Advertisement

Crowd and Community Sourced Data Quality Assessment

  • Laurence Jolivet
  • Ana-Maria Olteanu-Raimond
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Data quality assessment of different volunteered initiatives and platforms presents several challenges for data validation given the high amount of data collected. This paper focuses on two goals. The first consists in defining both a generic workflow and data quality indicators for validation of reports coming from crowd and community sourcing platforms. In the proposed workflow, a qualified report can be even described by each indicator separately or by a combination of them. Here, we focus mostly on analyzing the results obtained for each indicator separately. The second goal is to learn more information about contributors who has engaged in a platform proposed by a public body (i.e., the French National Mapping Agency): Who are they? How are they contributing? What are their motivations? More is known about contributors to OpenStreetMap than of any other VGI platform. Indeed, knowing the contributors is a crucial task for both motivation and data quality, especially now that public institutions are engaging with VGI.

Keywords

Data quality VGI Community and crowdsourcing platform 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Maryame Rhezali for her valuable inputs for this work. Our work is funded under grant #689812 (H2020, LandSense project) by European Commision.

References

  1. Antoniou, V., & Skopeliti, A. (2015). Measures and indicators of VGI quality: An overview. ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, ISPRS geospatial week 2015 (pp. 345–351). France: La Grande Motte.Google Scholar
  2. Ballatore, A., & Zipf, A. (2015). A conceptual quality framework for Volunteered Geographic Information. In S. I. Fabrikant, M. Raubal, M. Bertolotto, C. Davies, S. Freundschuh, S. Bell (Eds.), Spatial information theory (pp. 89–107). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Boakes, E. H., McGowan, P. J. K., Fuller, R. A., Chang-qing, D., Clark, N. E., O’Connor, K., et al. (2010). Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biology, 8, e1000385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonter, D. N., & Cooper, C. B. (2012). Data validation in citizen science: a case study from project FeederWatch. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 305–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brando, C., & Bucher, B. (2010). Quality in user generated spatial content: A matter of specifications. In 13th AGILE International Conference on GIS. Google Scholar
  6. Brando, C. (2013). Un modèle d’opérations réconciliables pour l’acquisition distribuée de données géographiques. Thèse de doctorat de l’université Paris Est.Google Scholar
  7. Comber, A., See, L., Fritz, S., Van der Velde, M., Perger, C., & Foody, G. (2013). Using control data to determine the reliability of volunteered geographic information about land cover. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 23, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fonte, C., Bastin, C., Foody, G., Kellenberger, T., Kerle, N., Mooney, P., et al. (2015). VGI quality control. ISPRS annals of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences II-3/W5, 317–324.Google Scholar
  9. Foody, G., & Boyd, D. S. (2012). Using volunteered data in land cover map validation: Mapping tropical forests across West Africa. In Geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), pp. 6207–6208.Google Scholar
  10. Girres, J.-F., & Touya, G. (2010). Quality assessment of the French OpenStreetMap dataset. Transactions in GIS, 14, 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69, 211–221. doi: 10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodchild, M. F., & Li, L. (2012). Assuring the quality of volunteered geographic information. Spatial Statistics, 1, 110–120. doi: 10.1016/j.spasta.2012.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 682–703. doi: 10.1068/b35097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haklay, M. E, Antoniou, V, Basiouka, S, Soden, R, & Mooney, P. (2014). Crowdsourced geographic information use in government. In Global facility for disaster reduction & recovery (GFDRR). London, UK: World Bank.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, P., & Sieber, R. (2013). Situating the adoption of VGI by government. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge (pp. 65–81). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leibovici, D. G., Evans, B., Hodges, C., Wiemann, S., Meek, S., Rosser, J., et al. (2015). On data quality assurance and conflation entanglement in crowdsourcing for environmental studies. In ISPRS annals of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences II-3/W5.Google Scholar
  17. Mooney, P., Minghini, M., Laakso, M., Antoniou, V., Olteanu-Raimond, A.-M., & Skopeliti, A. (2016). Towards a Protocol for the Collection of VGI Vector Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 5(11), 217. doi: 10.3390/ijgi5110217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neis, P., & Zipf, A. (2012). Analyzing the contributor activity of a volunteered geographic information project—the case of OpenStreetMap. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 1(2), 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olteanu-Raimond, A.-M., Hart, G., Touya, G., Kellenberger, T., Foody, G., & Demetriou, D. (2016). The scale of VGI in map production: A perspective of European National Mapping Agencies. Transactions in GIS. doi: 10.1111/tgis.12189.Google Scholar
  20. Peyman, H., Rahim, A. A. (2015). Assessment of logical consistency in OpenStreetMap based on the spatial similarity concept. In J. Jokar Arsanjani, A. Zipf, P. Mooney, & M. Helbich (Eds.), OpenStreetMap in GIScience (pp 19–36). Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14280-7_2.
  21. Senaratne, H., Mobasheri, A., Loai Ali, A., Capineri, C., & Haklay, M. (2015). A review of volunteered geographic information quality assessment methods. IJGIS, 1–29.Google Scholar
  22. Sullivan, B. L. (2014). The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Touya, G., & Brando C. (2013). Detecting level-of-detail inconsistencies in volunteered geographic information data sets. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 48(2), 134–143. doi: 10.3138/carto.48.2.1836.
  24. van Exel, M., Dias, E., & Fruijtier, S. (2010). The impact of crowdsourcing on spatial data quality indicators. In Proceedings of GIScience 2010, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Paris-EstSaint-MandéFrance

Personalised recommendations