What You See is What You Map: Geometry-Preserving Micro-Mapping for Smaller Geographic Objects with mapIT

  • Falko Schmid
  • Lutz Frommberger
  • Cai Cai
  • Christian Freksa
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Geographic information is increasingly contributed by volunteers via crowdsourcing platforms. However, most tools and methods require a high technical affinity of its users and a good understanding of geographic classification systems. These technological and educational barriers prevent casual users to contribute spatial data. In this chapter we present mapIT, a method to acquire and contribute complex geographic data. We further introduce the concept of micro-mapping, the acquisition of geometrically correct geometric data of small geographic entities. mapIT is a method for micro-mapping with smartphones with high geometric precision. We show that mapIT is highly accurate and able to reconstruct the geometry of mapped entities correctly.Please check and confirm the author names and initials are correct.

References

  1. Aanensen D, Huntley D, Feil E, Spratt B et al (2009) Epicollect: linking smartphones to web applications for epidemiology, ecology and community data collection. PLoS One 4(9):e6968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asyraf Hamdani M, Hashim K, Adnan R, Manan Samad A (2011) 3D images processing of structural building using digital close-range photogrammetric approach. In: IEEE 7th international colloquium on signal processing and its applications (CSPA), pp 318–321Google Scholar
  3. Biagioni J, Eriksson J (2012) Map inference in the face of noise and disparity. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on advances in geographic information systems (ACM SIGSPATIAL GIS 2012), Redondo Beach, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Brando C, Bucher B, Abadie N (2011) Specifications for user generated spatial content. Adv Geoinf Sci Chang World, pp 479–495Google Scholar
  5. Douglas D, Peucker T (1973) Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. The Canadian Cartographer, 10(2):112–172Google Scholar
  6. Du X, Jin X, Zhang X, Shen J, Hou X (2009) Geometry features measurement of traffic accident for reconstruction based on close-range photogrammetry. Adv Eng Soft 40(7):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elwood S (2008) Volunteered geographic information: future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal 72:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foley J, van Dam A, Feiner S, Hughes J, Phillips R (1993) Introduction to computer graphics. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser C, Cronk S, Hanley H (2008) Close-range photogrammetry in traffic incident management. In: Proceedings of XXI ISPRS congress commission V, WG V, Citeseer, vol 1, pp 125–128Google Scholar
  10. Frommberger L, Schmid F, Cai C, Freksa C, Haddawy P (2012) Barrier-free micro-mapping for development and poverty reduction. Role of volunteered geographic information in advancing science: quality and credibilityGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodchild M (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodchild M (2009) Neogeography and the nature of geographic expertise. J Location Based Serv 3(2):82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haklay M (2010) How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of openstreetmap and ordnance survey datasets. Environ Plan B Plan Des 37(4):682–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang R, Jáuregui D, White K (2008) Close-range photogrammetry applications in bridge measurement: literature review. Measurement 41(8):823–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones CE, Weber P (2012) Towards usability engineering for online editors of volunteered geographic information: a perspective on learnability. Trans GIS 16(4):523–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luhmann T (2010) Close range photogrammetry for industrial applications. ISPRS J Photogram Rem Sens 65(6):558–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luo J, Joshi D, Yu J, Gallagher A (2011) Geotagging in multimedia and computer vision—a survey. Multimedia Tools Appl 51:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maisonneuve N, Chopard B (2012) Crowdsourcing satellite imagery analysis: study of parallel and iterative models. Geograph Inf Sci, pp 116–131Google Scholar
  19. Ramm F, Topf J, Chilton S (2010) OpenStreetMap—using and enhancing the free map of the world, UIT CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmid F, Cai C, Frommberger L (2012) A new micro-mapping method for rapid vgi-ing of small geographic features. In: Geographic information science: 7th international conference (GIScience, (2012) Columbus, Ohio, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmid F, Kutz O, Frommberger L, Kauppinen T, Cai C (2012) Intuitive and natural interfaces for geospatial data classification. In: Workshop on place-related knowledge acquisition research (P-KAR), Kloster Seeon, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  22. Sui D (2008) The wikification of GIS and its consequences: or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and the future of GIS. Comput Environ Urban Sys 32(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner AJ (2006) Introduction to neogeography. O’Reilly, MediaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Falko Schmid
    • 1
  • Lutz Frommberger
    • 1
  • Cai Cai
    • 1
  • Christian Freksa
    • 1
  1. 1.International Lab for Local Capacity Building (Capacity Lab)University of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations