Matching River Datasets of Different Scales

  • Birgit Kieler
  • Wei Huang
  • Jan-Henrik Haunert
  • Jie Jiang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


In order to ease the propagation of updates between geographic datasets of different scales and to support multi-scale analyses, different datasets need to be matched, that is, objects that represent the same entity in the physical world need to be identified. We propose a method for matching datasets of river systems that were acquired at different scales. This task is related to the problem of matching networks of lines, for example road networks. However, we also take into account that rivers may be represented by polygons. The geometric dimension of a river object may depend, for example, on the width of the river and the scale.

Our method comprises three steps. First, in order to cope with geometries of different dimensions, we collapse river polygons to centerlines by applying a skeletonization algorithm. We show how to preserve the topology of the river system in this step, which is an important requirement for the subsequent matching steps. Secondly, we perform a pre-matching of the arcs and nodes of the line network generated in the first step, that is, we detect candidate matches and define their quality. Thirdly, we perform the final matching by selecting a consistent set of good candidate matches. We tested our method for two Chinese river datasets of the same areal extent, which were acquired at scales 1:50 000 and 1:250 000. The evaluation of our results allows us to conclude that our method seldom yields incorrect matches. The number of correct matches that are missed by our method is quite small.


data matching network multi-scale representation generalization skeletonization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Devogele, T., Parent, C., and Spaccapietra, S. (1998): On spatial database integration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 12(4), pp. 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Diez, Y., Lopez, M.A., and Sellarès, J.A. (2008): Noisy Road Network Matching. T.J. Cova et al. (Eds.): GIScience 2008, LNCS 5266, pp. 38–54, 2008.Google Scholar
  3. Dijkstra, E. W. (1959): A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Mathematik, 1, 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunkars, M. (2004): Multiple Representation Databases for Topographic Information. Ph.D. thesis, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  5. Harrie, L., and Hellström, A.-K. (1999): A prototype system for propagating updates between cartographic data sets. The Cartographic Journal 36(2), pp. 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haunert, J-H., and Sester, M. (2008): Area Collapse and Road Centerlines based on Straight Skeletons. GeoInformatica 12(2), pp. 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kieler, B., Sester, M., Wang, H., and Jiang, J. (2007): Semantic Data Integration: Data of Similar and Different Scales. Photogrammetrie Fernerkundung Geoinformation (PFG), vol. 6, pp. 447–457.Google Scholar
  8. Lüscher, P., Burghardt, D., and Weibel, R. (2007): Matching road data of scales with an order of magnitude difference. Proc. XXIII International Cartographic Conference, Moscow, Russia, August 3–10, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. Mustière, S. and Devogele, T. (2008): Matching Networks with Different Levels of Detail. GeoInformatica 12(4), pp. 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Penninga, F., Verbree, E., Quak, W., and van Oesterom, P. (2005): Construction of the planar partition postal code map based on cadastral registration. GeoInformatica 9(2), pp. 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sester, M., Anders, K.-H., and Walter, V. (1998): Linking Objects of Different Spatial Data Sets by Integration and Aggregation. GeoInformatica 2(4), pp. 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Timpf, S. (1998): Hierarchical Structures in Map Series. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  13. Uitermark, H., Vogels, A., and van Oosterom, P. (1999): Semantic and Geometric Aspects of Integrating Road Networks. A. Vckovski, K.E. Brassel, and H.-J. Schek (Eds.): INTEROP'99, LNCS 1580, pp. 177–188, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. Vivid Solutions (2005): RoadMatcher User Guide - RoadMatcher Version 1.4. (accessed 2009/02/10)
  15. Volz, S. (2005): Data-Driven Matching of Geospatial Schemas. A.G. Cohn and D.M. Mark (Eds.): COSIT 2005, LNCS 3693, pp. 115–132, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. Walter, V. and Fritsch, D. (1999): Matching spatial data sets: a statistical approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13(5), pp. 445-473.Google Scholar
  17. Zhang, M., and Meng, L. (2007): An iterative road-matching approach for the integration of postal data. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 31(5), pp. 597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgit Kieler
    • 1
  • Wei Huang
    • 2
  • Jan-Henrik Haunert
    • 1
  • Jie Jiang
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Cartography and GeoinformaticsLeibniz Universität HannoverHannover
  2. 2.Department of Geo-spatial data product R & DNational Geomatics Center of ChinaZizhuyuan

Personalised recommendations