Using the A\(^{\!\star }\) Algorithm to Find Optimal Sequences for Area Aggregation

  • Dongliang PengEmail author
  • Alexander Wolff
  • Jan-Henrik Haunert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Given two land-cover maps of different scales, we wish to find a sequence of small incremental changes that gradually transforms one map into the other. We assume that the two input maps consist of polygons that constitute a planar subdivision and belong to different land-cover classes. Every polygon in the small-scale map is the union of a set of polygons in the large-scale map. In each step of the sequence that we compute, the smallest area in the current map is merged with one of its neighbors. We do not select that neighbor according to a prescribed rule but define the whole sequence of pairwise merges at once, based on global optimization. An important requirement for such a method is a formalization of the problem in terms of optimization objectives and constraints, which we present together with a solution that is based on the so-called A\(^{\!\star }\) algorithm. This algorithm allows us to limit the exploration of the search space such that we can compute solutions of high quality in reasonable time. We tested the method with a dataset of the official German topographic database ATKIS and discuss our results.


Continuous map generalization Land cover Type change Compactness Graph Optimization 



We thank Thomas C. van Dijk, Joachim Spoerhase, and Sabine Storandt for their valuable suggestions.


  1. Cheng, T., & Li, Z. (2006). Toward quantitative measures for the semantic quality of polygon generalization. Cartographica, 41(2), 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chimani, M., van Dijk, T. C., & Haunert, J.-H. (2014). How to eat a graph: Computing selection sequences for the continuous generalization of road networks. In Proceedings of 22nd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (ACMGIS’14) (pp. 243–252).Google Scholar
  3. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to algorithms (3rd ed.). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Douglas, D. H., & Peucker, T. K. (1973). Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. Cartographica, 10(2), 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frolov, Y. S. (1975). Measuring the shape of geographical phenomena: A history of the issue. Soviet Geography, 16(10), 676–687.Google Scholar
  6. Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., & Raphael, B. (1968). A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Science, and Cybernetics, 4(2), 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haunert, J.-H. (2009). Aggregation in map generalization by combinatorial optimization. Dissertation. Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. Haunert, J.-H., & Wolff, A. (2010). Area aggregation in map generalisation by mixed-integer programming. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24(12), 1871–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haunert, J.-H., Dilo, A., & van Oosterom, P. (2009). Constrained set-up of the tGAP structure for progressive vector data transfer. Computers and Geosciences, 35(11), 2191–2203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pohl, I. (1973). The avoidance of (relative) catastrophe, heuristic competence, genuine dynamic weighting and computational issues in heuristic problem solving. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI’73 (pp. 12–17). Stanford, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Saalfeld, A. (1999). Topologically consistent line simplification with the Douglas-Peucker algorithm. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 26(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schwering, A. (2008). Approaches to semantic similarity measurement for geo-spatial data: A survey. Transactions in GIS, 12(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Timpf, S. (1998). Hierarchical structures in map series. Dissertation. Technical University Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  14. van Oosterom, P. (2005). Variable-scale topological datastructures suitable for progressive data transfer: The GAP-face tree and GAP-edge forest. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 32(4), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Oosterom, P., & Schenkelaars, V. (1995). The development of an interactive multi-scale GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9(5), 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Smaalen, J. (2003). Automated aggregation of geographic objects. Dissertation. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Computer Science IUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Geodesy and GeoinformationUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations