Advertisement

Assessment of Logical Consistency in OpenStreetMap Based on the Spatial Similarity Concept

  • Peyman Hashemi
  • Rahim Ali AbbaspourEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

The growth in the number of users and the volume of information in OpenStreetMap (OSM) indicate the success of this VGI-based project in attracting diverse sets of people from all over the world. A huge amount of information is generated daily by non-professional users and OSM faces the challenge of ensuring data quality. Spatial data quality comprises several basic elements; among them, logical consistency concerns the existence of logical contradictions within a dataset. It is one of the most important elements, but has not been studied much in VGI despite the key role in quality assurance. Because of the participatory nature of data collection and entry in OSM, the common consistency checking routines for spatial data should be revised. Since contributors have different views about objects, data integration in OSM may be considered as a form of multi-representation data combination. In this article, the concept of spatial similarity in multi-representation considering three elements, i.e. directional relationships, topological relationships, and metric distance relationships, is used to build a framework to determine the probable inconsistencies in OSM.

Keywords

Volunteered geographic information (VGI) Logical consistency Spatial similarity OSM Topological relations 

References

  1. Barron C, Neis P, Zipf A (2013) A comprehensive framework for intrinsic OpenStreetMap quality analysis. Trans GIS 43–48. doi: 10.1111/tgis.12073
  2. Bruns T, Egenhofer MJ (1996) Similarity of spatial scenes. In: Kraak J-M, Molenaar M (eds) Seventh international symposium on spatial data handling. Delft, The Netherlands, pp 173–184Google Scholar
  3. Egenhofer MJ, Al-Taha KK (1992) Reasoning about gradual changes of topological relationships. Theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space. Springer, Berlin, pp 196–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Egenhofer MJ, Sharma J (1993) Topological relations between regions in R2 and Z2. In: Abel D, Ooi BC (eds) Advances in spatial databases–3rd international symposium on large spatial databases, SSD 93, Singapore, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 316–336Google Scholar
  5. Egenhofer MJ, Clementini E, Di Felice P (1994) Evaluating inconsistencies among multiple representations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on spatial data handling, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 901–920Google Scholar
  6. Jokar Arsanjani J, Barron C, Bakillah M, Helbich M (2013) Assessing the Quality of OpenStreetMap contributors together with their contributions. Paper presented at the 16th AGILE international conference on geographic information science, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  7. OSM full history dump. http://osm.personalwerk.de/full-history-extracts/. Accessed 20 Sept 2014
  8. Girres JF, Touya G (2010) Quality assessment of the French OpenStreetMap dataset. Trans GIS 14(4):435–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodchild MF, Li L (2012) Assuring the quality of volunteered geographic information. Spat Stat 1:110–120. doi: 10.1016/j.spasta.2012.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goyal R, Egenhofer M (2001) Similarity of cardinal directions. In: Jensen CS, Schneider M, Seeger B, Tsotras VJ (eds) Advances in spatial and temporal databases SE-3. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2121, Springer, Berlin, pp 36–55Google Scholar
  11. Haklay M (2010) How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and ordnance survey datasets. Environ Plan 37(4):682–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO 19157:2013 Geographic information—data quality. ISO (International Organization of Standardization)Google Scholar
  13. Kainz W (1995) Logical consistency. In: Guptill SC, Morrison JL (eds) Elements of spatial data quality, vol 202. Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam, pp 109–137Google Scholar
  14. Keßler C, de Groot RTA (2013) Trust as a proxy measure for the quality of volunteered geographic information in the case of OpenStreetMap. In: Geographic information science at the heart of Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–37. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00615-4_2
  15. Keßler C, Trame J, Kauppinen T (2011) Tracking editing processes in volunteered geographic information: the case of OpenStreetMap. In: Duckham M, Galton A, Worboys M (eds) Identifying objects, processes and events in spatio-temporally distributed data (IOPE), workshop at conference on spatial information theory, Belfast, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. KeepRight. http://keepright.at/. Accessed 20 Sept 2014
  17. Li B, Fonseca F (2006) TDD: a comprehensive model for qualitative spatial similarity assessment. Spat Cogn Comput 6(1):31–62Google Scholar
  18. Morrison JL (1995) Spatial data quality. In: Guptill SC, Morrison JL (eds) Elements of spatial data quality, vol 202. Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  19. Neis P, Zielstra D, Zipf A (2011) The street network evolution of crowdsourced maps: OpenStreetMap in Germany 2007–2011. Future Internet 4(1):1–21. doi: 10.3390/fi4010001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OpenStreetMap. http://openstreetmap.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2014
  21. OpenStreetMap, full history dump. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Planet.osm/full. Accessed 20 Sept 2014
  22. OpenStreetMap quality assurance. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_assurance. Accessed 20 Sept 2014
  23. OSM Statistics. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statistics. Accessed 20 Sept 2014
  24. Sui D, Elwood S, Goodchild MF (2013) Prospects for VGI research and the emerging fourth paradigm. In: Elwood S, Goodchild MF, Sui D (eds) Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 361–375. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2
  25. Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84(4):327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang J, Mülligann C, Schwering A (2011) An empirical study on relevant aspects for sketch map alignment. In: Advancing geoinformation science for a changing world. Springer, Berlin, pp 497–518Google Scholar
  27. Worboys MF, Duckham M (2004) GIS: a computing perspective. CRC Press, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  28. Zielstra D, Zipf A (2010) A comparative study of proprietary geodata and volunteered geographic information for Germany. In: 13th AGILE international conference on geographic information science, Guimarães, PortugalGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surveying and Geomatics Engineering Department, College of EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations