, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 73–89

A Multi-parameter Approach to Automated Building Grouping and Generalization



This paper presents an approach to automated building grouping and generalization. Three principles of Gestalt theories, i.e. proximity, similarity, and common directions, are employed as guidelines, and six parameters, i.e. minimum distance, area of visible scope, area ratio, edge number ratio, smallest minimum bounding rectangle (SMBR), directional Voronoi diagram (DVD), are selected to describe spatial patterns, distributions and relations of buildings. Based on these principles and parameters, an approach to building grouping and generalization is developed. First, buildings are triangulated based on Delaunay triangulation rules, by which topological adjacency relations between buildings are obtained and the six parameters are calculated and recorded. Every two topologically adjacent buildings form a potential group. Three criteria from previous experience and Gestalt principles are employed to tell whether a 2-building group is ‘strong,’ ‘average’ or ‘weak.’ The ‘weak’ groups are deleted from the group array. Secondly, the retained groups with common buildings are organized to form intermediate groups according to their relations. After this step, the intermediate groups with common buildings are aggregated or separated and the final groups are formed. Finally, appropriate operators/algorithms are selected for each group and the generalized buildings are achieved. This approach is fully automatic. As our experiments show, it can be used primarily in the generalization of buildings arranged in blocks.


Gestalt principles building grouping directional relations map generalization 


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    M. Bader and R. Weibel. “Detecting and resolving size and proximity conflicts in the generalisation of polygon maps,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Cartographic Conference, pp. 1525–1532, Stockholm, Sweden, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Boffet and S. Rocca Serra. “Identification of spatial structures within urban blocks for town characterisation,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Cartographic Conference, Beijing, China, 2001 (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Christophe and A. Ruas. “Detecting building alignments for generalisation purposes,” in D.E. Richardson and P. van Oosterom (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Data Handling (10th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling), pp. 419–432, Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Duchêne, S. Bard, and X. Barillot. “Quantitative and qualitative description of building orientation,” in The 5th ICA workshop on progress in automated map generalization, Paris, France, 2003.
  6. 6.
    R.K. Goyal. “Similarity assessment for cardinal directions between extended spatial objects,” PhD thesis, The University of Maine, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.B. Jones, G.L. Bundy, and J.M. Ware. “Map generalization with a triangulated data structure,” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 22(4):317–331, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.B. Jones and J.M. Ware. “Map generalization in the web age,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 19(8–9):859–870, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z. Li, H. Yan, and T. Ai. “Automated building generalization based on urban morphology and gestalt theory,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 18(5):513–534, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.B. McMaster and K.S. Shea. Generalization in Digital Cartography. Washington DC: Association of American Cartographers, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S.E. Palmer. “Common region: a new principle of perceptual grouping,” Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 24(2):436–447, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Papadias and T. Sellis. “The qualitative representation of spatial knowledge in two dimensional space,” Very Large Database Journal, Vol. 3(4):479–516, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Peuquet and C.X. Zhan. “An algorithm to determine the directional relationship between arbitrarily-shaped polygons in the plane,” Pattern Recognition, Vol. 20(1):65–74, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Rainsford and W. Mackaness. “Template matching in support of generalization of rural buildings,” in D.E. Richardson and P. van Oosterom (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Data Handling (10th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling), pp. 137–151, Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Regnauld. “Contextual building typification in automated map generalization,” Algorithmica, Vol. 30(2):312–333, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    I Rock. Indirect Perception. London: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Ruas. “A method for building displacement in automated map generalization,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 12(8):789–803, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Ruas and C. Plazanet. “Strategies for automated generalization,” in Proceedings of Spatial Data Handling, pp. 6.1–6.18, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Shekhar, X. Liu, and S. Chawla. “An object model of direction and its application,” Geoinformatica, Vol. 3(4):357–379, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.H. Steinhauer, T. Wiese, C. Freksa, and T. Barkowsky. “Recognition of abstract regions in cartographic maps,” in D.R. Montello (Ed.), Spatial Information Theory, pp. 306–321, Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    SSC. Topographic Maps: Map Graphics and Generalization, Cartographic Publication Series No. 17. Swiss Society of Cartography, 2005 (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Weibel. “A typology of constraints to line simplification,” in M.J. Kraak and M. Molenaar (Ed.), Advances on GIS II, pp. 9A.1–9A.14, London: Taylor & Francis, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    H.W. Yan, Y.D. Chu, Z.L. Li, and R.Z. Guo. “A quantitative description model for directional relations based on direction groups,” Geoinformatica, Vol. 10(2):177–195, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Yukio. “Cluster perception in the distribution of point objects,” Cartographica, Vol. 34(1):49–61, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics, Physics and Software EngineeringLanzhou Jiaotong UniversityLanzhouChina
  2. 2.GIS Division, Department of GeographyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote SensingWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations