ul 2004
the number of rings
ction
hape
re 9,
id is
erical
ng of
forces
lue of
1:
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B4. Istanbul 2004
Clustering
B^ | —> EN
1 [71
Deletion
[5]
Displacement
[
recs
Shape changing
Figure 11. Forces & generalization operators
5. DISCUSSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The method presented here for a new model of combined
generalization, makes use of spatial data mining to understand
the properties of objects and of topology in order to determine
their behavior in the generalization process. The algorithm
examines the generalization process from a new standpoint that
views the map as a stage in area warfare. Each object has its
power and the forces control the objects final position.
Experiment results on a limited level indicated implementation
of the method on objects belonging to a single layer of
buildings. Additional work is still required. A more thorough
investigation of object behavior in the generalization process
requires adding additional layers. of objects, handling linear
objects concurrently with polygonal objects, and dealing with
the topological relationship between the different layers.
REFERENCES
Brassel, K. E., and Weibel, R. 1988. A Review and Conceptual
Framework of Automated Map Generalization. Intennational
Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 229-
244.
Doytsher Y., 1979. Methods and Software for Creating Data-
Bases for Town Planning Compatible for Mini- Computers, Tth
European Symposium - Urban Data Management, Hague, The
Netherlands.
Guienko G., Doytsher Y.. 2003. GIS Data for Supporting
Feature Extraction from High Resolution Aerial and Satellite
Images. Journal of Surveying Engineering — ASCE.
Harrie, L., 2003. Weight — setting and Quality Assessment in
simultaneous | Graphic Generalization. The Cartographic
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 221-233.
Harrie, L., 1999. The Constraint Method for Solving Spatial
Conflicts in Cartographic Generalization. Cartography and
Geographic Information System, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 55-69.
Hu, M. k., 1962. Visual Pattern Recognition by Moment
Invariants. IRE Trans. Inf. Theory, 8, 179-187.
Joubran, J., and Gabay, Y., 2000. A Method for Construction of
2D Hull for Generalized Cartographic Representation.
Proceedings 9" Congress of. ISPRS, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
PP. 417-424.
Muller, LC. Weibel. R.. Laeranse, J.P., Sagle, F., 1995,
Genralization: State of the art and issues. In: GIS and
Generalization: methodology and practice, J.C. Muller, J.P.
Lagrange and R. Weibel eds., Taylor and Francis, Pp. 3-17.
Ruas, A., 2000. The Role of Meso Objects for Generalization.
Proceedings of the 9" Spatial Data Handling Symposium,
Bejing, Pp. 3b. 50-3b. 63.
Ruas, A., and Plazent, C. 1996, Strategies for Automated
Generalization. Advances in GIS Research, SDH' 96, pp. 319-
335.
Richardson, D. E., Mackaness, A. W., 1999. Computational
Processes for Map Generalization.(Introduction). Cartography
and Geographical Information System, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 3-5.
Sarjakoski, T., Kilpelaine, T., 1999. Holistic Cartographic
Generalization by Least Adjustment for Large Data sets, In:
“Proceeding ICA”, International Cartographic in Canada,
Session 39-D, Index 08, pp. 31-38.
Sester, M., 2000. Generalization Based on Least Square
Adjustment. International Archives of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing, Vol. XXXIII, Part B4. Amsterdam, pp. 931-
938.
Ware, J. M., Jones, C. B., 1998. Conflict Reduction in Map
Generalization Using Iterative Improvement. Geolnformatica,
Vol. 2, No. 4, pp: 383-407.
Weibel, R., Jones, C. B., 1998. Computational Perspective on
Map Generalization. Geolnformatica, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp: 307-
314.
