Geo-spatial Information Science

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 119–128 | Cite as

Formal definition of a user-adaptive and length-optimal routing graph for complex indoor environments

  • Marcus GoetzEmail author
  • Alexander Zipf


Car routing solutions are omnipresent and solutions for pedestrians also exist. Furthermore, public or commercial buildings are getting bigger and the complexity of their internal structure has increased. Consequently, the need for indoor routing solutions has emerged. Some prototypes are available, but they still lack semantically-enriched modelling (e.g., access constraints, labels, etc.) and are not suitable for providing user-adaptive length-optimal routing in complex buildings. Previous approaches consider simple rooms, concave rooms, and corridors, but important characteristics such as distinct areas in huge rooms and solid obstacles inside rooms are not considered at all, although such details can increase navigation accuracy. By formally defining a weighted indoor routing graph, it is possible to create a detailed and user-adaptive model for route computation. The defined graph also contains semantic information such as room labels, door accessibility constraints, etc. Furthermore, one-way paths inside buildings are considered, as well as three-dimensional building parts, e.g., elevators or stairways. A hierarchical structure is also possible with the presented graph model.


3D indoor navigation 3D indoor routing city modelling formal definition routing graph buildings 

CLC number



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Raubal M, Egenhofer M J (1998) Comparing the complexity of wayfinding tasks in built environments[J]. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 25(6): 895–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Holscher C, Mellinger T, Vrachliotis G, et al.(2006) Up the down staircase: Wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4): 284–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Goetz M, Zipf A (2010) Open issues in bringing 3d to location based services (LBS)—A review focusing on 3d data streaming and 3d indoor navigation[C]. Proceedings of 5th 3D GeoInfo Conference, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dijkstra E W (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs[J]. Numerische Mathematik, 1(1): 267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hart P E, Nilsson N J, Raphael B (1968) A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths[J]. Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics SSC, 4(2): 100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Pradhan S (2000) Semantic location[J]. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 4(4):213–216Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Brummit B, Shafer S (2001) Topological world modeling using semantic spaces[C]. UbiComp 2001 Workshop on Location Modeling for Ubiquitous Computing, Atlanta, GA, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Raubal M, Worboys M (1999) A formal model of the process of wayfinding in built environments[M]// Freksa C, Mark D M (Eds.). Spatial Information Theory-Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science. Berlin: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Gilliéron, P -Y, Bertrand M (2003) Personal navigation system for indoor applications[C]. 11th IAIN World Congress, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Lorenz B, Ohlbach H J, Stoffel E P (2006) A hybrid spatial model for representing indoor environments[C]. The 6th International Symposium on Web and Wireless Geographical Information Systems (W2GIS 2006), Hong Kong, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Stoffel E-P, Lorenz B, Ohlbach H (2007) Towards a semantic spatial model for pedestrian indoor navigation[J]. Lecture Notes in Computer Science-Advances in Conceptual Modeling-Foundations and Applications, 4802: 328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lee J (2007) A three-dimensional navigable data model to support emergency response in microspatial built-environments[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3): 512–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Lee J (2001) 3D data model for representing topological relations of urban features[C]. 21st Annual ESRI International User Conference, San Diego, CA, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Lee J (2004) A spatial access oriented implementation of a topological data model for 3D urban entities[J]. GeoInformatica, 8(3): 235–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    ISO (2003) ISO 19107:2003 Geographic information—Spatial schema.[S].166Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Becker T, Nagel C, Kolbe T H (2008) A multilayered space-event model for navigation in indoor space[M]//Lee J, Zlatanova S(Eds.). Lecture Notes in Geoinformation & Cartography. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Becker T, Nagel C, Kolbe T H (2009) Supporting contexts for indoor navigation using a multilayered space model[ C]. The 1st International Workshop on Indoor Spatial Awareness (ISA 2009), Taipei, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kolbe T H, Gröger G, Plümer L (2005) CityGML — interoperable access to 3D city models[C].Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Geo-information for Disaster Management, Delft, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Lee J, Zlatanova S (2008) A 3D data model and topological analyses for emergency response in urban areas[M]// Zlatanova S, Li J(Eds.). Geospatial Information Technology for Emergency Response. London: Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Kolbe T H, Becker T, Nagel C (2008) Discussion of Euclidean space and cellular space and proposal of an integrated indoor spatial data model[R]. The 1st Technical Report, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Yuan L, Zizhang H (2008) 3D indoor navigation: a framework of combining BIM with 3D GIS[C]. The 44th ISOCARP Congress 2008, Dalian, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Yuan W, Schneider M (2010) iNav: An indoor navigation model supporting length-dependent optimal routing [C]. The 13th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Guimarães, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Meijers M, Zlatanova S, Pfeifer N (2005) 3D geo-information indoors: structuring for evacuation[C]. The 1st International ISPRS/EuroSDR/DGPF-Workshop on Next Generation 3D City Models (EuroSDRBonn), Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Car A, Frank A U (1993) Hierarchical street networks as a conceptual model for efficient way finding[C]. The Fourth European Conference and Exhibition on Geographical Information Systems EGIS’ 93, Genoa, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wuhan University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of GIScience, Department of GeographyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations