 3D city models: state of the art review. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 4(4):2842–2889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billen R, Cutting-Decelle AF, Métral C, Falquet G, Zlatanova S, Marina O (2015) Challenges of semantic 3D city models. Int J 3-D Inf Model 4:68–76Google Scholar
  3. Carrion et al (2008) Metodi e modelli per il controllo di qualità di data base topografici multiscala. Atti 12a Conferenza Nazionale ASITA, 21–24 ottobre 2008, L’Aquila, IT, ISBN 978–88–903132-1-9Google Scholar
  4. CityGML (2012) OGC city geography markup language (CityGML) encoding. Standard 2.0.0. Open Geospatial Consortium Accessed August 2018
  5. Clementini E, Di Felice P (1996) A model for representing topological relationships between complex geometric features in spatial databases. Inform Syst 90(1–4):121–136Google Scholar
  6. Coors V, Holweg D, Matthias E, Petzold B, Broschüre (2013) 3D-Stadtmodelle. Ingeoforum, Darmstadt, p 20Google Scholar
  7. Corongiu M, Tucci G, Santoro E, Kourounioti O (2018) Data integration of different domains in geo-information management: a railway infrastructure case study. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-4:121–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Directive 2007/2/EC (2007) Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (INSPIRE), Accessed August 2018
  9. Egenhofer MJ, Clementini E, Di Felice P (1994) Topological relations between regions with holes. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 8(2):128–142Google Scholar
  10. Goos J, Klooster R, Stoter J, Verbree E, Vestjens G, Vosselman G (2011) 3D Pilot: Eindrapport Werkgroep Aanbod van 3D Geo-Informatie. Netherlands Geodetic Commission, DelftGoogle Scholar
  11. INSPIRE D2.10.1 (2013) Data specifications, base models, generic network model Accessed August 2018
  12. INSPIRE D2.8.I.7 (2014) Data specification on transport networks, Technical guidelines INSPIRE infrastructure for spatial information in Europe Accessed August 2018
  13. ISO 14825 (2011) Intelligent transport systems - geographic data files (GDF) — GDF5.0. Accessed August 2018
  14. ISO 3534-2 (2006) Applications of statistical methods statistics — vocabulary and symbols — part 2: applied statisticsGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO/CD 19131 (2018) Geographic information — data product specificationsGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO/FDIS 19157 (2013) Geographic information — data qualityGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO/IS 19148 (2012) Geographic information — linear referencingGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolbe T (2009) Representing and exchanging 3D city models with CityGML. In: 3D geo-information sciences pp 15–31 lecture notes in Geoinformation and cartography. Springer Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  19. Lu L, Becker T, Löwner M-O (2017) 3D complete traffic noise analysis based on CityGML. In: ©Springer International Publishing AG 2017, A. Abdul-Rahman (ed.), advances in 3D Geoinformation, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Google Scholar
  20. Ministerial Decree of 10 November 2011, 2012, DECREE of 10 November 2011 (2012) Regole tecniche per la definizione delle specifiche di contenuto dei database geotopografici. (12A01800) (GU Serie Generale n.48 del 27-02-2012 - Suppl. Ordinario n 37)Google Scholar
  21. Tack F, Buyuksalih G, Goossens R (2012) 3D building reconstruction based on given ground plan information and surface models extracted from spaceborne imagery. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 67:52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thaduri A, Galar D, Kumar U (2015) Railway assets: a potential domain for big data analytics. Procedia Computer Science, 2015 INNS Conference on Big Data, vol 53, pp 457–467. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas A, Claus N, Thomas H, Thomas K (2013) Semantic 3D modeling of multi-utility networks in cities for analysis and 3D visualization. In book: Progress and New Trends in 3D Geoinformation sciences project: BIM and GIS integration. Google Scholar
  24. Tutcher J (2014) Ontology-driven data integration for railway asset monitoring applications. in: Big Data 2014 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, pp 85–95Google Scholar
  25. Zlatanova S, Prosperi D (2005) Large-scale 3D data integration. CRC Press Reference. ISBN 9780849398988 - CAT# 9898Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SCHEMA–Survey, Cultural Heritage, Monitoring, Analysis Joint Laboratory between DICEA–Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Florence and the IMGI – Italian Military Geographical InstituteFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.CNR - IBE National Research Council - Institute of BioEconomyFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations