Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simultaneous Graphic Generalization of Vector Data Sets

  • Published:
GeoInformatica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Manual cartographic generalization is a simultaneous process. However, most automatic approaches so far have been sequential; generalization operators are applied one at a time in a certain order. This has been the case both for model generalization (generalization of the conceptual model) and graphic generalization. Our research seeks to demonstrate that the graphic part of cartographic generalization can be formulated as an optimization problem and accordingly be solved in a single step. This paper deals with several issues regarding this optimization approach. Firstly, a set of appropriate analytical constraints for the generalization process is given, as well as rules for when to apply these constraints. In our approach, we are limited to formulating these constraints on point locations. Secondly, least-squares adjustment is proposed to find the optimal solution according to the constraints. Finally, the conjugate-gradients method is recommended for solving the normal equations. A prototype system for simultaneous graphic generalization has been implemented in C++, which communicates with a commercial map production system. Results from three tests of the prototype system are included in the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Bader. “Energy minimization methods for feature displacement in map generalization,” Doctorate thesis, Geographic Information System Division, Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Switzerland, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M.S. Bazaraa, H.D. Sherali, and C.M. Shetty. Nonlinear Programming—Theory and Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M.K Beard. “Constraints on rule formation,” in B.P. Buttenfield and R.B. McMaster (Eds.), Map Generalization: Making Rules for Knowledge Representation, Longman Scientific & Technical, 121-135, 1991.

  4. M. de Berg, M. van Kreveld, M. Overmars, and O. Schwarzkopf. Computational Geometry—Algorithms and Applications. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

  5. M. de Berg, M. van Kreveld, and S. Schirra. “Topologically correct subdivision simplification using the bandwidth criterion,” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 25(4):243-257, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. Burghardt and S. Meier. “Cartographic displacement using the snakes concept,” in W. Foerstner and L. Pluemer (Eds.), Semantic Modeling for the Acquisition of Topographic Information from Images and Maps Birkhaeuser Verlag: Germany, 59-71, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. L.P. Chew. “Constrained Delaunay triangulations,” Algorithmica, Vol. 4:97-108, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R.G. Cromley and G.M. Campbell. “Integrating quantitative and qualitative aspects of digital line simplification,” The Cartographic Journal, Vol. 29(2):25-30, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D.H. Douglas and T.K. Peucker. “Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature,” The Canadian Cartographer, Vol. 10(2):112-122, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  10. C. Duchêne, M. Barrault, and K. Haire. “Road network generalization: A multi agent system approach,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Cartographic Conference, Beijing, China, 2166-2177, 2001.

  11. S. Haljala. “Method of conjugate gradients for the solution of normal equations in the analytical block adjustment,” The Photogrammetric Journal of Finland, Vol. 6(2):160-165, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.G. Hardy. “Map production from an active object database, using dynamic representation and automated generalization,” The Cartographic Journal, Vol. 35(2):181-189, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L. Harrie. “The constraint method for solving spatial conflicts in cartographic generalization,” Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 26(1):55-69, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. L. Harrie and A.-K. Hellström. “A prototype system for propagating updates between cartographic data sets,” The Cartographic Journal, Vol. 36(2):133-140, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. L. Harrie and T. Sarjakoski. “Generalization of vector data sets by simultaneous least squares adjustment,” International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 33(A4):340-347, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. L. Harrie. “An optimisation approach to cartographic generalisation,” Doctorate thesis, Department of Surveying, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. P. Højholt. “Solving space conflicts in map generalization: Using a finite element method,” Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 27(1):65-73, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J.S. Keates. Understanding Maps (2nd Ed.), Addison Wesley Longman Limited: Essex, England, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  19. T. Kilpeläinen. “Multiple representation and generalization of Geo-Databases for topographic maps,” Doctorate thesis. Publications of the Finnish Geodetic Institute, No. 124, 1997.

  20. Laser-Scan. LAMPS2 program description (http://www.laser-scan.com/products/lamps2.htm, March 20, 2000), 2000.

  21. W.A. Mackaness. “Integration and evaluation of map generalization,” in B.P. Buttenfield and R.B. McMaster (Eds.), Map Generalization: Making Rules for Knowledge Representation, Longman Group: Essex, England, 217-226, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  22. W.A. Mackaness. “Issues in resolving visual spatial conflicts in automated map design,” in Proceedings of the 6th Spatial Data Handling Symposium, Edinburgh, Scotland, 325-340, 1994.

  23. S. Mustière, J.-D. Zucker, and L. Saitta. “An abstraction-based machine learning approach to cartographic generalisation,” in Proceedings of the 9th Spatial Data Handling Symposium, Beijing, China, 1a.50-1a.63, 2000.

  24. C. Plazanet, J.-G. Affholder, and E. Fritsch. “The importance of geometric modeling in linear feature generalization,” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 22(4):291-305, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Plazanet, N.M. Bigolin, and A. Ruas. “Experiments with learning techniques for spatial model enrichment and line generalization,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 2(4):315-333, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  26. N. Regnauld. “Recognition of building clusters for generalisation,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Delft, the Netherlands, 185-198, 1996.

  27. H.A. Robinson, J.L. Morrison, P.C. Muehrcke, A.J. Kimerling, and S.C. Guptill. Elements of Cartography (6th Ed.). Wiley: New York, NY, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. Ruas. “Multiple paradigms for automating map generalization: Geometry, topology, hierarchical partitioning and local triangulation,” in Proceedings of ACSM/ASPRS, 69-78, 1995.

  29. A. Ruas and C. Plazanet. “Strategies for automated generalization,” in Proceedings of the 7th Spatial Data Handling Symposium, Delft, The Netherlands, 319-336, 1996.

  30. A. Ruas. “Synthesis of a test on generalization,” Report from OEEPE Working Group on Generalization, 2001.

  31. A. Ruas. “The roles of meso objects for generalization,” in Proceedings of the 9th Spatial Data Handling Symposium, Beijing, China, 3b.50-3b.63, 2000.

  32. T. Sarjakoski. “Bundle block adjustment based on conjugate gradient and direct solution methods,” International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 24-III:425-445, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  33. T. Sarjakoski and T. Kilpeläinen. “Holistic cartographic generalization by least squares adjustment for large data sets,” in Proceedings of 19th International Cartographic Conference, Ottawa, Canada, 1091-1098, 1999.

  34. L. Schylberg. “Computational methods for generalization of cartographic data in a raster environment,” Doctorate thesis, Department of Geodesy and Photogrammetry, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, TRITA-FMI Report 1993:7, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. Sester. “Maastabhängige Darstellungen in digitalen räumlichen Datenbeständen,” Habilitationsschrift, Department of Photogrammetry, University of Stuttgart, 2000.

  36. M. Sester. “Generalization based on least squares adjustment,” International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol 33, Part C4:79-86, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  37. K.S. Shea and R.B. McMaster. “Cartographic generalization in a digital environment: When and how to generalize,” in Proceedings of 9th International Symposium on Computer-Assisted Cartography, Baltimore, USA, 56-67, 1989.

  38. J.R. Shewchuk. “Triangle: Engineering a 2-D quality mesh generator and Delaunay triangulator,” in First Workshop on Applied Computational Geometry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 124-133, 1996.

  39. M. Visvalingam and J.D. Whyatt. “Line generalization by repeated elimination of points,” Cartographic Journal, Vol. 30(1):46-51, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Z. Wang, and J.-C. Müller. “Line generalization based on analysis of shape characteristics,” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 25(1):3-15, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  41. J.M. Ware and C.B. Jones. “A spatial model for detecting (and resolving) conflict caused by scale reduction,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Delft, The Netherlands, 547-558, 1996.

  42. J.M. Ware and C.B. Jones. “Conflict reduction in map generalization using iterative improvement,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 2(4):383-407, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  43. R. Weibel and G.H. Dutton. “Constrained-based automated map generalization,” in Proceedings of the 8th Spatial Data Handling Symposium, Vancouver, Canada, 214-224, 1998.

  44. M.F. Worboys. GIS—A Computing Perspective. Taylor & Francis: London, England, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  45. S. Zoraster. “Integer programming applied to the map label placement problem,” Cartographica, Vol. 23(3):16-27, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  46. S. Zoraster. “Practical results using simulated annealing for point feature label placement,” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 24(4):228-238, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Real Estate Management, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Lars Harrie

  2. Department of Geoinformatis and Cartography, Finnish Geodetic Institute, P.O. Box 15, FIN-02431, Masala, Finland

    Tapani Sarjakoski

Authors
  1. Lars Harrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tapani Sarjakoski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harrie, L., Sarjakoski, T. Simultaneous Graphic Generalization of Vector Data Sets. GeoInformatica 6, 233–261 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019765902987

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019765902987

Search

Navigation