Analyzing the spatial-semantic interaction of points of interest in volunteered geographic information

53Citations
Citations of this article
88Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

With the increasing success and commercial integration of Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI), the focus shifts away from coverage to data quality and homogeneity. Within the last years, several studies have been published analyzing the positional accuracy of features, completeness of specific attributes, or the topological consistency of line and polygon features. However, most of these studies do not take geographic feature types into account. This is for two reasons. First, and in contrast to street networks, choosing a reference set is difficult. Second, we lack the measures to quantify the degree of feature type mis-categorization. In this work, we present a methodology to analyze the spatial-semantic interaction of point features in Volunteered Geographic Information. Feature types in VGI can be considered special in both, the way they are formed and the way they are applied. Given that they reflect community agreement more accurately than top-down approaches, we argue that they should be used as the primary basis for assessing spatial-semantic interaction. We present a case study on a spatial and semantic subset of OpenStreetMap, and introduce a novel semantic similarity measure based on the change history of OpenStreetMap elements. Our results set the stage for systems that assist VGI contributors in suggesting the types of new features, cleaning up existing data, and integrating data from different sources. © 2011 Springer-Verlag.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mülligann, C., Janowicz, K., Ye, M., & Lee, W. C. (2011). Analyzing the spatial-semantic interaction of points of interest in volunteered geographic information. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 6899 LNCS, pp. 350–370). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23196-4_19

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free