Digital Map Conflation

This article was downloaded by: [UJA University of Jaen]
On: 06 October 2011, At: 23:03

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Geographical

Information Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgis20
Digital map conflation: a review of the

process and a proposal for classification
a a a
Juan J. Ruiz , F. Javier Ariza , Manuel A. Ureña & Elidia B.
b
Blázquez
a
Department of Cartographic Engineering, University of Jaen,
Jaén, Spain
b
Department of Graphic Engineering, Design and Projects,
University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain
Available online: 06 Sep 2011
To cite this article: Juan J. Ruiz, F. Javier Ariza, Manuel A. Ureña & Elidia B. Blázquez (2011):
Digital map conflation: a review of the process and a proposal for classification, International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25:9, 1439-1466
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2010.519707
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
Vol. 25, No. 9, September 2011, 1439–1466
REVIEW ARTICLE
Digital map conflation: a review of the process and a proposal
for classification
Juan J. Ruiza, F. Javier Arizaa, Manuel A. Ureñaa* and Elidia B. Blázquezb
a
Department of Cartographic Engineering, University of Jaen, Jaén, Spain; bDepartment of Graphic
Engineering, Design and Projects, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain
(Received 21 January 2010; final version received 18 August 2010)
Downloaded by [UJA University of Jaen] at 23:03 06 October 2011
This article is centred on analysing the state of the art of the conflation processes applied
to geospatial databases (GDBs) from heterogeneous sources. The term conflation is used
to describe the procedure for the integration of these different data, and conflation
methods play an important role in systems for updating GDBs, derivation of new
cartographic products, densification of digital elevation models, automatic features
extraction and so on. In this article we define extensively each conflation process, its
evaluation measures and its main application problems and present a classification of all
conflation processes. Finally, we introduce a bibliography which the reader may find
useful to further explore the field. It tries to serve as a starting point and direct the reader
to characteristic research in this area.
Keywords: conflation; data fusion; data integration; interoperability; accuracy
1. Introduction
The domain of Geographical Information System (GIS) research is experiencing a rapid
growth of both computational power and quantity of information, making large spatial data
archives available over the Internet. Moreover, there is an increasing necessity to share this
information between different users. In this way GIS agencies have adopted a spatial data
infrastructure (SDI) model (Bernard et al. 2005, Masser 2005). The maintaining of SDI
implies the development of initiatives and associations to formalize global, international,
national and regional infrastructures for the creation of effective frames for data interchange,
including INSPIRE (INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe) (Directive 2007/2/CE;
EU 2007), SEIS (Shared Environmental Information System) (SEIS 2008), OGC (Open
Geospatial Consortium) or the Technical Committee 211 of ISO among others, with special
attention to 19,100 norm family.
The previous situation allows us to develop geospatial databases (GDBs) from hetero-
geneous sources, which cover the same geographical zone, describe the same information in
different forms and vary in density and accuracy (Beller et al. 1997). In this context the
general term conflation is used to describe the same procedure that other authors (Thakkar
and Knoblock 2003, 2004, Michalowski et al. 2004, Olteanu et al. 2006, Butenuth et al.
2007) have defined like data integration of these heterogeneous sources, arising from the
need to combine geographical information of several scales and precisions (Kyriakidis et al.
*Corresponding author. Email: maurena@ujaen.es
ISSN 1365-8816 print/ISSN 1362-3087 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2010.519707
http://www.tandfonline.com
1440 J.J. Ruiz et al.
1999), transferring attributes from one dataset to another or adding missing features. More
vague are the definitions of Cobb et al. (1998, 2000) or Edwards and Simpson (2002) that
refer to the conflation process as the action of unifying or integrating two different GDBs to
obtain an enriched product ‘better’ than the previous two. This definition agrees with the
traditional definition of data fusion that is commonly used in computer science and remote
sensing fields (Csathó and Schenk 1998, Lee and Shan 2003, Bartels et al. 2006, Chen et al.
2008, Elaksher 2008), and mainly for urban areas (Cornet et al. 2001, Fanelli et al. 2001,
Wald and Ranchin 2001). According to Stankut_e and Asche (2009), the fundamental concept
of data fusion is the extraction of the best-fit geometry data as well as the most suitable
semantic data from existing datasets so that the extracted data features are subsequently
amalgamated into a newly created dataset. These authors recognize the approaches of White
(1981) and Saalfeld (1985) as the first ones in the domain of data fusion or data integration.
Finally, the definition of conflation by Casado (2006) is more explicit and introduces the
basic concept of the conflation process, which is to identify the homologous elements
between both GDBs and to perform a suitable transformation which brings one map onto
the other.
According to Brovelli and Zambroni (2004), although the term map conflation was coined
in the early 1980s by Saalfeld, we cannot consider it a reality until the middle of this decade
when it appeared in the works of Lynch and Saalfeld (1985), Rosen and Saalfeld (1985),
Saalfeld (1985, 1988), Fagan and Soehngen (1987) and Lupien and Moreland (1987). In these
works the conflation process is considered as the main consequence of three factors: (i) the
need to compile a great number of digital maps with lower time cost, (ii) the technological
development achieved enough to support interactive and real-time management of a great
quantity of images and maps and (iii) the rapid development and implementation of mathe-
matical algorithms in the computational geometry environments (Preparata and Shamos
1985). This allowed the development of software needed to satisfy the conflation systems
(Saalfeld 1988), which were able to employ new triangulation routines (Gillman 1985,
Saalfeld, 1985), topologic transformations (White 1981, Griffin and White 1985, Saalfeld
1985) and pattern recognition techniques (Pavlidis 1982, Saalfeld 1987).
GDB conflation can be divided into two phases: the identification of possible corre-
spondences between elements (matching) and the alignment of these matchings (Gillman
1985, Gabay and Doytsher 1994). Traditionally, these phases have been executed in an
interactive way as indicated by Lupien and Moreland (1987) and Saalfeld (1988). Although
the identification problem has been resolved relatively easily, the correctness of the matching
has been more complex, as mentioned by Saalfeld (1985), Walter and Fritsch (1999) and
Uitermark (2001). To overcome the matching problem, Cobb et al. (1998) or Chen et al.
(2004) considered that the conflation procedure can be redefined by following three phases:
feature matching between spatial data, ensuring that there is no inappropriate matching and
the differences between matched objects are just apparent, and correcting spatial data or
creating new integrated data so that apparent differences are eliminated. Following Coob
et al. (1998), feature matching can be considered as a type of classification problem that can
be handled through theories of evidential reasoning or uncertainty, such as fuzzy logic. In
this sense, we note the works of Foley and Petry (2000) and Rahimi et al. (2006). The three
previously mentioned phases are completed by Yuan and Tao (1999) with a previous stage of
data pre-processing. This is used to standardize the input data, thus assuring confrontability.
Veregin and Giordano (1994) defined confrontability as the level at which it is possible to
fuse spatial datasets that occupy the same geographical region. Having this idea in mind, the
factors used to assure confrontability are the resolution level and generalization, the carto-
graphic scale, the data format and the projection.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 1441
Finally, we note that the conflation processes can be used to solve several practical
problems like spatial discrepancy deletion (Yuan and Tao 1999), spatial feature (or attri-
butes) transfer in the updating processes of GDBs (Tomaselli 1994, Dallal 1998) or the
development of new products that are the result of integrating GDBs from different sources
(Cobb et al. 1998).
In this article we define each conflation process, its evaluation measures and its main
application problems with the aim to serve as a starting point and direct the reader to
characteristic research in this area. Following this order, we have organized this article as
follows: In Sections 3–6 we describe the conflation processes according to the proposed
classification. In Sections 7 and 8 we catalogue the main applications of the processes and
analyse the main conflation software systems. At the end of the article there is a bibliogra-
phy, which the reader may find useful to further explore the field.
2. Classification of conflation processes

The classification of conflation processes is a very complex issue because of the need to
structure the several approaches from existing literature and classify the solutions proposed
by these approaches. To achieve a significant classification, we must take into account
several aspects of the processes (Table 1): not only the matching criteria used (Casado 2006)
or the categorization problem (Yuan and Tao 1999) but also the representation model or the
automatization factor used. Finally, we note that a specific kind of application or conflation
process does not necessarily have to be included in a unique category or class. It can be
associated with some of them.
3. Classification of conflation processes according to the matching criteria used

Casado (2006) classified the conflation problems of GDBs as the main criteria using the
properties used to compare and match both GDBs. We distinguish, then, between the
processes of geometric, semantic and topological conflation, according to the criteria used
to match the objects. These conflation processes are complementary.
The proposed conceptual model corresponds to a general conflation process, shown in
Figure 1. In this process, after testing that two GDBs have the same format, scale, carto-
graphic projection and reference system, we begin to determine the homologous elements of
both datasets, using the semantic filters and ontologies as debug operators that separate those
relevant elements from those useless to the process. Once we have obtained the homologous
elements, it is possible to evaluate the differences. Both intermediate stages can be included
as useful outputs of the conflation process (without the need to go further in the process) as
Table 1. Classification of conflation processes.

According to the matching criteria used According to the representation model used
-Geometric conflation -Conflation between two vector GDBs
-Semantic conflation -Conflation between a vector GDB and an image
-Topological conflation -Conflation between two images
-Conflation between an image and a DEM
-Conflation between two DEMs
According to the categorization problem According to the automatization level applied
-Vertical conflation -Automatic conflation
-Horizontal conflation -Semiautomatic conflation
-Temporal conflation -Manual conflation
- Points
- Lines
- Polygons
GDB1 Pre-processing GDB1′

Determination of
Filtering
homologous elements
GDB2 Pre-processing GDB2′
- Semantic
- Ontologies Evaluation
- Resolution of differences
-Generalization
-Scale
-Format
-Cartographic projection - Topological
constraints Geometric
- Geometric transformations
adjusting
GDB1
+
GDB2
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for the conflation process between two GDBs.
mentioned by Kucera and Clarke (2005). However, once evaluated the differences, we can
also establish the most appropriate geometric adjustments for the transformation of both
GDBs. These transformations include the topological modifications as constraints. After
erasing the possible differences, both GDBs can be matched.
3.1. Geometric conflation

3.1.1. Conceptualization
In the case of geometric conflation, when we are working with two GDBs, the problem is
defined as how to transform the features of one map onto another (target map) minimizing
the geometric differences between them (Casado 2006). These differences are presented as a
loss of positional interoperability created by displacements between the elements of a GBD
and the elements of the second one.
3.1.2. Evaluation measures

We propose the grouping of the sets of geometric evaluation measures for testing positional
interoperability in two classes: absolute and relative (or probabilistic) measures.
(1) Absolute measures are expressed in absolute terms. Matching between elements is
achieved when the selected parameter is lower than a predefined threshold. Distance
is the main absolute geometric parameter used to establish the differences between
the two GDBs. The employed distance is a function of the kind of element that we
are trying to match. Thus, it is convenient to use the Euclidean distance to match
points, whereas the average distance (McMaster 1986), the Hausdorff distance
(Hausdorff 1919, Mustière 1995, Yuan and Tao 1999, Deng et al. 2005) or the
Fréchet discrete distance (Fréchet 1906, Alt and Godau 1995, Devogele 2002) are
generally used to match lines. However, in the case of linear features, all the
mentioned distances are not appropriate. Thus, the Hausdorff distance only takes
into account the sets of points on both curves and does not reflect the course of the
lines (Alt and Buchin 2005), being able to happen that two lines which have a small
Hausdorff distance, do not look like one to each other at all. On the other hand, the
average distance depends on the selected points on the two lines so that different
selection of points can change the distance between them. To overcome this pro-
blem, it is more appropriate to use the Fréchet distance because of its greater
robustness with regard to the noise in the data. Kundu (2006) proposed an alternative
measure of distance between the lines optimizing matching using a previous trans-
formation of both orientation and position. However, there are examples that
distances are not suited to handle conflation problems, existing in other measure-
ment parameters that can be used to match the lines, such as the angles or orientation,
the geopositional relationships or the measures of similitude (McMaster 1986,

Mustière 1995) described in units of length or curvature. Finally, the motivation
for multiple polyline-to-polygons matching is twofold: First, the matching of shapes
has been performed mostly by comparing them as a whole (Arkin et al. 1991, Rosin
1993, Mokhtarian et al. 1996, Pentland et al. 1996, Siddiqi et al. 1999, Latecki and
Lakämper 2000, Veltkamp and Hagedoorn 2001, Samal et al. 2004). This fails when
a significant part of one shape is distorted by noise. Second, partial matching helps
identifying similarities even when a significant portion of one shape boundary is
occluded or distorted (Tanase 2005).
(2) Relative or probabilistic measures delimitate the conflation zone, as was described
by Savary and Zeitouni (2005), and are expressed in probabilistic or relative units.
One technique is the buffer method where a distance d is defined and associated with
a geometric object x belonging to GDB1. Each object (belonging to GDB2) whose
distance compared with the object x is less than d has a great probability of being
matched with x. The matching with the highest degree of probability is used to
resolve the conflation process. This model, developed by Walter and Fritsch (1999),
has been improved later by Mantel and Lipeck (2004), Stigmar (2005) and Zhang
et al. (2005). The second technique is the epsilon band method, where a tolerance
zone is associated with points and segments composing the polylines. In this
method, a circle of tolerance is associated with each point whose distance changes
according to the nature of the represented point. Then the circles associated with
each end of the segment are linked by their common tangent to build the tolerance
band (Gabay and Doytsher 1994).
3.1.3. Applications
We note that most studies of conflation refer to the geometric aspect of the process, perhaps
because its interest and evidence grows every time two different GDBs are combined.
Geometric adjustment operations have always been based on the dimensional transforma-
tions, and among all of these we notice the Helmert transformation (Watson 2006), the affine
transformation (Töbler 1994), the rubber-sheeting method (Gillman 1985, Griffin and White
1985, Saalfeld 1993, Doytsher 2000, Petry and Somodevilla 2000, Doytsher et al. 2001,
Kang 2002, Shimizu and Fuse 2003, Haunert 2005), the conformal transformations based on
analytical functions (Ward-Brown and Churchill 2004) and the special transformation
functions called ‘multiresolution spline’ (Brovelli and Zambroni 2004).
3.2. Semantic conflation

The geometric transformation of a GDB to minimize the positional differences with respect
to the second GDB does not guarantee the correct matching of the homologous elements of
those GDBs (Casado 2006). This error in matching is mainly due to semantic heterogeneity
(differences in intended meaning of terms in specific contexts) (Stuckenschmidt 2003).
Semantic heterogeneity of GDBs has been addressed in many works (Savary and Zeitouni
2003, Worboys and Duckham 2005, Maué 2008, Shvaiko and Euzenat 2008), and their
evaluation measures are based on the analysis of the semantic relationships established
between their elements (Chen et al. 2005). In this context, semantic conflation tries to
minimize the semantic differences between two GDBs caused by the semantic heterogeneity.

One of the previous tasks of the semantic evaluation of conflation processes is to apply
semantic filters (Savary and Zeitouni 2005). A semantic filter removes all those entities that
are irrelevant to the execution of the process. Once the filter is completed, the semantic
relationships among the entities have to be established. To obtain the evaluation two sets of
measures are proposed: those based on ontologies and those using artificial intelligence.
(1) Measures based on ontologies. Ontology is a logical theory that describes a domain of
interest and a specification of the meaning of terms used in the vocabulary (Vaccari et al.
2009). Based on the precision of this specification, the notion of ontology includes
various data and conceptual models (Euzenat and Shvaiko 2007). Ontologies provide
new solutions to the semantic heterogeneity problem in many applications, including
integration of GDBs (Morocho et al. 2003, Giunchiglia et al. 2008) and retrieval of
geographical information (Lutz and Klien 2006, Klien 2007). There are different
research approaches for semantic integration measures based on ontologies. Fonseca
et al. (2002) took a top–down approach by starting from ontologies and using the
concept of role to handle different conceptual views of geospatial information.
Rodrı́guez and Egenhofer (2003) based the measures on a similarity analysis of con-
cepts described in independent ontologies. Kovalerchuk et al. (2005b) provided a
framework for an imagery virtual expert system that supports imagery registration
and conflation tasks based on iconized ontologies. This approach generates ontological
iconic annotation of images to be able to compare and conflate images on conceptual
ontological level. Vaccari et al. (2009) adopted a particular type of ontology matching,
namely, structure preserving semantic matching (SPSM). This matching operation takes
two graph-like structures and produces a set of correspondences between those nodes of
the graphs that correspond semantically to one another (Giunchiglia et al. 2008).
(2) Measures based on artificial intelligence use the agent technology (Brodie 1992,
Robertson 2004) or mediators (Wiederhold 1994) as the main method for resolving
problems of semantic interoperation. According to Wiederhold (1994), mediation is
an integrating concept, combining a number of current technologies to find and
transform data. A mediator is an interchange software that allows the localization,
transformation and integration of geospatial data from different sources using
semantic interpretation. Moreover, the use of mediators eases the access to a great
variety of sources (Gravano et al. 1994), the selection of more relevant information
and the evaluation of the incorrect matching level achieved (Wiederhold 1994).
3.2.3. Applications
The most widely used application of the semantic conflation processes is the homo-
genization of the existing feature classes on a map. The existent information is
analysed and a new feature classification, consistent with the data and the scale, is
generated. This can result in a class grouping with fewer feature classes (Casado
2006). The most simple case that can be resolved, where the correspondence is
obvious, is where the two GDBs have the same set of attributes, relations between
them and categories (Yuan and Tao 1999).
3.3. Topological conflation

Even after removing the positional differences and assuring the semantic correspondences,
there is no guarantee of a correct matching between two GDBs. It is necessary that,
simultaneously, the topological relationships are preserved (Egenhofer and Franzosa 1991,
Li et al. 2002). In this sense, it can be stated that topological conflation is a consequence, and
hence the basis of the two previously described conflation processes (geometric and
semantic). This is because each positional change of the entities creates the need to generate
a new topology of the GDBs and the topological conflation is the complement used to
optimize geometric and semantic adjustments.

In this case, we cannot define evaluation measures as previously. Topological conflation has
a different approach that uses the information for global adjustment. The evaluation mea-
sures are grouped into active and passive measures.
(1) Active measures are based on the active participation of the information obtained
from the topological relations between the two GDBs. The active measures follow
the integration of the topological information in a global adjustment, and so improve
the quality of the matching between the entities of the GDBs using the topological
relationships. To obtain this improvement, the relationships must be actively applied
to global adjustment procedures, which help to preserve the topology. In the case
presented by Hope et al. (2006) and Hope and Kealy (2008), the topological
relationships are presented as constraints in a geometric minimum square adjustment
to optimize the global adjustment.
(2) Passive measures use the topology as a test element of the geometric conflation
process between GDBs without actively intervening in it. These are the cases
presented by Filin and Doytsher (2000) who develop a matching validation
procedure, named round-tripwalk, which tests the correctness of the matching
based on topological relationships from all the possible candidates; Mustière
and Devogele (2008) who propose a matching process, named NetMatcher,
based on the comparison of geometric, attributive and topological properties of
objects and Tong et al. (2009) who propose a probability-based feature match-
ing method by integrating multiple measures: geometric, semantic and
topological.
3.3.3. Applications
Topological conflation can be used to reduce the matching search in the geometric conflation
processes, or even to test the results obtained from such processes (Yuan and Tao 1999).
However, as described by Hope and Kealy (2008), the passive use considerably limits the
real possibility of topology as a part of the conflation processes. Another application of
topology as an integrator between GDBs is to extend the homologous element search and its
corresponding matching to all types of networks. This requires a high topological similitude
between GDBs, as described in the method called ‘Topological Transfer’ (Tomaselli 1994).
4. Classification of conflation processes according to the representation model used

Before we can classify the conflation processes based on the model used, it is necessary to
briefly define the models. The geographical information can be stored in vector or raster
format (Burrough 1986). The raster model, and thus the raster format, divides the space into
cells of homogeneous size, each having one value. Once we increase the cell size, the
resolution decreases and so the precision of the representation of the geographical informa-
tion. This model is mainly used in studies that require continuous layers to represent non-
discrete phenomena. In this sense, a digital image and a digital elevation model (DEM) can
be considered as particular cases of raster products. However, in the case of the vector model,
positional precision is the most important attribute of each element without obliging the
phenomena to have discrete representation. This second model uses, to represent real world
entities, three kinds of geometric elements: points, lines and polygons.
4.1. Conflation between vector GDBs (V vs. V)

The origin of the conflation processes between vector GDBs is in the necessity of optimizing
products. In the case of comparing two different data sources, one having greater precision in
attribute and the other in position, we would desire a fusion of both sources to obtain one
product with the best of both characteristics. Saalfeld (1985, 1987) and Lynch and Saalfeld
(1985) were the first to propose a matching methodology between two vector GDBs.
4.1.2. Difficulties, entities used and applications

Difficulties arise because of matching complexity, mainly because of the heterogeneity of
the characteristics (form, position or scale) of the products compared. To match both vector
GDBs, we can use points (Lynch and Saalfeld 1985, Saalfeld 1985, 1987, VITAL 1997,
Kang 2001, 2002, Volz 2006, Schuurman et al. 2006), lines (Saalfeld 1988, Walter and
Fritsch 1999, Doytsher 2000, Gabay and Doytsher 2000, Brovelli and Zambroni 2004,
Mantel and Lipeck 2004, Kampshoff 2005, Stigmar 2005, Zhang et al. 2005) or polygons
(Arkin et al. 1991, Gombosi et al. 2003, Masuyama 2006).
Examples of this process are the combination of two sets of topographical data, the
detection of temporal changes in GDBs and the conflation of digital gazetteer (DG) data
(Hastings 2008). The first case is described by Casado (2006), who analysed the most
appropriate geometric transformations to reduce the differences between the GDBs. Figure 2
shows two kinds of geometric differences described by Casado (2006): (a) crossing is
translated without preserving the angles or orientations of the lines, whereas in (b) there is
a simple translation of the junction between the lines. The detection of temporal changes in
Figure 2. Examples of geometric differences between two vector GDBs.
GDBs is described by several authors like Schuurman et al. (2006) in the Canada census
case, or Kang (2001) in the US Bureau census case.
4.2. Conflation between a vector GDB and an image (V vs. I)

This conflation obtains products by integrating the structuring and modelling of the vector
GDBs and the semantic component of the images. The conflation processes between a vector
GDB and an image were developed as a result of the identification and extraction of features
(roads or buildings) from imagery (Fischler et al. 1981, Gugan and Dowman 1988, Fortier
et al. 1999, Price 1999, Nevatia and Price 2002, Song et al. 2006, Doucette et al. 2007,
Kovalerchuk et al. 2008). However, Hild and Fritsch (1998), who inspired on the method for
the vectorization of land maps of Musavi et al. (1988), and mainly Chen et al. (2003, 2004)
develop a global alignment methodology between vector and images. Wu et al. (2007)
proposed to break the global alignment problem into a set of local domains where the
displacement between imagery and vectors is approximated by a translation.

In this case the main issue is the complexity inherent in determining the minimum precision
of the homologous elements of the image. The main entities used are points. Chen et al.
(2003) proposed the uses of road junctions as points to accomplish matching. Several
authors (Chen et al. 2003, Chiang et al. 2005, 2009) utilized techniques based on observa-
tions of pixel tone to extract pixels from images. They implement a method that analyses the
shape of the greyscale histogram and classifies the histogram clusters based on their sizes.
Thus, the goal of these techniques is the partition of the original image into a set of regions
that are visually distinct and uniform with respect to certain statistical properties. However,
the majority of real imageries regions do not display this statistical uniformity because of the
remaining noise coming from the small objects. To solve these problems, Ruiz et al. (2011)
developed an algorithm for identifying and extracting pixels that belong to road intersections
based on a non-parametric approach to texture analysis. They measure the distributions of
simple texture by the local binary patterns (LBP) (Ojala et al. 1996, Ojala and Pietikäinen
1999).
A highly representative example of overlapping between a vector GDB and an image in
the web is the representation of the cadastral parcel mapping over orthophotos at 1 m
resolution by the Spanish virtual cadastral office (Figure 3). Another important applications
of this conflation process are (i) the updating of GDBs making use of high-resolution
Figure 3. Examples of superposition of a vector GDB on an image. In both cases we can appreciate
the leak of coherence between the vector elements (border of the path, parcel boundary line or
buildings) and the digital orthophoto. Source: Virtual Cadastral Office. https://ovc.catastro.meh.es.
imagery (Song et al. 2006, 2009), (ii) the possibility of integrating information from spatial
information systems such as GIS and searchable databases of geo-referenced imagery
(Gupta et al. 1999, Dare 2000) and (iii) the possibility of detecting inconsistencies in vector
data using oblique images (Mishra 2008).
4.3. Conflation between two Images (I vs. I)

The combination or integration of images enriches the resulting product and gives us more
possibilities for its applications such as remote sensing or photogrammetric processing.

The problem of imagery conflation requires sophisticated and robust methods to produce
better image fusion, target recognition and tracking (Kovalerchuk et al. 2005a). From the
initial techniques using points (Brookshire et al. 1990, Besl and McKay 1992, Feldmar and
Ayache 1994, Zhang 1994, Afek and Brand 1998, Dare 2000, Wang et al. 2001, Brown
2002, Terzopoulos et al. 2003, Shah and Xiao 2005), we have evolved to (i) the use of
defined areas with a determined number of image pixels using the radiometric level as an
attribute for correlation techniques (Kovalerchuk and Schwing 2002, Kovalerchuk and
Sumner 2003, Kovalerchuk et al. 2004), (ii) the use of new algebraic structural invariant
approaches (invariant to geometric distortions and change of image resolution) to identify
corresponding linear and area features in two images (Kovalerchuk et al. 2005a, 2006,
Kovalerchuk 2007) and (iii) the use of geostatistical approaches for quantifying spatial
autocorrelation inherent in regionalized variables (Zhang et al. 2009).
Conflation between two images is a common process both in multispectral remote
sensing studies (Zhou 1994) and in aerial images alignment (Wang et al. 2003). In the first
case, band combination is a commonly used procedure, because even in multitemporal
studies it is necessary to use some scenes from the same geographical zone obtained at
different dates. The second case includes digital photogrammetry, where the focus is on
obtaining automatic orientation processes to determine different homologous points. This is
achieved with the matching of radiometric patterns of two images (Schenk 1994) (Figure 4).
Another important application is cartographic motion representation, which increases our
Figure 4. Matching with radiometric patterns. In both images we have marked the search zone.
understanding of complex spatial evolutionary procedures (Acevedo and Masuoka 1997,

Sidiropoulos et al. 2005).
4.4. Conflation between images and DEMs (I vs. E)

This conflation is achieved to obtain products that integrate the model capabilities of a DEM
or a surface elevation model (SEM) with the semantic and interpretative component of an
image.

The main difficulties arise when comparing the products having height information, DEM or
SEM, with others which only have radiometric data. For this reason, it can be said that this
conflation process has a high estimative component, because the visual evaluation tasks are of
great importance. Even if the image has no height information, it can be derived from the
resulting information integrated in the topography. Using this information, the comparison can
be determined by matching these new entities with the same ones from the DEM or SEM.
The main processes of conflation between images and DEM are the 3D reconstruction of
urban zones using an SEM or the 3D reconstruction of buildings (Figure 5). In these cases
the height data are obtained from a laser sensor, for example, laser scanner without a clear
definition of the break lines of the 3D model (Haala 1994, Kraus and Pfeifer 1998,
Ackermann 1999). These break lines of the SEM must be defined using other methodolo-
gies. McIntosh and Krupnik (2002) reconstructed the boundaries of the buildings by over-
laying original SEM with aerial imagery. Another application is the development of flight
simulations which, as it allows us to see buildings in 3D, changes the way we read maps
(Sidiropoulos et al. 2005).
Figure 5. 3D reconstruction of urban zones and buildings using a SEM.
4.5. Conflation between DEMs (E vs. E)

The combination of DEMs is achieved to remove gaps or discontinuities on height data to
obtain a complete and continuous representation of the terrain, with the continuity expressed
in terms of both continuous height representation and continuous topological representation
(Katzil and Doytsher 2003). We must note that the concept of DEM is used here in a wide
sense, including several height data models (raster, disperse points, triangular irregular
networks, etc.) obtained from different sources that can use different formats and densities.

The methodologies used to combine overlapping DEMs offer a partial solution only
regarding the completeness and continuity requirements, as they address only the issue of
height representation of the terrain, but not its characteristics (Laurini 1998). The entities
used are height points included in both DEMs.
Following Katzil and Doytsher (2003), two types of methodologies are used to merge
overlapping terrain databases: (i) Cut and paste: the less accurate (usually lower density)
database is replaced with the more accurate (usually higher density) database in the over-
lapping zones; and (ii) Height smoothing: Heights of the merged database in the edge zones
between the two databases are calculated using a weighted average of heights from both
databases, with weighting defined as a function of the different database accuracy levels.
However, in both methodologies the nature of the terrain is not preserved. To solve this
problem, Katzil and Doytsher (2006) proposed the use of overlapping adjacent DEMs
assuming the existence of a set of homologous point pairs between the two DTMs (extracted
using the Scale Invariant Feature Transform described in Lowe 2004) and integrating both
datasets with the continuity expressed in terms of continuous height representation and
Figure 6. Merging two adjacent DEMs: (a) Left DEM. (b) Right DEM. (c) Merged DEM using
cut-and-paste method. (d) Merged DEM using Katzil methodology (Katzil and Doytsher 2003).
continuous topological representation (morphological structures) (Figure 6). Kyriakidis

et al. (1999) employed a geostatistical approach for integrating elevation estimates derived
from DEMs and elevation measurements of higher accuracy. Both set of data are employed
for modelling the unknown elevation surface in a way that properly reflects the relative
reliability of the two sources of information. Stochastic conditional simulation is performed
for generating alternative representations of the unknown surface. From this set of repre-
sentations, the probability that the unknown value is greater than that reported at each node
in the DEM is determined.
5. Classification of Conflation processes according to the categorization problem

Once the conflation processes have been grouped based on the matching criteria and the
model of the products used, we proceed to categorize the problem, paying special attention
to the description of where the processes are used. Yuan and Tao (1999), as a first
approach, classified the conflation problems of GDBs, based on their categorization, in
two ways: vertical conflation and horizontal conflation. We have added a third type of
conflation, related to the temporal aspect to the process. We call this temporal conflation.
The time factor is of great interest because it is the source of the changes in GDBs. In this
section we define each process, specifying some utilities and citing their representative
examples.
5.1. Vertical conflation

Vertical conflation is concerned with detecting and erasing the differences between spatial
datasets that occupy the same geographical region.
5.1.2. Processes where used and difficulties

It is mainly applied to interoperation tasks between GDBs, generally vector GDBs. Among
the main problems we note the lack of interoperability between two GDBs corresponding to
geographical information, which is modelled as networks with different levels of details:
roads (Safra et al. 2006), specifically the ones that exist in the ITS (Intelligent Transport
Systems); railways; electric lines and rivers (Mustière and Devogele 2008). In road’s case,
the lack of interoperability of GDBs does not allow us, for example, to communicate the
localization of an object or an event (moving vehicle, accident, available hotel, highway

closure, etc.) unambiguously and in real time to suitably equipped recipients (Noronha et al.
1999).
5.1.3. Solutions and applications

The solutions to these difficulties are based on (i) the geometric criteria, mainly related to the
development of simulation processes, which allow us to generate positional distortion
models using point elements in vector GDBs; and (ii) the comparison of geometric,
semantic, and topological properties of objects. In the first case, distortion models, or error
fields (Figure 7), can be densified using geostatistic techniques to minimize the errors of the
Figure 7. Superposition of two GDBs and calculation of the error surface generated by the magnitude
of the distortion vectors.
methods and the processes involved in maps production. In the second case, the main
advantage is the possibility of incorporating the topological organization to achieve an
efficient matching. There are numerous studies related to the interoperability problems
between GDBs used in ITS. Among these we consider the work of Volz (2005, 2006),
Hunter and Goodchild (1996), Funk et al. (1998), Church et al. (1998) and Noronha et al.
(1999), all a consequence of the VITAL project (Vehicle Intelligence & Transportation
Analysis Laboratory 1997) of the University of California, USA. With respect to the electric
lines or railways, we consider the works of Mustière and Devogele (2008).
5.2. Horizontal conflation

Horizontal conflation is related to detecting and erasing the differences between the common
boundaries of adjacent datasets (Gregory and Ell 2006) or adjacent image tiles mosaic (Chen
2008).

The development of these processes is usual in cadastral services, and merging adjacent
DEMs (Katzil and Doytsher 2003) previously shown in Figure 6. The main problems with
horizontal conflation are: (i) detecting and erasing the spatial differences between common
limits (boundaries) of two adjacent GDBs, where these datasets are generated and managed
independently by different administrative entities, and (ii) relative misalignment of image
tiles in satellite image mosaics regarding ground features, such as roads, with no considera-
tion on the issue of absolute accuracy (Chen 2008).

The Cadastral organization and its information systems must evolve from procedures and
corporative systems towards a real interoperability with public administrations and private
partners interested in territorial management (Conejo and Velasco 2007). To achieve this
goal, proposed solutions focus on matching the common boundaries of both GDBs using the
linear entities as the element of comparison. Beard and Chrisman (1988) were the first to
define the problem of horizontal conflation, whereas Coren and Doytsher (1998) developed
the first algorithm used to find the optimum matching between GDBs. Gregory (2002) or
Seung-Hyun et al. (2005) attempted to erase the positional differences between adjacent city
boundaries. Other authors like Chen (2008) adopt a statistical approach to derive critical
parameters from sampled features for describing their geometrical deviations across adjacent
image tiles.
5.3. Temporal conflation

Temporal conflation is related to detecting and eliminating differences between spatial
datasets that occupy the same geographical zone at two different points in time.

This kind of process is normally used in updating GDBs. These GDBs are repeated and
updated from time to time so, although questions and definitions change (Norris and
Mounsey 1983), a wealth of similar information is available over a long period of time
(Gregory 2002). These updating processes usually refer to temporal conflation between
GDBs that have a vector mechanism. The difficulties of incorporating time in the basic GIS
data model are well known. Time has long been a thorn in the side of all GIS developers
(Morris et al. 2000). The main problem is that of detecting differences between two GDBs of
the same location as a consequence of the difference between their respective acquisition
times.

Generally, the solutions proposed to solve this problem are based on the comparison of each
polygon (e.g. cadastral parcels) included in the first GDB with all the polygons in the second
GDB. However, as it is described by Preparata and Shamos (1985), this solution is the worst
possible, because the execution time required by the algorithm is extremely high. Gregory
(2002) used a variety of European projects and described how they have attempted to add a
temporal dimension to the vector GIS data model to create fully spatio-temporal databases
for routinely collected socio-economic statistics. Among the literature we consider the works
of Shmutter and Doytsher (1992), Doytsher and Gelbman (1995), Coren and Doytsher
(1998), Gombosi et al. (2003), Gregory (2002), Gregory and Ell (2006), Masuyama
(2006) and Kovalerchuk and Kovalerchuk (2007). These authors develop different meth-
odologies to solve the lack of efficiency in time. Their methodologies range from finding
repetitive geometric structures (between the two vector GDBs) using spatial indexing to
match polygons of both GDBs using their representative points. Finally, Doucette et al.
(2009) presented a quantitative evaluation methodology of spatial accuracy for automated
vector data-updating methods based on both timed comparison between manual- and
automation-based extraction and measures of spatial accuracy.
6. Level of automatization of conflation processes and conflation post-processing

Until now, the implementation limits have not allowed the development a ‘sufficiently
intelligent’ conflation system that can identify and recognize, on its own, the homologous
elements in two different GDBs, thus completing the matching process having a high quality
level. For example, in the case of two vector GDBs, it is necessary to achieve an efficient
matching, to know the geometric, semantic and topological relationships between both
datasets, which allow a user to delete or add correspondences that are not correctly matched
by the automated algorithm (Xiong 2000). Therefore, in these cases it is necessary for a post-
processing task. In this way, the quality of conflation processes and their success can be
defined and evaluated on the basis of (i) the time needed for manual inspection of the results
obtained from the automated matching algorithm (editing of the results and checking them)
(Xiong and Sperling 2004), or the time comparison between manual and automation based-
conflation (Doucette et al. 2009); and (ii) measures of spatial accuracy obtained from the
comparison of the results with ground truth. Both timed comparison between manual- and
automation based-extraction and measures of spatial accuracy are needed. In this sense
Doucette et al. (2009) developed a quantitative and meaningful evaluation methodology of
spatial accuracy for automated vector GDBs updating methods.
We note that the degree of accuracy of the automatic matching classifies the methodol-
ogy and gives us the chance to use semiautomatic or even completely manual methods. In
this sense, Lemarie and Raynal (1996) were the first to establish a classification based on the
degree of automatism. Following these authors, conflation processes can be classified as
being automatic, semiautomatic or completely manual.
In any case, current developments in artificial intelligence, specifically the agent theory,
mean that both the complexity and the number of tasks that can be completely automated are
growing, and the accuracy of matching processes is been improved. Following Arunachalam
et al. (2003), an agent can be defined as an autonomous software entity that can solve
problems and has the adaptive and learning capacity used to adjust its responses based on
previous experience. The conflation processes follow this trend. The algorithms have been
improved, helping to increase the degree of automatization of these conflation processes.
This improvement has been achieved with three main objectives: increasing the number of
elements used in the process, reducing the significance of the sampling and reducing the
final costs.
7. Catalogue of the main applications of the conflation process

Following the proposed classification, we have selected a set of the most relevant tasks
where the conflation processes between GDB are very important. Table 2 shows the
distribution of these tasks based on the focus of products used and the process catalogue.
As can be seen in Table 2, most of the vertical conflation processes are focused on obtaining
new products and assuring interoperability between them, whereas the temporal conflation
process is mainly concerned with updating the GDB.
8. Conflation software systems and solved task

With the development of conflation techniques, many private organizations and public
entities dedicated to GIS development have implemented their own conflation software
systems and commercial conflation tools. Some of these conflation tools are shown below.
ConfleX is a conflation tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to automatically match
GIS feature from multiple GDB sources and allow for transfer of attributes. Once the
automated conflation is completed, the system provides extensive tools for review and
quality control of the assigned features.
JCS Conflation Suite performs various kinds of geospatial conflation processes. The
system supports operations for detecting and visualizing errors and both automatic and
manual cleaning functions to adjust geometry. JCS provides manual editing tools to perform
human-assisted conflation for cases that automated methods cannot solve.
MapMerger (developed by ESEA) is a conflation software that provides the capability to
manage points, lines and polygons between two overlapping GDBs. This system is also
capable of both conflating large datasets efficiently and solving the GDB update process
quickly.
TotalFit is a process that exactly aligns multiple spatial GDBs and provides an affordable
choice between the accuracy of expensive survey quality data and inconsistency of the non-
aligned spatial data. This system is not static. Once alignment relations are established,
ongoing updates of spatial data are developed.
1456
Table 2. Distribution of the more usual application of the conflation processes.

Frequent applications Process categorization Based on the models of GDBs Entities used
Vert. Horiz. Temp. V vs. V V vs. I I vs. I I vs. E E vs. E Points Lines Polygons
Updating of GDBsCadastral applications * * * * *
Quality control of cartographic products * * * *
Densification of DEM and SEM * * *
Change detection in attribute and position * * * *
Erasing the differences between common boundaries * * * *
Automatic object extraction * * * *
Mosaic generation * * *
Interoperability between GDBs * * * *
* * * * * * * *
J.J. Ruiz et al.
Derivation of new cartographic products

Photogrammetric orientation * * *
3D Building reconstruction * * *
Flight simulations * * **
Adjacent overlapping of GDBs * * * * ** *
Attribute transfer * * * *
*Using image pixels.

**Using ground elements.
9. Conclusion and future directions of conflation processes

In this article, an overview of what has happened in the theoretical and practical development
of conflation is presented. We have analysed the different processes related to the conflation
process between GDBs, with reference to previous ulterior studies or research related to this
area. Moreover, we distinguish between three kinds of conflation processes: (i) process
categorization, (ii) based on the models of the GDBs and (iii) entities used. This classification
provides a global and rapid view of the issue, giving a clear idea of what constitutes a
conflation of GDBs. Future directions of conflation research include uncertainty propagation
during the processes, the development of geostatistical prediction and simulation methods or
the development of tools to increase the degree of automatization of conflation processes.
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Spain under Grant
No. BIA2003-02234 and by the Regional Ministry of Innovation, Science and Enterprise of Andalusia
(Spain) under Grant No. P08-TIC-4199.
The authors also acknowledge the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain) for their constant
financial support since 1997 to their research group (Ingenierı́a Cartográfica, Code TEP-164).
References
Acevedo, W. and Masuoka, P., 1997. Time series animation techniques for visualizing urban growth.
Computers & Geosciences, 23 (4), 423–435.
Ackermann, F., 1999. Airborne laser scanning-present status and future expectations. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54 (1), 64–67.
Afek, Y. and Brand, A., 1998. Mosaicking of Orthorectified Aerial Images. Photogrammetric
Engineering & Remote Sensing, 64 (2), 115–125.
Alt, H. and Buchin, M., 2005. Semi-computability of the Fréchet distance between surfaces. In:
Proceedings of the 21st European Workshop on Computational Geometry, 9–11 March 2005,
Eindhoven, Netherlands. Available online at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?
doi=10.1.148.2774 [Accessed 20 April 2010].
Alt, H. and Godau, M., 1995. Computing the Fréchet distance between two polygonal curves.
International Journal of Computational Geometry and Applications, 5 (1/2), 75–91.
Arkin, E., et al., 1991. An efficiently computable metric for comparing polygonal shapes. IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13 (3), 209–216.
Arunachalam, R., et al., 2003. The TAC Supply Chain Management Game. CMU-CS-03-184.
Technical report.
Bartels, M., Wei, H., and Ferryman, J., 2006. Analysis of LIDAR data fused with co-registered bands.
In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on advanced video and signal-based surveil-
lance, 22–24 November Sydney, Australia. Available from: http://www.cvg.reading.ac.uk/
projects/LIDAR/index.html [Accessed 20 April 2010].
Beard, M. and Chrisman, N., 1988. Zipper: a localized approach to edgematching. The American
Cartographer, 15 (2), 163–172.
Beller, A., Doytsher, Y., and Shimbersky, E., 1997. Practical Linear Conflation in an innovative
software environment. In: Proceedings of 1997 ACSM/ASPRS, 7–10 April 1997 Seattle,
USA. Available from: http://libraries.maine.edu/Spatial/contents/proceedings/acsm97.htm
[Accessed 16 December 2009].
Bernard, L., et al., 2005. Towards an SDI research agenda. In: Proceedings 11th EC-GI & GIS
workshop, June 29–July 1 2005 Alghero, Italy. Available from: http://www.geoinfo.uji.es/pubs/
2005-SDIResearchAgenda.pdf [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Besl, P. and McKay, N., 1992. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14 (2), 239–256.
Brodie, M., 1992. The promise of distributed computing and the challenges of legacy information
systems. In: proceedings of IFIP DS-5 semantics of interoperable database systems, 16–20
November 1992. Lorne, Australia. Available from: https://eprints.kfupm.edu.sa/70963/1/

70963.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2009].
Brookshire, G., Nadler, M., and Lee, C., 1990. Automated stereophotogrammetry. Computer Vision,
Graphics & Image Processing, 52, 276–296.
Brovelli, M. and Zambroni, G., 2004. Adaptive transformations of cartographic bases by means of
multiresolution spline interpolation. In: Proceedings of XXth ISPRS congress, 12–23 July 2004
Istambul, Turkey. Available from: http://www.isprs.org/congresses/istanbul2004/comm2/papers/
Brown, L., 2002. A survey of image registration techniques. ACM Computing Surveys, 24 (4),
325–376.
Burrough, P., 1986. Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment
(Monographs on soils and resources survey). New York: Oxford University Press.
Butenuth, M., et al., 2007. Integration of heterogeneous gespatial data in a federated data-base. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 62, 328–346.
Casado, M., 2006. Some basic mathematical constraints for the geometric conflation problem.
In:M. Caetano and M. Painho, eds. 7th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment
in natural resources and environmental sciences, 5–7 July 2006 Lisbon, Portugal. Available from:
http://www.spatial-accuracy.org/system/files/Casado2006accuracy.pdf [Accessed 16 December
2009].
Chen, C., et al., 2003. Automatically annotating and integrating spatial datasets. In: Proceedings of
international symposium on spatial and temporal databases, 24–27 July 2003 Santorini Island,
Greece. Available from: http://www.isi.edu/info-agents/papers/chen03-sstd.pdf [Accessed 17
December 2009].
Chen, C., Shahabi, C., and Knoblock, C., 2004. Utilizing road network data for automatic identification
of road intersections from high resolution color orthoimagery. In: Proceedings of the second
workshop on spatio-temporal database management (STDBM0 04), 30th August Toronto,
Canada. Available from: http://infolab.usc.edu/DocsDemos/stdbm04.pdf [Accessed 17
December 2009].
Chen, L., et al., 2008. Shaping polyhedral Buildings by the fusion of vector maps and lidar point
clouds. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 74 (9), 1147–1157.
Chen, P., 2008. Validation on Internet satellite image mosaic and e-maps. In: The International
Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol.
XXXVII. Part B4, 3–11 July 2008 Beijing, China. Available from: http://www.isprs.org/proceed-
ings/XXXVII/congress/4_pdf/124.pdf [Accessed 21 April 2010].
Chen, Y., et al., 2005. Conflation technology using in spatial data integration on the internet. In:
Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Bellingham, WA, INTERNATIONAL.
Image processing and pattern recognition in remote sensing. Honolulu HI, US, 56–63.
Chiang, Y., Knoblock, C., and Chen, C., 2005. Automatic Extraction of Road Intersections from raster
maps. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM international symposium on advances in geographic
information systems, 4–5 November 2005 Bremen, Germany. Available from: http://portal.ac-
m.org/citation.cfm?id=1097102 [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Chiang, Y., Knoblock, C., and Chen, C., 2009. Automatic and accurate extraction of road intersections
from raster maps, Geoinformatica, 13 (2), 121–157.
Church, R., et al., 1998. Positional distortion in geographic data sets as a barrier to interoperation. In:
Proceedings of American congress on surveying and mapping, March. Baltimore, MD,
US. Available from: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/vital/research/pubs/posnacsm.pdf [Accessed 21
December 2009].
Cobb, M., et al., 1998. A rule-based approach for the conflation of attributed vector data.
Geoinformatica, 2 (1), 7–35.
Cobb, M., Petry, F., and Shaw, K., 2000. Title: Fuzzy spatial relationship refinements based on
minimum bounding rectangle variations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113 (1): 111–120.
Conejo, C. and Velasco, A., 2007. Cadastral Web services in Spain. In: proceedings of 13th EC-GI&GIS
workshop. Inspire time: ESDI for the environment, 4–6 July 2007 Porto, Portugal. Available from: http://
www.eurocadastre.org/pdf/conejo_serrano_velasco_GI_GIS_abstract_dgcadastre.pdf [Accessed 17
December 2009].
Coren, I. and Doytsher, Y., 1998. Cartographic edge matching: mapping the problem towards a
computer based solution. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACSM annual convention, 28 February– 5
March 1998 Baltimore. Available from: http://libraries.maine.edu/Spatial/contents/proceedings/

acsm98.htm [Accessed 17 December 2009].
Cornet, Y., et al., 2001. RS Data fucion using local mean and variance matching algorithms: their
respective efficiency in different urban contex. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ISPRS Joint workshop on
remote sensing and data fusion over urban areas, 8–9 November 2001 Rome, Italy. Available
from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=985698 [Accessed 20 April
2010].
Csathó, B. and Schenk, T., 1998. A multisensor data fusion for automatic scene interpretation. In: The
international archives of photogrammetry, remote sensing, and spatial information sciences, 6–10
July 1998 Columbus, OH, US. Vol. XXXII, Part 3/1, 429–434.
Dallal, S., 1998. Automated attribution of shapefile data through map merging. In: ESRI user con-
ference0 98, 27–31 July 1998 San Diego, USA. Available from: http://www.esea.com/software/
p306.html [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Dare, P., 2000. Automatic registration of multi source remotely sensed images and other non image
spatial information products. University of Melbourne, Australia. Available from: www.sli.uni-
melb.edu.au/pdare/arspc_dare.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Deng, M., Chen, X., and Li, Z., 2005. A generalized Hausdorff distance for spatial objects in GIS. In:
Proceedings of the 4th ISPRS workshop on dynamic and multi-dimensional GIS, 5–8 September
Pontypridd, UK.
Devogele, T., 2002. A new merging process for data integration based on the discrete Fréchet distance.
In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on spatial data handling (SDH) 02, 9–12 July
2002 Ottawa, Canada, 167–181. Available from: http://www.isprs.org/commission4/proceed-
ings02/pdfpapers/095.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
DIRECTIVE 2007/2/CE du Parlement Européen et du Conseil, 2007. Journal official de l’Union
européenne [online]. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
OJ:L:2007:108:0001:0014:fr:PDF [Accessed 20 April 2010].
Doucette, P., et al., 2007. A methodology for automated vector-to-image registration. In: IEEE, 36th
applied imagery pattern recognition workshop, 10–12 October 2007 Washington, DC, US, pp.
9–14.
Doucette, P., et al., 2009. An evaluation methodology for vector data updating. In: S.S. Shen and P.E.
Lewis, eds. Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral and ultraspectral ima-
gery XV. Bellingham, WA: SPIE-International Society for Optical Engineering.
Doytsher, Y., 2000. A rubber sheeting algorithm for non-rectangular maps. Computer & Geosciences,
26 (9), 1001–1010.
Doytsher, Y., Filin, S., and Ezra, E., 2001. Transformation of datasets in a linear-based map conflation
framework. Surveying and Land Information Systems, 61 (3), 159–169.
Doytsher, Y. and Gelbman, E., 1995. A rubber sheeting algorithm for cadastral maps. Journal of
Surveying Engineering, 121 (4), 55–162.
Edwards, D. and Simpson, J., 2002. Integration and access of multi-source vector data. In: Symposium
on geospatial theory, processing and applications, 9–12 July 2002 Ottawa, Canada. Available
from: http://www.isprs.org/commission4/proceedings02/pdfpapers/269.pdf [Accessed 21
December 2009].
Egenhofer, M. and Franzosa, R., 1991. Point-set topological spatial relations. International Journal of
Geographical Information Systems, 5 (2), 161–174.
Elaksher, A., 2008. Fusion of hyperspectral images and lidar-based dems for coastal mapping. Optics
and Lasers in Engineering, 46 (7), 493–498.
Euzenat, J. and Shvaiko, P., 2007. Ontology matching. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Fagan, G. and Soehngen, H., 1987. Improvement of GBF/DIME file coordinates in a geobased
information system by various transformation methods and rubbersheeting based on triangulation.
In: Proceedings of Autocarto 8, 29 March–3 April 1987 Baltimore, MD. Available from: http://
mapcontext.com/autocarto/proceedings/auto-carto-8/pdf/improvement-of-gbfdime-file-coordi-
nates-in-a-geobased-information.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Fanelli, A., Leo, A., and Ferri, M., 2001. Remote sensing images data fusion: a wavelet transform
approach for urban analysis. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ISPRS joint workshop on remote sensing and
data fusion over urban areas, 8–9 November 2001 Rome, Italy. Available from: http://ieeexplor-
e.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=985698 [Accessed 20 April 2010].
Feldmar, J. and Ayache, N., 1994. Rigid, affine and locally affine registration of free-form surfaces.
International Journal of Computer Vision, 13 (2), 99–119.
Filin, S. and Doytsher, Y., 2000. The detection of corresponding objects in linear-based map conflation.
Surveying and Land Information Systems, 60 (2), 117–128.
Fischler, M., Tenenbaum, J., and Wolf, H., 1981. Detection of roads and linear structures in low
resolution aerial images using multi-source knowledge integration techniques. Computer
Graphics and Image Processing, 15 (3), 201–223.
Foley, H. and Petry, F., 2000. Fuzzy knowledge-based system for performing conflation in geographical
information systems. In: R. Logananzara, G. Palm, and M. Ali, eds. Intelligent problem solving:
methodologies and approaches, Vol. 1821. New Orleans: Springer, 260–271. Available from: http://
www.springerlink.com/content/4afuqf8e80xckvfn/fulltext.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010].
Fonseca, F., et al., 2002. Using ontologies for integrated geographic information systems. Transactions
in GIS, 6 (3), 231–257.
Fortier, A., et al., 1999. Survey of work on road extraction in aerial and satellite images, Technical
Report. Available from: http://www.dmi.usherb.ca/,auclair/Univ/Publi/Auclair-TR247.pdf
Fréchet, M., 1906. Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionnel. Rendiconti del Circolo Mathematico di
Palermo, 22, 1–74.
Funk, C., et al., 1998. Formulation and test of a model of positional distortion fields. In: Proceedings of
the 3rd international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and
environmental sciences. Quebec City, Canada 20–22 May. Available from: http://www.ncgia.ucs-
b.edu/vital/research/pubs/posnqu98.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Gabay, Y. and Doytsher, Y., 1994. Automatic adjustment of line maps. In: Proceedings of the GIS/
LIS0 94 annual convention, 25–27 October 1994 Phoenix, US.
Gabay, Y. and Doytsher, Y., 2000. An approach to matching lines in partly similar engineering maps.
Geomática, 54 (3), 297–310.
Gillman, D., 1985. Triangulations for rubbersheeting. In: Proceedings of Autocarto 7, 11–14 March
1985 Washington, USA. Available from: http://mapcontext.com/autocarto/proceedings/auto-
carto-7/pdf/triangulations-for-rubber-sheeting.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Giunchiglia, F., et al., 2008. Approximate structure-preserving semantic matching. In: Proceedings 7th
conference on ontologies, databases, and applications of semantics (ODBASE), 11–13 November
Monterey, Mexico. Available from: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/fmcneill/papers/giunchigliae-
cai08.pdf [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Gombosi, M., Zalic, B., and Krivograd, S., 2003. Comparing two sets of polygons. International
Journal of Geographic Information Sciences, 17 (5), 431–443.
Gravano, L., Garcia-Molina, H., and Tomasic, A., 1994. The Effectiveness of GlOSS for the text database
discovery problem. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD, 24–27 March 1994 Minneapolis, US,
ACM Sigmod Record, 23 (2), 126–137. Available from: http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/61/1/1994-
Gregory, I., 2002. Time variant GIS databases of changing historical administrative boundaries: a
European comparison. Transactions in GIS, 6 (2), 161–178.
Gregory, I. and Ell, P., 2006. Error sensitive historical GIS: identifying areal interpolation errors in
timeseries data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20 (2), 135–152.
Griffin, P. and White, M., 1985. Piecewise linear rubber-sheet map transformations. The American
Gugan, D. and Dowman, I., 1988. Accuracy and completeness of topographic mapping from SPOT
imagery. Photogrammetric Record, 12 (72), 787–796.
Gupta, A., et al., 1999. Integrating GIS and imagery through XML-based information mediation. In: P.
Agouris and A. Stefanidis, eds. Integrated spatial databases: digital images and Gis. London:
Springer-Verlag, 211–234.
Haala, N., 1994. Detection of buildings by fusion of range and image data. International Archives of
Hastings, J., 2008. Automated conflation of digital gazetteer data. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 22 (10), 1109–1127.
Haunert, J., 2005. Link based conflation of geographic datasets. In: Proceedings of the ICA workshop
on generalisation and multiple representation, 7–8 July 2005 A Coruña, Spain, Available from:
http://www.ikg.uni-hannover.de/skalen/buendel/PDF/Conflation.pdf [Accessed 21 December
2009].
Hausdorff, F., 1919. Dimension und äußeres Maß. Mathematische Annalen, 79, 157–179.
Hild, H. and Fritsch, D., 1998. Integration of vector data and satellite imagery for geocoding. In: ISPRS
commission IV symposium on GIS, 7–10 September 1998 Stuttgart, Germany. Available from:
http://www.ifp.uni-stuttgart.de/publications/CommIV/hild168.pdf [Accessed 21 December
2009].
Hope, S. and Kealy, A., 2008. Using topological relationships to inform a data integration process.
Transactions in GIS, 12 (2), 267–283.
Hope, S., Kealy, A., and Hunter, G., 2006. Improving positional accuracy and preserving topology
through spatial data fusion. In: 7th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in
natural resources and environmental sciences, 5–7 July 2006 Lisbon, Portugal. Available from:
http://www.spatial-accuracy.org/system/files/Hope2006accuracy.pdf [Accessed 21 December
2009].
Hunter, G. and Goodchild, M., 1996. A new model for handling vector data uncertainty in geographic
information systems. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 8 (1),
51–57.
Kampshoff, S., 2005. Mathematical models for geometrical integration. In: First international work-
shop on next generation 3D city model, 21–22 June 2005 Bonn, Germany. Available from: http://
ausgleichung.de/images/kampshoff_3dcity.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].

Kang, H., 2001. Spatial data integration: a case Study of map conflation with census Bureau and local
government data. In: University consortium for geographic information science (UCGIS). Summer
assembly. Ohio, USA, 20–24 June. Available from: http://www.cobblestoneconcepts.com/ucgis2-
summer/kang/kang_main.htm [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Kang, H., 2002. Analytical conflation of spatial data from municipal and federal Government
agencies. Thesis (PhD). The Ohio State University.
Katzil, Y. and Doytsher, Y., 2003. Spatial rubber sheeting of DTMs. In: Proceedings 5 Semana
Geomática de Barcelona, 11–14 Febrero 2003 Barcelona, España. Available from: http://
www.isprs.org/publications/related/semana_geomatica05/front/abstracts/Dimecres9/F07.doc
Katzil, Y. and Doytsher, Y., 2006. Piecewise spatial conflation and merging of DTMs: continuous
transition of overlapping zones. In: ASPRS annual conference, 1–5 May 2006 Reno, Nevada,
USA. Available from: http://www.asprs.org/publications/proceedings/reno2006/0071.pdf
[Accessed 23 June 2010].
Klien, E., 2007. A rule-based strategy for the semantic annotation of geodata. Transaction in GIS,
Blackwell Publishing, 11 (3), 437–452.
Kovalerchuk, B., 2007. Affine invariant and robust image registration/conflation algorithm. In: S.S.
Shen and P.E. Lewis, eds. Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral, and
ultraspectral imagery XIII. Bellingham, WA: SPIE-International Society for Optical Engineering.
Kovalerchuk, B. and Schwing, J., 2002. Algebraic relational approach for geospatial feature correla-
tion. In: Proceedings of international conference on imaging science, systems, and technology
(CISST0 2002), 24–27 June 2002 Las Vegas, USA, 115–121. Available from: http://www.cwu.edu/
,borisk/pub/CWUMethod.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Kovalerchuk, B. and Sumner W., 2003. Algebraic relational approach to conflating images. In: S.S.
Shen and P.E. Lewis, eds. Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral and
ultraspectral imagery IX, Vol. 5093. International SPIE Military and Aerospace symposium,
AEROSENSE, Orlando, FL, 621–630.
Kovalerchuk, B., et al., 2004. Matching image feature structures using shoulder analysis method. In:
S.S. Shen and P.E. Lewis, eds. Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral and
ultraspectral imagery X. Vol. 5425. International SPIE Military and Aerospace symposium,
AEROSENSE, Orlando, FL, 508–519. Available from: http://www.cwu.edu/,Imaglab/docs/
CWU-SPIE-2004-3.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Kovalerchuk, B., et al., 2005a. Image registration and conflation based on structural characteristics. In:
S.S. Shen and P.E. Lewis, eds. Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral and
ultraspectral imagery XI. Bellingham, WA: SPIE-International Society for Optical Engineering.
Kovalerchuk, B., et al., 2005b. Virtual experts for imagery registration and conflation. In: B.
Kovalerchuk and J. Schwing, eds. Visual and spatial analysis. London: Springer, 537–560.
Kovalerchuk, B., Kamatkova, Y., and Doucette, P., 2006. Overcoming the combined effect of geo-
metric distortion and object change in image registration and conflation. In: S.S. Shen and P.E.
Lewis, eds. Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral, and ultraspectral
Imagery XII. Bellingham, WA: SPIE-International Society for Optical Engineering.
Kovalerchuk, B., et al., 2008. Automated vector-to-raster image registration. In: S.S. Shen and P.E.
Lewis, eds. Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral, and ultraspectral
imagery XIV. Bellingham, WA: SPIE-International Society for Optical Engineering.
Kovalerchuk, M. and Kovalerchuk, B., 2007. Algorithm development technology for conflation and
area-based conflation algorithm. In: B. Kovalerchuk and J. Schwing, eds. Visual and spatial
analysis. Delft: Springer Netherlands, 509–535.
Kraus, K. and Pfeifer, N., 1998. Determination of terrain models in wooded areas with airborne laser
scanner data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 53 (4), 193–203.
Kucera, G. and Clarke, B., 2005. Accelerating conflation capability for the US government, National
Technology Alliance, TR-001-120804-128, 53 pp.
Kundu, S., 2006. Conflating two polygonal lines. Pattern Recognition, 39 (3), 363–372.
Kyriakidis, P., Shortridge, A., and Goodchild, M., 1999. Geostatistics for conflation and accuracy
assessment of digital elevation models. International Journal of Geographical Information
Science 13 (7), 677–707.
Latecki, L. and Lakämper, R., 2000. Shape similarity measure based on correspondence of visual parts.
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22 (10), 1185–1190.
Laurini, R., 1998. Spatial multi-database topological continuity and indexing: a step towards seamless
GIS data interoperability. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12 (4),
373–402.
Lee, S. and Shan, J., 2003. Combining LIDAR elevation data and IKONOS multispectral imagery for
coastal classification mapping. Marine Geodesy, 26 (1–2), 117–127.
Lemarie, C. and Raynal, L., 1996. Geographic data matching: first investigations for generic tool. In:
Proceedings of the GIS/LIS0 96 annual convention, 19–21 November 1996 Denver: ACSM,
405–420.
Li, Z. L., Zhao, R., and Chen, J., 2002. AVoronoi-based spatial algebra for spatial relations. Progress in
Natural Science, 12 (7), 528–536.
Lowe, D., 2004. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of
Computer Vision, 60 (2), 91–110.
Lupien, A. and Moreland, W., 1987. A general approach to map conflation. In: Proceedings of
Autocarto 8, 29 March–3 April 1987 Baltimore, USA. Available from: http://mapcontext.com/
autocarto/proceedings/auto-carto-8/pdf/a-general-approach-to-map-conflation.pdf [Accessed 21
December 2009].
Lutz, M. and Klien, E., 2006. Ontology-based retrieval of geographic information. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20 (3), 233–260.
Lynch, M. and Saalfeld, A., 1985. Conflation: automated map compilation – a video game approach.
In: Proceedings of Autocarto 7, 11–14 March 1985 Washington, DC, USA. Available from: http://
mapcontext.com/autocarto/proceedings/auto-carto-7/pdf/conflation-automated-map-compilation-
a-video-game-approach.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].
Mantel, D. and Lipeck, U., 2004. Matching cartographic objects in spatial databases. In: Proceedings
of the XXth ISPRS congress, Comm. IV, 12–23 July 2004 Istanbul, Turkey, 172–176. Available
from: http://www.isprs.org/congresses/istanbul2004/comm4/papers/336.pdf [Accessed 22
December 2009].
Masser, I., 2005. GIS worlds: creating spatial data infrastructures. Redlands, US: ESRI Press.
Masuyama, A., 2006. Methods for detecting apparent differences between spatial tessellations at
different time points. International Journal of Geographic Information Sciences, 20 (6), 633–648.
Maué, P., 2008. An extensible semantic catalogue for geospatial web services. International Journal of
Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 3, 168–191.
McIntosh, K. and Krupnik, A., 2002. Integration of laser-derived DSMs and matched image edges for
generating an accurate surface model. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 56
(3), 167–176.
McMaster, R., 1986. A statistical analysis of mathematical measures for linear simplification.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 13 (2), 103–116.
Michalowski, M., et al., 2004. Retrieving and demantically integrating heterogeneous data from the
web. In: Proceedings of IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19 (3), 72–79. Available from: http://www.i-
si.edu/integration/papers/michalowski04-intelligentsystems.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2010].
Mishra, P., Ofek, E., and Kimchi, G., 2008. Validation of vector data using oblique images (Microsoft
Corporation, USA), ACM GIS, 2008. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSPATIAL international
conference on Advances in geographic information systems, 5–7 November 2008 Irvine, CA, USA.
Mokhtarian, F., Abbasi, S., and Kittler, J., 1996. Efficient and robust retrieval by shape content through
curvature scale space. In: Proceedings of workshop on image databases and multimedia search,
22–23 August 1996 Amsterdam, Netherlands, 35–42. Available from: http://www-ai.cs.uni-
dortmund.de:8080/DOKUMENTE/mokhtarian_etal_96a.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2009].
Morocho, V., Saltor, F., and Pérez-Vidal, L., 2003. Ontologies: solving semantic heterogeneity in
federated spatial database system. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on enterprise
information system, 23–26 April 2003 Angers, France. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.5.6416 [Accessed 22 December 2009].
Morris, K., Hill, D., and Moore, A., 2000. Mapping the environment through three-dimensional space
and time. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24, 435–450.
Musavi, M., et al., 1988. A vision based method to automate map processing. Pattern Recognition, 21
(4), 319–326.
Mustière S., 1995. Measure of linear generalisation quality. DESS Cartographie satge report, Paris I
University, COGIT.
Mustière, S. and Devogele, T., 2008. Matching networks with different levels of detail.
Geoinformatica, 12 (4), 435–453.
Nevatia, R. and Price, K., 2002. Automatic and interactive modelling of buildings in urban environ-
ments from aerial images. In: Proceedings of IEEE 2002 international conference on image
processing, 24–28 June 2002 Rochester, New York, USA. Vol. III, 525–528. Available from:
http://iris.usc.edu/Outlines/papers/2002/usc_icip_02.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2009].
Noronha, V., et al., 1999. Location expression standards for ITS. The Annals of Regional Science, 33
(2), 197–212.
Norris, P. and Mounsey, H., 1983. Analysing change through time. In: D. Rhind, ed. A census user’s
handbook. London: Methuen, 26–86.
Ojala, T. and Pietikäinen, M., 1999. Unsupervised texture segmentation using feature distributions.
Pattern Recognition, 32 (3), 477–486.
Ojala, T., Pietikäinen, M., and Harwood, D., 1996. A comparative study of texture measures with
classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recognition, 29 (1), 51–59.
Olteanu, A., Mustiere, S., and Ruas, A., 2006. Matching imperfect spatial data. In:M. Caetano
andM. Painho eds. 7th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural
resources and environmental sciences, 5–7 July 2006 Lisbon, Portugal. Available from: http://
www.spatial-accuracy.org/system/files/Olteanu2006accuracy.pdf [Accessed 20 April 2010].
Pavlidis, T., 1982. Algorithms for graphics and image processing. Rockville, MD: Computer Science
Press.
Pentland, A., Picard, R., and Sclaroff, S., 1996. Photobook. Content-based manipulation of image
databases. International Journal of Computer Vision, 18 (3), 233–254.
Petry, F. and Somodevilla, M., 2000. Modeling issues for rubber-sheeting process in an object oriented,
distributed and parallel environment. In: R. Logananthara, G. Palm, and M. Ali, eds. Intelligent
problem solving: methodologies and approaches. Heidelburg: Springer, 693–698.
Preparata, F. and Shamos, M., 1985. Computational geometry: an introduction. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Price, K., 1999. Road grid extraction and verification [online]. IAPRS. 32 Part 3-2W5, 101–106.
Available from: http://iris.usc.edu/Outlines/papers/1999/isprs-99-price.pdf [Accessed 22
December 2009].
Rahimi, S., et al., 2006. Performance evaluation of SDIAGENT, a multi-agent system for distributed
fuzzy geospatial data conflation. Information Sciences, 176 (9), 1175–1189.
Robertson, D., 2004. A lightweight coordination calculus for agent systems. In: Proceedings 2nd
International Workshop Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies, 19 July 2004 New York,
USA. Available from: http://centria.di.fct.unl.pt/,jleite/dalt04/docs/8-robertson.pdf [Accesed 23
June 2010].
Rodrı́guez, M. and Egenhofer, M., 2003. Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from
different ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15 (2), 442–456.
Rosen, B. and Saalfeld, A., 1985. Match criteria for automatic alignment. In: Proceedings of 7th
international symposium on computer-assisted cartography (Auto-Carto 7), 11–14 March 1985
Washington, DC, USA. Available from: http://mapcontext.com/autocarto/proceedings/auto-carto-
7/pdf/match-criteria-for-automatic-alignment.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2009].
Rosin, P., 1993. Multiscale representation and matching of curves using codons. Graphical Models and
Image Processing, 55 (4), 286–310.
Ruiz, J., Rubio, T., and Ureña, M., 2011. Automatic extraction of road intersections from images in
conflation processes base don texture characterization. Survey Review, 43 (321), 212–225.
Saalfeld, A., 1985. A fast rubber-sheeting transformation using simplical coordinates. The American
Saalfeld, A., 1987. Joint triangulations and triangulation maps. In: Proceedings of the ACM third
annual symposium on computational geometry, 8–10 June 1987 Waterloo, ON, Canada. Available
from: http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/rr87-23.pdf [Accessed 13 January 2010].
Saalfeld, A., 1988. Automated map compilation. International Journal Geographical Information
Systems, 2 (3), 217–228.
Saalfeld, A., 1993. Conflation: automated map compilation. Thesis (PhD), University of Maryland
College Park.
Safra, E., et al., 2006. Efficient integration of road maps. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM
international symposium on advances in geographic information systems ACM-GIS, 10–11
November 2006 Arlington, VA, USA, 59–66. Available from: http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/
,kanza/Papers/gis06.pdf [Accessed 13 January 2010].
Samal, A., Seth, S., and Cueto, K., 2004. A feature-based approach to conflation of geospatial sources.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18 (5), 459–489.

Savary, L. and Zeitouni, K., 2003. Spatial data warehouse. A prototype. In: Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. Prague, Czech Republic, 1068 pages.
Savary, L. and Zeitouni, K., 2005. Automated linear geometric conflation for spatial data warehouse
integration process. In: Proceedings of 8th AGILE conference on GIScience, 26–18 May 2006
Estoril, Portugal. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?-
doi=10.1.1.78.2404&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 13 January 2010].
Schenk, T., 1994. Concepts and algorithms in digital photogrammetry. ISPRS Journal of
Schuurman, N., et al., 2006. Spatial/temporal mismatch: a conflation protocol for Canada census
spatial files. The Canadian Geographer, 50 (1), 74–84.
SEIS, 2008. Towards a shared environmental information system. Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0046:EN:NOT [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Seung-Hyun, J., et al., 2005. An experimental performance evaluation of spatio-temporal join strate-
gies. Transactions in GIS, 9 (2), 129–156.
Shah, M. and Xiao, J., 2005. Layer-based video registration. Machine Vision and Applications, 16 (2),
75–84.
Shimizu, E. and Fuse, T., 2003. Rubber-sheeting of historical maps in GIS and its application to
landscape visualization of old-time cities: focussing on Tokyo of the past. In: Proceedings of the
8th international conference on computers in urban planning and urban management, 27–29 May
2003 Sendai, Japan. Available from: http://planner.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/member/fuse/rubber_shee-
ting.pdf [Accessed 14 January 2010].
Shmutter, B. and Doytsher, Y., 1992. Matching a set of digitized cadastral maps. CISM Journal
ACSGC, 46 (3), 277–284.
Shvaiko, P. and Euzenat, J., 2008. Ten challenges for ontology matching. In: Proceedings 7th
conference on ontologies, databases, and applications of semantics (ODBASE), 11–13
November 2008 Monterey, Mexico. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/
v4m5060741670821/fulltext.pdf [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Siddiqi, K., et al., 1999. Shock graphs and shape matching. International Journal of Computer Vision,
55 (1), 13–32.
Sidiropoulos, G., Pappas, V., and Vasilakos, A., 2005. Virtual reality: the non-temporal cartographic
animation and the urban (large) scale projects. Soft Computing, 9 (5), 355–363.
Song, W., Haithcoat, T., and Keller, J., 2006. A snake-based approach for TIGER road data conflation.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 33 (4), 287–298.
Song, W., et al., 2009. Automated geospatial conflation of vector road maps to high resolution imagery.
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 18 (2), 388–400.
Stankut_e, S. and Asche, H., 2009. An integrative approach to geospatial data fusion. In: O. Gervasi,
et al., eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5592, Berlin: Springer, 490–504.
Stigmar, H., 2005. Matching route data and topographic data in a real-time environment. In:
Proceedings of the 10th Scandinavian research conference on geographical information science,
13–15 June 2005 Stockholm, Sweden. Available from: http://www.scangis.org/scangis2005/

papers/stigmar.pdf [Accessed 13 January 2010].
Stuckenschmidt, H., 2003. Ontology-based information sharing in weakly structured environments.
Thesis (PhD). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tanase, M., 2005. Shape decomposition and retrieval. Thesis (PhD). Utrecht University.
Terzopoulos, D., et al., 2003. Nonrigid image registration. Computer Vision and Image Understanding
Journal, 89 (2–3), 109–319.
Thakkar, S. and Knoblock, C., 2003. Efficient execution of recursive integration plans. In: Proceedings
of 2003 IJCAI workshop on information integration on the Web, 9–10 August 2003 Acapulco,
Mexico. Available from: http://www.isi.edu/integration/papers/thakkar03-iiweb.pdf. [Accessed
15 April 2010].
Thakkar, S., Ambite, J., and Knoblock, C., 2004. A adata integration approach to automatically
composing and optimizing web services. In: Proceedings of 2004 ICAPS workshop on planning
and scheduling for web and grid services, 3–7 June 2004 Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, 2004.
Available from: http://www.isi.edu/integration/papers/thakkar04-icapswkshp.pdf. [Accessed 15
April 2010].
Tobler, W., 1994. Bidimensional regression. Geographical Analysis, 26 (3), 187–212.

Tomaselli, L., 1994. Topological transfer: evolving linear GIS accuracy. In: Proceedings of URISA
1994 (Urban and regional information association), July 27–August 1 Salt Lake City, Utah.
Available from: http://libraries.maine.edu/Spatial/gisweb/spatdb/urisa/ur94022.html [Accessed 14
January 2010].
Tong, X., Shi, W., and Deng, S., 2009. A probability-based multi-measure feature matching method in
map conflation. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30 (20), 5453–5472.
Uitermark, H., 2001. Ontology-based geographic data set integration. Thesis (PhD). Deventer,
Netherlands: University of Twente.
Vaccari, L., Shvaiko, P., and Marchese, M., 2009. A geo-service semantic integration in spatial data
infrastructures. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 4, 24–51.
Veltkamp, R. and Hagedoorn, M., 2001. State-of-the-art in shape matching. In: M.S. Lew, ed.
Principles of visual information retrieval. London: Springer. 87–119.
Veregin, H. and Giordano, A., 1994. Il controllo di qualitá nei sistema informativi territoriali. Il Cardo,
Venecia.
VITAL (Vehicle Intelligence & Transportation Analysis Laboratory), 1997. Experimental
Infrastructure for the study of Interoperability of map databases. University of California.
Available from: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/vital/research/pubs/infrafin9712.pdf [Accessed 14
January 2010].
Volz, S., 2005. Data-driven matching of geospatial Schemas. In: A.G. Cohn and D.M. Mark, eds.
Spatial information theory. Ellicottville, NY. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin: Springer,
115–132.
Volz, S., 2006. An iterative approach for matching multiple representations of street data. In: Proceedings
of the JOINT ISPRS workshop on multiple representations and interoperability of spatial data,
22–24 February 2006 Hannover, Germany. Available from: http://www.ikg.uni-hannover.de/isprs/
workshop2006/Paper/6006/2-Workshop_Hannover_Volz.pdf [Accessed 14 January 2010].
Wald, L. and Ranchin, T., 2001. Data fusion for a better knowledge of urban areas. In: Proceedings of
IEEE/ISPRS joint workshop on remote sensing and data fusion over urban areas, 1–14 June 2001
Rome, Italy. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=985698
[Accessed 20 April 2010].
Walter, V. and Fritsch, D., 1999. Matching spatial data sets: a statistical approach. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 13 (5), 445–473.
Ward-Brown, J. and Churchill, V., 2004. Variable Compleja y Aplicaciones. Madrid: McGraw-Hill,
457 pp.
Wang, J., Chun, J., and Park, Y., 2001. GIS-assisted image registration for an onboard IRST of a land
vehicle. In: Proceedings of SPIE, 29 July 2001 San Diego, USA.
Wang, F., et al., 2003. Cumulative residual entropy, a new measure of information & its application to
image alignment. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international conference on computer vision
(ICCV 2003), 14–17 October 2003 Nice, France. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.106.687&rep=rep1&type=pdf. [Accessed 21 April 2010].
Watson, G., 2006. Computing Helmert transformations. Journal of Computational and Applied
Mathematics, 197 (2), 387–394.
White, M., 1981. The theory of geographical data conflation. Washington, DC: Internal Bureau of the
Census draft document.
Wiederhold, G., 1994. Interoperation, mediation and ontologies. In: Proceedings of international sympo-
sium on fifth generation computer systems (FGCS94), 15–16 December 1994 Tokyo, Japan. Available
from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.57.3087 [Accessed 14 January 2010].
Worboys, M. and Duckham, M., 2005. GIS a computing perspective. 2nd ed. CRC Press.
Wu, X., et al., 2007. Automatic alignment of large-scale aerial rasters to road-maps. In: Proceedings of
the 15th annual ACM international symposium on advances in geographic information systems,
7–9 November 2007 Seattle, USA. ACM Publisher.
Xiong, D., 2000. A three-stage computational approach to network matching. Transportation
Research, 8 (1–6), 71–89.
Xiong, D. and Sperling, J., 2004. Semiautomated matching for network database integration. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 59 (1–2), 35–46.
Yuan, S. and Tao, C., 1999. Development of conflation components. In:B. Li, et al., eds. Proceedings
of geoinformatics’99 conference, 19–21 June 1999 Ann Arbor, USA. Available from: http://
www.google.es/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=es&ie=UTF-
8&rlz=1T4GFRE_esES358ES358&q=Development+of+Conflation+Components [Accessed 14
January 2010].
Zhang, Z., 1994. Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces.
International Journal of Computer Vision, 13 (2), 119–152.
Zhang, M., Shi, W., and Meng, L., 2005. A generic matching algorithm for line networks of different
resolutions. In: Proceedings of the ICA workshop on generalisation and multiple representation,
7–8 July 2005 A Coruña, Spain. Available from: http://aci.ign.fr/Acoruna/Papers/Zhang_et_al.pdf
[Accessed 14 January 2010].
Zhang, J., Kyriakidis, P., and Kelly, R., 2009. Geostatistical approaches to conflation of continental
snow data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30 (20), 5441–5451.
Zhou, Y., 1994. Multi-sensor image fusion. In: Proceedings of the ICIP-94., IEEE international
conference, 13–16 November 1994 Austin, USA. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=00413302 [Accessed 14 January 2010].

Digital Map Conflation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Map Conflation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [UJA University of Jaen]

On: 06 October 2011, At: 23:03

International Journal of Geographical

Digital map conflation: a review of the

Available online: 06 Sep 2011

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2010.519707

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

*Corresponding author. Email: maurena@ujaen.es

ISSN 1365-8816 print/ISSN 1362-3087 online

2. Classification of conflation processes

3. Classification of conflation processes according to the matching criteria used

Table 1. Classification of conflation processes.

GDB1 Pre-processing GDB1′

3.1. Geometric conflation

3.1.2. Evaluation measures

the geopositional relationships or the measures of similitude (McMaster 1986,

3.2. Semantic conflation

3.2.2. Evaluation measures

3.3. Topological conflation

3.3.2. Evaluation measures

4. Classification of conflation processes according to the representation model used

4.1. Conflation between vector GDBs (V vs. V)

4.1.2. Difficulties, entities used and applications

Figure 2. Examples of geometric differences between two vector GDBs.

4.2. Conflation between a vector GDB and an image (V vs. I)

4.2.2. Difficulties, entities used and applications

4.3. Conflation between two Images (I vs. I)

4.3.2. Difficulties, entities used and applications

understanding of complex spatial evolutionary procedures (Acevedo and Masuoka 1997,

4.4. Conflation between images and DEMs (I vs. E)

4.4.2. Difficulties, entities used and applications

Figure 5. 3D reconstruction of urban zones and buildings using a SEM.

4.5. Conflation between DEMs (E vs. E)

4.5.2. Difficulties, entities used and applications

continuous topological representation (morphological structures) (Figure 6). Kyriakidis

5. Classification of Conflation processes according to the categorization problem

5.1. Vertical conflation

5.1.2. Processes where used and difficulties

localization of an object or an event (moving vehicle, accident, available hotel, highway

5.1.3. Solutions and applications

5.2. Horizontal conflation

5.2.2. Processes where used and difficulties

5.2.3. Solutions and applications

5.3. Temporal conflation

5.3.2. Processes where used and difficulties

5.3.3. Solutions and applications

6. Level of automatization of conflation processes and conflation post-processing

7. Catalogue of the main applications of the conflation process

8. Conflation software systems and solved task

Table 2. Distribution of the more usual application of the conflation processes.

Derivation of new cartographic products

*Using image pixels.

9. Conclusion and future directions of conflation processes

November 1992. Lorne, Australia. Available from: https://eprints.kfupm.edu.sa/70963/1/

March 1998 Baltimore. Available from: http://libraries.maine.edu/Spatial/contents/proceedings/

ausgleichung.de/images/kampshoff_3dcity.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2009].

International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18 (5), 459–489.

13–15 June 2005 Stockholm, Sweden. Available from: http://www.scangis.org/scangis2005/

Tobler, W., 1994. Bidimensional regression. Geographical Analysis, 26 (3), 187–212.

You might also like