Advertisement

Route Adaptive Selection of Salient Features

  • Stephan Winter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2825)

Abstract

Human communication on wayfinding makes extensive use of landmarks. With a formal model of salience, route planning services can include landmarks as well. Such a model was presented considering visual, semantic, and structural properties of spatial features. This model measures saliency independent from a given route. Our hypothesis is that an additional factor is cognitively relevant for the selection of appropriate salient features: advance visibility for a person approaching a destination point. We will propose a computational measure for advance visibility. The new measure is used to identify suited salient features at route decision points: a feature is suited for a wayfinding instruction if it is (a) salient, and (b) in advance visible. The relevance of advance visibility is tested by a comparison of wayfinding success with instructions made with and without this additional measure. Computational effort is observed to check feasibility.

Keywords

Salient Feature Street Segment Visibility Area Decision Point Visibility Graph 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Deakin, A.K.: Landmarks as navigational aids on street maps. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 23, 21–36 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., Bertolo, L.: Spatial discourse and navigation: An analysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13, 145–174 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Michon, P.E., Denis, M.: When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions. In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205, pp. 292–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raubal, M., Winter, S.: Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: Egenhofer, M.J., Mark, D.M. (eds.) GIScience 2002. LNCS, vol. 2478, pp. 243–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sorrows, M.E., Hirtle, S.C.: The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661, pp. 37–50. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nothegger, C., Winter, S., Raubal, M.: Computation of the salience of features. Technical report, Institute for Geoinformation, Technical University ViennaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Golledge, R.G., Klatzky, R.L., Loomis, J.M., Speigle, J., Tietz, J.: A geographical information system for a gps based personal guidance system. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 12, 727–749 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nothegger, C.: Automatic Selection of Landmarks for Pedestrian Guidance. Diploma thesis, Vienna University of Technology (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Batty, M.: Exploring isovist fields: space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Environment and Planning B 28, 123–150 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Sullivan, D., Turner, A.: Visibility graphs and landscape visibility analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15, 221–237 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Batty, M., Jiang, B.: Multi-agent simulation: new approaches to exploring space-time. In: Annual Meeting of GISRUK, Southampton (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berg, M.d., Kreveld, M.v., Overmars, M., Schwarzkopf, O.: Computational Geometry, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fisher, P.F.: Extending the applicability of viewsheds in landscape planning. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 62, 1297–1302 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fisher, P.F.: An exploration of probable viewsheds in landscape planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 22, 527–546 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pavlidis, T.: Algorithms for Graphics and Image Processing. Springer, Berlin (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taaffe, E.J., Gauthier, H.L., O’Kelly, M.E.: Geography of transportation, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Habel, C.: Prozedurale Aspekte der Wegplanung und Wegbeschreibung. In: Schnelle, H., Rickheit, G. (eds.) Sprache in Mensch und Computer, pp. 107–133. WestdeutscherVerlag, Opladen (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siegel, A.W., White, S.H.: The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In: Reese, H.W. (ed.) Advances in child development and behavior, vol. 10, pp. 9–55. Academic Press, NewYork (1975)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montello, D.R.: Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In: Campari, I., Frank, A.U. (eds.) COSIT 1993. LNCS, vol. 716, pp. 312–321. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raubal, M., Egenhofer, M.: Comparing the complexity of wayfinding tasks in built environments. Environment and Planning B 25, 895–913 (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lovelace, K.L., Hegarty, M., Montello, D.R.: Elements of good route directions in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661, pp. 65–82. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gillner, S., Mallot, H.A.: Navigation and acquisition of spatial knowledge in a virtual maze. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10, 445–463 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Winter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for GeoinformationTechnical University ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations