Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems

Technology, Planning, and Operations

ISSN: 1547-2450 (Print) 1547-2442 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gits20

Improving the Performance of a Topological Map-

Matching Algorithm Through Error Detection and
Correction

Nagendra R. Velaga , Mohammed A. Quddus & Abigail L. Bristow

To cite this article: Nagendra R. Velaga , Mohammed A. Quddus & Abigail L. Bristow
(2012) Improving the Performance of a Topological Map-Matching Algorithm Through Error
Detection and Correction, Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16:3, 147-158, DOI:
10.1080/15472450.2012.691852

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2012.691852

Published online: 10 Jul 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 372

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gits20
Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(3):147–158, 2012
Copyright
C Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1547-2450 print / 1547-2442 online
DOI: 10.1080/15472450.2012.691852

Improving the Performance

of a Topological Map-Matching
Algorithm Through Error Detection
and Correction

NAGENDRA R. VELAGA,1 MOHAMMED A. QUDDUS,2 and ABIGAIL L. BRISTOW2

1
Centre for Transport Research, Digital Economy Research Hub, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen,
United Kingdom
2
Transport Studies Group, School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire,
United Kingdom

Map-matching algorithms integrate data from positioning sensors with a digital map in order, first, to identify the road link on
which a vehicle is traveling, and second, to determine the vehicle’s location on that link. Due to errors in positioning sensors,
digital maps, and the map-matching (MM) process, MM algorithms sometimes fail to identify the correct road segment from
the candidate segments. This phenomenon is known as mismatching. Identification of the wrong road link may mislead users
and degrade the performance of a location-based intelligent transportation system (ITS) and services. The main objective
of this article is to improve a topological map-matching (tMM) algorithm by error detection, correction, and performance
re-evaluation. Errors in a tMM algorithm were determined using data comprising 62,887 positioning points collected in
three different countries (the United Kingdom, the United States, and India). After map-matching, each mismatched case was
examined to identify the primary causes of the mismatches. A number of strategies were developed and applied to reduce
the risk of mismatching thus enhancing the tMM algorithm. An independent data set of 5,256 positioning points collected in
and around Nottingham, UK, was employed to re-evaluate the performance of the enhanced tMM algorithm. The original
tMM algorithm correctly identified the vehicle’s position 96.5% of the time; after enhancement this increased to 97.8%.
This compares very well with the performance of tMM algorithms reported in the literature. The enhanced tMM algorithm
developed in this research is simple, fast, efficient, and easy to implement. Since the accuracy offered by the enhanced
algorithm is found to be high, the developed algorithm has potential to be implemented in real-time location-based ITS
applications.

Keywords Topological Map-Matching; GPS; Location-Based ITS Services; Genetic Algorithm

INTRODUCTION tioning system (GPS) or GPS integrated with a dead-reckoning

Many intelligent transport system (ITS) applications re-
quire real-time vehicle positioning data (Cappelle, El-Badoui-
El-Najjar, Pomorski, & Charpillet, 2010). A navigation
system that provides such positioning data consists of three
key components: (1) a positioning system, either a global posi-
Address correspondence to Nagendra R. Velaga, Research Fellow in ITS,
Centre for Transport Research, Digital Economy Research Hub, King’s College,
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 5UA, United Kingdom. E-mail:
n.r.velaga@abdn.ac.uk
(DR) system; (2) a geographic information system (GIS)-based
road map; and (3) a map-matching (MM) algorithm (Green-
feld, 2002; Taylor & Blewitt, 2006). A map-matching (MM)
algorithm is used to augment positioning data from a naviga-
tion system with spatial road network data. An MM algorithm
makes use of a range of data including position, heading, speed,
and road network topology to identify the correct road segment
on which a vehicle is traveling and the vehicle’s location on
that road segment (Quddus, Ochieng, & Noland, 2007; Smaili
Najjar, & Charpillet, 2008; Xu, Liu, Tan, & Bao, 2010). The key
task for an MM algorithm is to identify the correct road segment

147
148 N. R. VELAGA ET AL.
from a pool of candidate road segments (White, Bernstein, &
Kornhauser, 2000; Quddus, Ochieng, Zhao, & Noland, 2003).
Raw positioning data from a navigation system contain errors
due to satellite orbit and clock bias, atmospheric (ionosphere and
troposphere) effects, receiver measurement error, and multipath
error (Kaplan & Hegarty, 2006). GIS-based road maps include
errors that can be geometric (e.g., displacement and rotation
of map features) or topological (e.g., missing road features)
(Goodwin & Lau, 1993; Kim, Jee, & Lee, 2000). Even when
the raw positioning data and map quality are good, MM tech-
niques sometimes fail to identify the correct road segment,
especially at roundabouts, level crossings, Y junctions, dense
urban roads, and parallel roads (White et al., 2000; Quddus
et al., 2007; Chen, Li, Yu, & Chen, 2008). Any error asso-
ciated with either the raw positioning fix, the digital map, or
the MM process employed can lead to wrong link identifica-
tion. This phenomenon is known as mismatching. Identification
of the wrong road link may mislead the users and reduce the
effectiveness of the ITS service. It is therefore important to iden-
tify the reasons for mismatches and to use this information to
identify ways to improve the performance of MM algorithms
so as to enable the further enhancement in navigation modules
of ITS.
Navigation modules of ITS may be enhanced by reducing the
errors in the positioning sensors or improving the quality of the
spatial road network map or enhancing the map-matching pro-
cess. For instance, the Russian Global Orbit Navigation Satellite
System (GLONASS) and the upcoming European Galileo
system, along with a DR system, can enhance the performance
of existing vehicle navigation systems. A good map-matching
algorithm would, however, be fundamental to physically locate
a vehicle on a road network. Current map-matching algorithms
have many constraints and limitations, especially in typical
operational environments (such as dense urban areas) where
highly accurate positioning data are essential (Quddus et al.,
2007). Improved vehicle positioning can also be obtained by
improving the quality of spatial network data at a national level.
However, this is a lengthy process and will take time to become
available to users. Further improvement in map-matching
algorithms remains an important method to enhance vehicle
navigation modules.
Thus, the key contribution of this article is to identify the
reasons for each of the mismatches using an existing tMM algo-
rithm (Velaga, Quddus, & Bristow, 2009). This has been done
using a series of large positioning data sets collected in three
different countries (the United Kingdom, the United States, and
India) with three maps of varying map scales, allowing some ex-
ploration of the transferability of the tMM algorithm. The results
are used to carry out an in-depth investigation of the mismatches
attributed to map-matching error and then to develop strategies
to enhance the Velaga et al. (2009) algorithm. Three strategies
are developed: the identification of the operational environment;
the use of a genetic algorithm (GA) approach to optimize the
weight parameters; and the re-estimation of the thresholds using
a larger data set. Finally, an independent positioning data set is
intelligent transportation systems
used to re-evaluate the performance of the algorithm before and
after enhancement.
This article is organized as follows: The next section pro-
vides a brief description of the MM algorithm used here. This
is followed by an outline of the positioning data. The process of
detecting and correcting map-matching errors is then explained.
This includes investigating the main reasons for each mis-
match, developing the strategies to enhance the map-matching
algorithm, correcting the algorithm accordingly, and finally re-
evaluating the enhanced algorithm using an independent posi-
tioning data set. The article ends with conclusions.
THE MAP-MATCHING ALGORITHM
An MM algorithm that uses historical data (including the pre-
viously matched road segment), vehicle speed, and topological
information on the spatial road network (such as link connec-
tivity) is called a topological map-matching (tMM) algorithm
(Greenfeld, 2002; Li, Lin, & Zhao2005; Quddus et al., 2003). A
tMM algorithm is fast, simple and easy to implement (Quddus
et al., 2007). An algorithm that assigns weights for all candidate
links based on criteria including the similarity in vehicle move-
ment direction and link direction, the nearness of the positioning
point to a link, and the connectivity of a candidate road link to
the previously travelled road link is known as a weight-based
topological MM algorithm (Quddus et al., 2003). A weight-
ing approach in selecting the correct road segment from the
candidate segments improves the accuracy of correct road link
identification (Greenfeld, 2002; Quddus et al., 2003).
The map-matching process of the tMM algorithm used here
involves three stages: (1) initial matching, (2) matching on a link,
and (3) matching at a junction. The aim of the initial MM process
is to identify the correct link for the first positioning point. The
algorithm creates an error circle around the first positioning
point and selects all the links that are inside and crossing to the
error circle as the candidate links. Among these candidate links,
the correct link identification is based on the total weight score
(TWS), which is the sum of the heading (similarity in vehicle
movement direction and link direction) and proximity (nearness
of positioning point to a link) weights. Among the candidate
links, clearly higher weight should be given to a link that is in
line with the vehicle’s direction of movement. If a link is nearer
to the positioning point, then this link should also be given more
weight than a link that is further away. The TWS function for
initial map-matching is:
TWS = Wh + W p
TWS = Hw f (θ ) + Dw f (D) (1)
where
f (θ ) = cos(θ )
vol. 16 no. 3 2012
 TOPOLOGICAL MAP-MATCHING ALGORITHM


(80 − D)
f (D) =
80
f (D) = {1, −1}
f (θ ) = {1, −1}
and where θ denotes the angle difference (in degrees) between
the vehicle heading and link direction with respect to the north,
and D is the distance in meters from the positioning point to a
link. These two parameters (θ and D) vary with each positioning
point and corresponding link based on the alignment of vehicle
movement direction with the link direction, and how near the
positioning point is to a link. The threshold of 80 m in f (D) for
the proximity is obtained from an empirical analysis considering
uncertainties associated with GIS maps (e.g., considering road
center line in the GIS map, as the vehicle may travel on the outer
lane of the road) and general GPS errors. If D is more than 80 m,
then it is unlikely that the vehicle travels on that road segment.
Wh and Wp are the weight for heading and weight for proximity,
respectively. These weights vary with each road segment based
on θ and D values. Hw and Dw are the weight coefficients for
heading and proximity, respectively.
After successful completion of the initial MM process, the
algorithm calculates the distance to the downstream junction.
If the vehicle is at or near a junction, then the algorithm goes
to the stage “matching at a junction”; otherwise, the algorithm
goes to the “matching on a link” stage. In the case of “matching
on a link,” the algorithm snaps the current positioning point to
the previously selected road segment. If the vehicle is at or near
a junction, it is necessary to identify a new road segment. The
procedure for the identification of a set of candidate segments
for a positioning point at a junction is similar to that of the
initial MM process. The correct link is selected from the set of
candidate links based on the total weight score (TWS). The TWS
includes four weights: heading, proximity, and two additional
weights on link connectivity and turn restrictions at junctions.
A link is given more weight if it is directly connected to the link
on which the vehicle was travelling during the last epoch. With
respect to turn restriction, if a vehicle approaches a junction and
is not legally permitted to turn (a left turn, a right turn, or a
U-turn) onto a link connected to the junction, then the link is
given a negative weight relative to the other links on to which
the vehicle can turn. The TWS function at junctions is:
TWS = Hw cos(θ ) + Dw f (D) + Cw Cc + Tw Ct (2)
where
Cc = {1, −1}
Ct = {1, −1}
and where Cc equals 1 if a candidate link (within the set of the
candidate links) is directly connected to the previously identified
link and –1 otherwise; Ct equals 1 if a vehicle can legally make a
turn to a link and –1 otherwise; and Hw , Dw , Cw , and Tw are the
intelligent transportation systems
149
weight coefficients for heading, proximity, link connectivity,
and turn restriction, respectively. These coefficients represent
the relative importance of different factors in calculating the
TWS. The vehicle’s location on that selected link is achieved
by a perpendicular projection of the positioning point onto the
link. A more detailed description of the map-matching process
can be found in Velaga et al. (2009).
It is important to identify the relative importance of the
weight scores used in the weight-based tMM algorithm and
to recognize that the relative importance of each weight score
may vary with the operational environment. Earlier studies by
Greenfeld (2002) assumed equal importance for different fac-
tors, while Quddus et al. (2003) determined relative importance
empirically based on a true input-output data set. Velaga et al.
(2009) introduced an optimization algorithm to identify the rel-
ative importance of weights for three operational environments:
urban, suburban, and rural. Using three positioning data sets
from each operational environment, the relationships between
percentage of wrong link identification and coefficient of weight
scores were identified. Regression equations were developed for
each of the operational environments. These three functional re-
lationships (i.e., map-matching error vs. weight coefficients)
were optimized using the constrained nonlinear minimization
method. The sample sizes (i.e., number of junctions in a net-
work in this case) used in the regression analysis, to find the
relationship between map-matching error and the weight coef-
ficients in urban, suburban, and rural areas were 175, 440, and
40 respectively.
POSITIONING DATA
Four positioning data sets collected from three different coun-
tries are used here and shown in Table 1. Data sets 1, 2, and
3 were collected in the United Kingdom (a return trip from
Loughborough to London, central London, and south London),
Mumbai metropolitan area, India, and urban roads of Washing-
ton, DC, respectively. These three data sets were obtained from
controlled field tests carried out on preplanned routes. The test
routes were selected carefully to ensure that the vehicle traveled
through a good mix of characteristics including tall buildings,
bridges, flyovers, dense road networks, congested urban roads,
open areas, construction sites, motorways, and rural roads. Data
sets 1, 2, and 3 were used for the map-matching error detection
process. For data set 4 collected in and around Nottingham, UK,
a true (reference) trajectory was obtained from a high-accuracy
carrier-phase GPS receiver integrated with a high-grade inertial
navigation system (INS). Data set 4 was used to evaluate the
performance of the map-matching algorithm (before and after
enhancements). For all data sets, positioning points are obtained
every second. The test trajectory for the four data sets is shown
in Figure 1. Three separate digital road maps (i.e., a UK map
of scale 1:2,500; a Washington, DC, map of scale 1:1,250; and
a Mumbai map of scale 1:25,000) were used. In all three maps,
roads are represented by the road central line.
vol. 16 no. 3 2012
150 N. R. VELAGA ET AL.

Table 1 Positioning data sets.

Location
Test location Date Equipment used Sample size (hours) Route length (km) characteristics

1 Loughborough to May 2008 AEK-4P and AEK-4R 42,231 points 700 Mix of dense urban,
London; Central (11.7 h) suburban, and rural
London and South
London, UK
2 An urban area with December 2008 AEK-4P 16,756 points 95 Urban
narrow congested (4.6 h)
roads in Mumbai,
India
3 Dense urban roads in January 2009 AEK-4P 3,900 points (1.1 h) 17 Dense urban
Washington, DC
4 In and around May 2009 AEK-4P, AEK-4R, 5,256 points (1.5 h) 56 Urban and suburban
Nottingham, UK and a carrier-phase
GPS with INS

ALGORITHM ENHANCEMENT METHODOLOGY
The step-by-step enhancement process of error detection,
correction, and re-evaluation is shown in Figure 2. The out-
put of the tMM algorithm provides a road segment on which a
vehicle is traveling. If the road segment selected by the tMM
algorithm is the actual (true) road segment for that particular
positioning point, then it is assumed that there is no error in link
identification. Otherwise, the map-matched point is considered
a mismatch. This process was conducted for 62,887 positioning
points (data sets 1, 2, and 3 in Table 1) to identify the main rea-
sons for mismatching involving errors in the positioning data
or the digital map or the map-matching process. The error de-
tection process is followed by the development of strategies to
improve the performance of the tMM algorithm and then to
modify the algorithm accordingly. Finally, the performance of
the enhanced tMM algorithm is examined using an indepen-
dent positioning data set. The following section describes the
identification process for mismatches.
ERROR IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
The error detection process is carried out by classifying the
mismatches due to errors in the positioning data, the digital map,
and the map-matching process. The quality of raw positioning
points is decided based on the number of visible satellites and the
value of the horizontal dilution of precision (HDOP) represent-
ing the quality of positioning solution. The thresholds applied
were four for the number of satellites and three for HDOP. The
UK Google Earth satellite image is used as a base map to check
errors in the GIS road maps, including topological and geomet-
ric errors, missing links in the network data, links that do not
exist in the real world, and digitization errors. ArcGIS Explorer,
a GIS viewer tool kit, was used to identify these errors. Ar-
cGIS Explorer allows one to simultaneously overlay different
GIS map layers, Earth satellite imagery, open street map, world
intelligent transportation systems
streets, and so on. After overlaying the GIS map layer that is
the vehicle trajectory after map-matching, a visual examination
was carried out to identify any topological and geometric errors,
missing road links, links that do not exist in the real world, and
digitization errors.
If the quality of a raw positioning point is good (i.e., the
number of visible satellites is greater than four and HDOP is
less than three) and no errors are identified in the digital map,
then the reason for mismatching is assumed to be an error in
the map-matching process. For all three positioning data sets
(1, 2, and 3 in Table 1), the actual vehicle trajectory is known,
and therefore it is possible to identify the source of the error. A
systematic four-step process was adopted to identify which part
of the algorithm (i.e., the candidate link identification, the total
weight score calculation, or the consistency checks) caused the
mismatch. These steps are: (1) Check the candidate link identi-
fication process: that is, whether the correct link (i.e., the actual
link on which the vehicle traveled) appears in the set of candi-
date links. If it does, the candidate link identification process is
successful. (2) Check whether the mismatch is due to the failure
of the MM algorithm in identifying the correct link when the
vehicle reaches near to a junction. This would suggest that the
algorithm fails to go to the “map-matching at junction” loop as
a result of inappropriate threshold values used in the algorithm.
This generally happens due to errors in threshold values used in
the algorithm. (3) If the algorithm correctly identified candidate
links and recognized the vehicle at junction loop, then check
error in the correct link identification process, which is based on
total weight score (TWS) for each candidate link. This is carried
out by extracting the TWS for all candidate links corresponding
to that mismatch. The phenomenon of algorithm failure to give
more TWS to the correct link could happen either due to error
in operational environment identification or due to error in the
relative importance of each weight score, and a manual exam-
ination was used to establish which error caused the failure.
(4) Even if the algorithm failed the preceding three steps, be-
fore finalizing the road segment on which a vehicle is traveling,
the algorithm performs consistency checks. The reason for the
vol. 16 no. 3 2012
 TOPOLOGICAL MAP-MATCHING ALGORITHM 151

Figure 1 Positioning data test trajectory (color figure available online).

mismatch could therefore be a failure in these consistency
checks, which are generally due to threshold values. In this way
all map-matching errors may be attributed to one of three causes.
Though the overall performance of the tMM algorithm is
good, there are some mismatches in situations where the vehicle
took a U-turn at junctions or at complex road configurations (i.e.,
Y junctions, roundabouts, parallel roads, etc). Table 2 shows the
results from the tMM algorithm on the three data sets described
earlier.
The tMM algorithm has 96.7%, 95.9%, and 91.8% success
rate of correct road link identification for data sets 1, 3, and
2, respectively. From 62,887 map-matched positioning points,
in total 2,926 mismatches were discovered. In order to identify
the cause, each mismatching case was individually examined.
About a half of the mismatches in data sets 1 and 3 are due to
errors in the map-matching process. In the case of data set 2, the
major source of mismatches is the digital map error. This is due
to the fact that the Mumbai GIS map has more missing links

intelligent transportation systems vol. 16 no. 3 2012

152 N. R. VELAGA ET AL.

Positioning data Digital road map The reference vehicle trajectory and
the Google Earth map

tMM

Does the tMM identify Yes

No error
the correct road?

No
Error identification process

Error in the Error in the map- Error in the

positioning data matching process digital map data

Developing strategies to improve

the tMM algorithm

Enhance the tMM

Positioning data
Independent Performance evaluation of the tMM
dataset before and after enhancements
Digital road map

Figure 2 Map-matching error detection, correction, and performance reevaluation process.

and digitization errors. Map-matching errors dominate where at a roundabout and at a Y junction are shown in Figures 3 and
the digital maps used are of high quality. 4, respectively.
At junction A in Figure 4, for positioning fix P1 the algorithm
identified the wrong road segment (i.e., link A–B). However, to
ENHANCEMENT OF THE MAP-MATCHING avoid continuous mismatching, the algorithm measures the dis-
ALGORITHM tance between the raw positioning point and the map-matched
positioning point. If the distance is more than the allowable
In total, 998 mismatches were found to be due to errors limit (a threshold value) then the algorithm reinitiates the map-
in the map-matching process. These errors were most likely matching process. In this case, for positioning point P5 , the
to occur in complex road configurations such as Y junctions, algorithm reinitiates the process and chooses the correct road
roundabouts, and parallel roads. Examples of mismatching cases segment. Two other thresholds (a distance threshold and a head-
ing threshold) were also used to check whether a vehicle is near
Table 2 Reasons for mismatches (% of total error in brackets). a junction or not. As mentioned before, in the tMM algorithm,
the correct road segment selection at a junction is based on the
Washington, Mumbai, India total weight score (TWS), which is the sum of four weights:
UK (data set 1) DC (data set 3) (data set 2)
heading, proximity, link connectivity, and turn restriction. Fur-
Positioning 42,231 3,900 16,756 ther, the relative importance of these weights varies with the
data—sample size operational environments. Therefore, any mistake in the iden-
Mismatches due to 472 (33.9%) 47 (29.6%) 159 (11.6%) tification of the operational environment may lead to an error
errors in the
in the total weight score. This may subsequently lead to wrong
positioning sensor
Mismatches due to errors 238 (17.1%) 27 (17.0%) 985 (71.7%) road link identification. Moreover, the threshold values used in
in the digital map the algorithm may influence correct road segment identification.
Mismatches due to error 683 (49.0%) 85 (53.4%) 230 (16.7%) Applying the process outlined in the Algorithm Enhance-
in the MM process ment Methodology section, of the 988 mismatches attributed
Total number of 1, 393 (100%) 159 (100%) 1, 374 (100%)
to map-matching errors, 278 were related to the relative
mismatches
importance of the weight scores, 672 to the identification of
intelligent transportation systems vol. 16 no. 3 2012
 TOPOLOGICAL MAP-MATCHING ALGORITHM
Figure 3 Mismatching at roundabout (color figure available online).
the operational environment and 48 to the thresholds. There-
fore, the following three strategies were identified to enhance
the tMM algorithm:
1. Re-examining the optimal weight scores using a genetic al-
gorithm (GA) optimization technique.
2. Using a lookup table to identify the weight scores corre-
sponding to the operational environment (e.g., urban, subur-
ban and rural).
3. Re-estimating the thresholds used in the algorithm.
In addition to these three strategies, it was also recognized that
integrating a map-matching algorithm with a routing algorithm,
which suggests a preferred route based on the shortest path or
the lowest travel cost, may lead to a better outcome in terms of
correct link identification. However, a routing algorithm needs
information on an origin (O) and a destination (D) of a trip.
Figure 4 Mismatching at Y junctions (color figure available online).
intelligent transportation systems
153
Since the objective was to enhance a generic MM algorithm
that does not assume any O–D information, enhancing the tMM
algorithm with a routing algorithm was not considered further
here.
Optimization of Weight Scores Using a Genetic
Algorithm (GA)
Previously, a gradient search method was used to determine
the optimal values of weight scores used in the map-matching
process (Velaga et al., 2009). In the gradient search minimiza-
tion problem there is a possibility that the optimization stops at
a local rather than a global minimum (Michael, Mangasarian,
& Wright, 2007). In order to ascertain whether the optimiza-
tion has reached a global minimum, here we employ a more
refined method as suggested by Konar (2005), namely, a genetic
algorithm (GA). A GA-based optimization algorithm is used to
determine the relative importance of different weights.
In this optimization problem, the MM error (i.e., the per-
centage of wrong link identification) is assumed to depend on
the weight coefficients for heading, proximity, connectivity, and
turn restriction. The weight coefficients represent the relative
importance of each weight. The objective function in the opti-
mization problem is formed by identifying the relationship be-
tween the MM error and the weight coefficients at each junction.
To identify this relationship for each operational environment,
a regression analysis is carried out with the MM error as the de-
pendent variable and the four weight coefficients, their squares,
and inverse and interaction terms as independent variables. The
functional relationship can be written as follows:
ln(MMerror ) = α + [βh1 Hw + · · · + βt1 Tw ]
vol. 16 no. 3 2012
154 N. R. VELAGA ET AL.


  βh3 βt3
+ βh2 Hw2 + · · +βt2 Tw2 + +··+
Hw Tw
+ [βhd (Hw Dw ) + · · · + βct (Cw T w )] + εi
where MMerror is the map-matching error and α is an inter-
cept term; βh1 , βh2 , ....., βt1 , βt2 , βt3 are the regression coeffi-
cients for heading, proximity, connectivity, and turn restriction
weights; εi is the error term; and Hw , Dw , Cw , and Tw are the
weight coefficients for heading, proximity, link connectivity,
and turn restriction respectively.
In the regression analysis, statistically insignificant parame-
ters were eliminated using a step-by-step backward elimination
process. The final functional form with all statistically signif-
icant parameters is considered as the objective function in the
optimization problem.
In the previous optimization test the sample size for the rural
operational environment was low, containing only 40 junctions.
Here this is increased to 186 junctions. A new objective func-
tion (i.e., the relationship between the map-matching error and
the weight coefficients) for the rural operation environment is
identified as:
ln(MMerror ) = 0.029Hw + 0.02Dw + 0.035Cw + 0.028Tw
− 0.00079Hw Dw + 0.00037Dw Tw
The associated constraints are:
Hw + Dw + Cw + Tw = 100
1 ≤ (Hw , Dw , Cw , Tw ) ≤ 100
This is a minimization problem in which minimizing the map-
matching error is the objective. The adjusted R2 value of the
preceding model (Eq. (4)) was found to be .98. For urban and
suburban operational environments the same optimization func-
tions as reported in Velaga et al. (2009) are adopted.
To re-estimate the optimal weight scores, the Matlab GA tool-
box is used (Callan, 2003; Karray & De Silva, 2004; MathWorks,
2008; Russel & Norvig, 2002). In the GA optimization process,
a population size of 20, uniformly distributed with lower range
of 1 and higher range of 100, was used. In the Matlab GA tool-
box, a single point crossover with Gaussian mutation function
is selected. Migration is in both directions with intervals of 2
and chromosome size is 20. Stopping criterion was selected as
5,000 generations. After approximately 1,500 generations, the
function value (fitness value) shows that the function achieves
the global optimal values. The optimal values of heading, prox-
imity, connectivity, and turn restriction weight scores for the
three operational environments, from both the original gradi-
ent search method and the genetic algorithm, are illustrated in
Table 3.
The weight scores from the two optimization techniques in
Table 3 are similar. The main differences are the increased
weight given to turn restrictions in urban and suburban areas
and some rebalancing between heading and proximity in rural
areas.
intelligent transportation systems
Table 3 Optimal weight scores using gradient search and GA methods.
Gradient search method Genetic algorithm
Weight coefficient Urban Suburban Rural Urban Suburban Rural
(3)
Hw 39.99 46.24 44.48 37.15 46.42 42.37
Dw 8.13 44.99 53.52 8.06 43.76 55.63
Cw 36.4 4.46 1 35.85 4.29 1
Tw 15.48 4.31 1 18.94 5.53 1
Use of a Lookup Table to Identify the Operational
Environment
A few recent studies (e.g., Yang, Zhang, & Lian, 2011;
Zhang, Yang, Li, Li, & Lian, 2011) tested the topological
map-matching algorithm developed by Velaga et al. (2009) and
suggested that a generic approach to identify an operational en-
vironment is essential for correctly applying the weights that
vary across environments. Here we develop a standard proce-
dure to identify operational environments.
Table 3 indicates a high level of variation in the weights
between operational environments. It is therefore important that
the algorithm identifies the operational environment in which
the vehicle is traveling and selects the corresponding weights
from the weight matrix shown in Table 3. The identification
(4)
of the operational environment could be based on a range of
data, including the complexity of road network, land-use data,
building height data, and so on. Since land-use data and building
(5) height data are not easily available, the identification of the
operational environment is determined by a threshold that is a
function of the total length of road network and the number of
junctions per unit area, as urban networks will be denser than
suburban and rural networks:
TOE = f (L , N )
(6)
TOE = N /L
where TOE is the threshold for operational environment, L is the
total length of road network (in km) within a given area, and N
is the number of junctions in that area.
A national-level GIS road network was used to identify the
TOE , which can be used to detect the operational environment on
which a vehicle is traveling. First, using the Google Earth map
for the United Kingdom, a sample of rural areas was identified
in the network. Random points were selected within the road
network of rural area, and a circle of radius 200 m was drawn
around each of the points. The radius of the circle considered
here needs to differentiate the urban, suburban, and rural ar-
eas. If the radius is too large (say 2,000 m), the TOE value (the
calculated threshold) may not represent the operational envi-
ronment in which the vehicle is exactly located. On the other
hand, if it is too small (say 10 m) the calculated threshold value
cannot exactly differentiate the operational environment. Cir-
cles of different radii were tested to obtain the size that would
successfully and consistently differentiate between operational
environments; the radius of circle is fixed at 200 m. The total
vol. 16 no. 3 2012
 TOPOLOGICAL MAP-MATCHING ALGORITHM
Frequency µR µS
TOE1
( µ s − 2σ s )
Rural
Suburban
1.6 2.88 5.7
Figure 5 Thresholds for operational environment identification (color figure available online).
length of all road segments (L) and the number of junctions
(N) within that circular area are calculated. This procedure was
repeated for 300 different random points in the network. This
procedure provides a set of L and N for that particular operational
environment. A factor, which is the ratio of N and L, is identified
and its mean (µ) and standard deviation (σ ) are calculated. The
same procedure is repeated for the urban and suburban envi-
ronments. The means and standard deviations of the factor for
urban, suburban, and rural operational environments are shown
in Figure 4. Here, µU , µ S , and µ R are the mean values and σU ,
σ S , and σ R are the standard deviations of the factors for urban,
suburban, and rural operational environments, respectively.
Figure 5 shows that the values of the means and standard
deviations of the N and L ratios for different operational envi-
ronments overlap, meaning that it is not easy to derive threshold
values for the identification of an operational environment. In
the case where a vehicle travels in a mixed urban setting (i.e.,
partly urban and partly suburban), the algorithm should recog-
nize that the vehicle is in an urban area so that more stringent
weight coefficients are selected for the map-matching process.
This is also true for the case of mixed suburban area (i.e., partly
suburban and partly rural) in which the weight coefficients for
the suburban area should be employed.
Assuming the ratio of N and L follows a normal distribution
and based on the preceding argument, two threshold values
(TOE1 and TOE2 ) are identified as:
TOE1 = µ S − 2σ S (7)
TOE2 = µU − 2σU (8)
1. If TOE ≤ TOE1 then it is assumed that the operational envi-
ronment is rural.
2. If TOE1 < TOE < TOE2 then it is assumed that the operational
environment is suburban.
3. If TOE ≥ TOE2 then it is assumed that the operational envi-
ronment is urban.
For these, TOE is the calculated threshold in the map-
matching process.
The means of the factor (N/L) for urban, suburban, and rural
operational environments are identified as 8.8, 5.7, and 1.6,
intelligent transportation systems
155
µU
TOE2 σ R = 1.295
σ S = 1.41
( µU − 2σ U )
σ U = 0.993
Urban
N/L
6.81 8.8
respectively; the corresponding (σ ) values are 0.993, 1.41, and
1.29, respectively. The TOE1 and TOE2 were found to be 2.88 (i.e.,
5.7 – 2 × 1.41) and 6.81 (i.e., 8.8 – 2 × 0.993), respectively.
In the map-matching process if the calculated threshold (TOE )
using the same area (i.e., a circle of 200 m radius) is less than
or equal to TOE1 (i.e., 2.88) the vehicle is in a rural area; if it is
more than or equal to TOE2 (i.e., 6.81) the vehicle is in an urban
area; if it is between these two values then the vehicle is in a
suburban area.
Re-Estimating Threshold Values
In the tMM algorithm three different threshold values are
used: a distance threshold (Dt ), a heading threshold (Ht ), and a
threshold value for a consistency check (Ct ). The tMM algorithm
checks whether a vehicle has reached a junction using two crite-
ria: (1) checking the distance from the previously map-matched
vehicle position to the downstream junction, using a distance
threshold (Dt ); and (2) checking the vehicle heading with re-
spect to the previously matched link direction, using a heading
threshold (Ht ). The third threshold value is used in a consistency
check (i.e., whether the distance between the raw position point
and the map-matched position on the link is large). Every time
the algorithm checks the distance between the raw positioning
point and the map-matched positioning point. If it exceeds a
certain limit (i.e., the threshold value) then the algorithm reiniti-
ates the process. Previously, these three thresholds (Dt , Ht , and
Ct ) were identified, using 1,800 positioning points, by manu-
ally checking whether the algorithm selects the “map-matching
at junction” process when the vehicle reaches a junction and
whether the algorithm can recognize the continuous mismatches
in order to reinitiate the process to identify the correct link. The
Dt , Ht , and Ct thresholds were identified as 20, 5, and 40, re-
spectively (Velaga et al., 2009). Now, as part of the algorithm
correction process, thresholds (Dt , Ht , and Ct ) were reestimated
using a positioning data set of 2,814 positioning points collected
in Central London (part of data set 1 in Table 1). An experiment
was conducted with different possible threshold values and the
percentage of correct link identification was measured. The Dt ,
Ht , and Ct values with minimum error in correct link identifica-
tion are identified as 23, 5, and 37, respectively. These are not
vol. 16 no. 3 2012
156 N. R. VELAGA ET AL.

Table 4 Enhanced algorithm performance.

Horizontal accuracy (m) Along-track error (m) Cross-track error (m)

Percent of correct
Enhancement link identification Average SD Average SD Average SD

Base tMM 96.5 4.33 2.83 2.16 1.74 3.29 2.86

algorithm
1: New weight 96.7 4.31 2.78 2.14 1.69 3.28 2.85
scores
2: Lookup table 97.7 4.20 2.48 2.12 1.53 3.20 2.60
3: New threshold 96.5 4.33 2.83 2.16 1.74 3.30 2.87
values
1 and 2 97.8 4.19 2.47 2.11 1.52 3.19 2.59
1 and 3 96.7 4.31 2.79 2.15 1.69 3.29 2.85
2 and 3 97.7 4.20 2.48 2.12 1.53 3.20 2.60
1, 2 and 3 97.8 4.19 2.47 2.11 1.52 3.19 2.59

Note. SD, standard deviation.

significantly different from the thresholds identified in Velaga
et al. (2009).
THE ENHANCED tMM ALGORITHM’S
PERFORMANCE
An independent data set (sample size 5,256 positioning
points; data set 4 in Table 1) collected in and around Nottingham
was used to reevaluate the performance of the enhanced map-
matching algorithm. A reference (true) trajectory was obtained
from a carrier-phase GPS receiver integrated with a high-grade
inertial navigation system (INS). The accuracy of the GPS/INS
system was found to be better than 5 cm more than 97.5% of the
time in all three coordinate components (Aponte, Meng, Moore,
Hill, & Burbidge, 2009). The total length of the test trajectory
is 55.9 km.
Improvement in the correct road link identification also af-
fects horizontal accuracy. The highly accurate positioning data
from the carrier-phase GPS/INS enabled us to check the algo-
rithm’s horizontal positioning accuracy. The algorithm’s perfor-
mance for each enhancement, with respect to the original (base)
tMM algorithm is shown in Table 4.
The original algorithm in the first row, reported in Velaga
et al. (2009), correctly identifies the road links 96.5% of the
time. The next rows show the impact of each enhancement in-
dividually. The use of a lookup table to identify the operational
environment (2) contributes most to the improvement in the al-
gorithms performance. Re-examining the optimal weight scores
using a genetic algorithm (1) slightly improves the algorithm.
Reestimating the thresholds used in the algorithm (3) does not
contribute in improving the algorithm performance. Neverthe-
less, the new thresholds are retained as the derivation process
is more robust. We then report the outcomes of different com-
binations of enhancements before combining all three to give
97.8% correct link identification, an improvement of 1.3%. The
horizontal accuracy of the enhanced algorithm is identified as
9.1 m (µ + 2σ ) with the along-track and cross-track errors as
5.2 m (µ + 2σ )and 8.4 m (µ + 2σ ), respectively.
The performance of the enhanced tMM algorithm was then
compared with that of other tMM algorithms and the results
are presented in Table 5. Column two shows the performance
of map-matching algorithms, with respect to correct link iden-
tification and horizontal accuracy, as reported by the original
authors. Quddus, Ochieng, and Noland (2006) examined the
performance of some of these MM algorithms using positioning
data from suburban areas (2,040 positioning points), collected
from the southern part of London, using GPS/DR and a digital
map of scale 1:2,500. For this data, carrier-phase GPS observa-
tions were used to obtain the reference (true) trajectory. These

Table 5 Performance of topological MM algorithms with respect to existing algorithms.

Percent correct link identification and Percent correct link identification and horizontal
Author and year of publication horizontal accuracy in m (µ + 2σ ) by authors accuracy in m (µ + 2σ ) by Quddus et al. (2006)

White et al. (2000) 85.8% 76.8% and 32.0 m

Greenfeld (2002) — 85.6% and 18.3 m
Srinivasan, Cheu, and Tan (2003) 98.5% 80.2% and 21.2 m
Quddus et al. (2003) 88.6% and 18.1 m 88.6% and 18.1 m
Yang, Cai, and Yuan (2003). — 82.5% and 25.0 m
Yin and Wolfson (2004) 94% —
Blazquez and Vonderohe (2005) 94.8% —
Enhanced tMM algorithm in this research 97.8% and 9.1 m∗ 97.65% and 8.86 m+
∗ Using data set 4 in Table 1.
+Using the positioning data set and the GIS map obtained from Quddus et al. (2006).
intelligent transportation systems vol. 16 no. 3 2012
 TOPOLOGICAL MAP-MATCHING ALGORITHM
results are shown in column three. The same positioning data
and the digital map were also used to examine the enhanced
tMM algorithm developed in this study to give directly compa-
rable results, reported in column three, where it is clearly the
best performing algorithm of those tested on the common data
set.
The MM algorithm developed by Srinivasan, Cheu, and Tan
(2003) identified 98.5% of the segments correctly; this was
based on the small positioning data of sample size 242 posi-
tioning points (about 4 minutes of data) in a simple network
(university roads). When tested on a larger, more representa-
tive road network, the accuracy falls to 80.2% (Quddus et al.,
2006). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the enhanced
tMM algorithm developed here outperforms existing topolog-
ical MM algorithms reported in the literature when tested in
realistic traffic environments.
CONCLUSIONS
The process of improving a weight-based topological map-
matching algorithm was presented in this article. The enhance-
ment process included mismatching detection, identification
of improvement strategies, algorithm modification, and perfor-
mance reevaluation. After map-matching using extensive posi-
tioning data sets, all mismatches due to positioning data errors,
digital road map, and map-matching process were identified.
In positioning data sets 1 and 2 (for which the digital maps
are good), about 50% of the wrong road link identification
was due to the map-matching process. After further examin-
ing the mismatches due to the map-matching process, three
strategies were adopted to enhance the tMM algorithm. They
were:
1. Re-examining the relative importance of weight scores using
a genetic algorithm.
2. Using a lookup table for operational environment identifica-
tion.
3. Re-estimating threshold values.
The performance of the algorithm was re-evaluated using an
independent positioning data set. The enhanced algorithm suc-
ceeded 97.8% of the time in correct link identification with an
horizontal accuracy of 9.1m (µ + 2σ ). Before enhancement the
success rate was 96.5% with 10 m (µ+2σ ) horizontal accuracy,
implying that modifications improve performance by 1.3% in
correct link identification and 0.9 m in horizontal accuracy. The
use of a lookup table to identify the operational environment
contributed most to the improvement. The enhanced tMM al-
gorithm outperforms other tMM algorithms in realistic traffic
environments.
The key contributions of this research compared with Velaga
et al. (2009) can therefore be summarized as: (1) identifying the
causal factors of mismatching and disaggregating the percentage
of map-matching errors by positioning sensors, GIS maps, and
intelligent transportation systems
157
the map-matching process; (2) formulating different strategies
to improve the map-matching algorithms based on the causal
factors; and (3) improving the performance of the topological
map-matching algorithm and its transferability.
The enhanced tMM algorithm has the potential to be ap-
plied in a range ITS services that require about 98% correct
link identification with horizontal positioning accuracy of 8
to 10 m (95% of the time). These include electronic toll col-
lection, electronic parking payment, GPS-based variable road
user charging, navigation and route guidance, public transport
management, automatic bus arrival announcements, fleet man-
agement, commercial vehicle administrative processes, vehi-
cle electronic clearance, emergency vehicle management, and
incident and accident management. The practical implemen-
tation of this algorithm would not be complex as a topolog-
ical map-matching algorithm, requires less input than more
sophisticated approaches, and is both simple and fast. The en-
hanced algorithm could be adopted by any ITS developer or
GPS manufacturer into their systems to improve vehicle location
information.
REFERENCES
Aponte, J., Meng, X., Moore, T., Hill C., & Burbidge, M. (2009). As-
sessing network RTK WIRELESS DELIVERY. GPS World, 20(2),
14–27.
Blazquez, C. A.,, & Vonderohe, A. P. (2005). Simple map-matching
algorithm applied to intelligent winter maintenance vehicle data.
Transportation Research Record, 1935, 68–76.
Callan, R. (2003). Artificial intelligence. Gosport, UK Ashford Colour
Press.
Cappelle, C., El-Badoui El-Najjar, M., Pomorski, D., & Charpillet, F.
(2010). Intelligent geolocalization in urban areas using global posi-
tioning systems, three-dimensional geographic information systems,
and vision. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 14(1),
3–12.
Chen, W., Li, Z., Yu, M., & Chen, Y. (2008). An integrated map-match
algorithm with position feedback and shape-based mismatch detec-
tion and correction. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems,
12(4), 168–175.
Goodwin, C., & Lau, J. (1993). Vehicle navigation and map quality.
Proceedings of the IEEE-IEE Vehicle Navigation & Information
Systems Conference, Ottawa, 17–20.
Greenfeld, J. S. (2002). Matching GPS observations to location on a
digital map. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, January 13–17.
Kaplan, E. D., & Hegarty, C. J. (2006). Understanding GPS: Principles
and applications. London, UK: Artech House.
Karray, F. O., & De Silva, C. (2004). Soft computing and intelligent
systems design: Theory, Tools and applications. Essex, England:
Addison-Wesley.
Kim, W., Jee, G., & Lee, J. (2000). Efficient use of digital road map in
various positioning for ITS, IEEE Symposium on Position Location
and Navigation, San Diego, CA, 170–176.
Konar, A. (2005). Computational intelligence: Principles, techniques
and applications. New York, NY: Springer.
vol. 16 no. 3 2012
158 N. R. VELAGA ET AL.
Li, X., Lin, H., & Zhao, Y. (2005). A connectivity based map-matching
algorithm. Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, 5(3), 69–76.
MathWorks. (2008). Genetic algorithm and direct search toolbox user’s
guide. Massachusetts, USA: The Mathworks, Inc.
Michael, C. F., Mangasarian, O. L., & Wright S. J. (2007). Linear
programming with MATLAB. Philadelphia, PA: MPS-SIAM Series
on Optimization.
Quddus, M. A., Ochieng, W. Y., Zhao, L., & Noland, R. B. (2003).
A General map matching algorithm for transportation telematics
applications. GPS Solutions, 7(3), 157–167.
Quddus, M. A., Ochieng, W. Y., & Noland, R. B. (2006). A high accu-
racy fuzzy logic-based map matching algorithm for road transport.
Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Technology, Plan-
ning, and Operations, 10, 103–115.
Quddus, M. A., Ochieng, W. Y., & Noland, R. B. (2007). Current map
matching algorithm for transport applications: State-of-the art and
future research direction. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 15, 312–328.
Russel, S., & Norvig, P. (2002). Artificial intelligence: A modern ap-
proach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall.
Smaili, C., El Najjar, M. E., & Charpillet, F. (2008). A road match-
ing method for precise vehicle localization using hybrid bayesian
network. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 12(4),
176–188.
Srinivasan, D., Cheu, R. L., & Tan, C. W. (2003). Development of an
improved ERP system using GPS and AI technique. IEEE Proceed-
ings on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 554–559.
intelligent transportation systems
Taylor, G., & Blewitt, G. (2006). Intelligent positioning: GIS-GPS
unification. West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
Velaga, N. R., Quddus, M. A., & Bristow, A. L. (2009). Developing
an enhanced weight based topological map-matching algorithm for
intelligent transport systems. Transportation Research C: Emerging
Technologies 17(6), 672–683.
White, C. E., Bernstein, D., & Kornhauser A. L. (2000). Some
map matching algorithms for personal navigation assistants. Trans-
portation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 91–
108.
Xu, H., Liu, H., Tan, C. W., & Bao, Y. (2010). Development and appli-
cation of an enhanced Kalman filter and global positioning system
error-correction approach for improved map-matching. Journal of
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 14(1), 27–36.
Yang, D., Cai, B., & Yuan, Y. (2003). An improved map-matching
algorithm used in vehicle navigation system. IEEE Proceedings on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2, 1246–1250.
Yang, D., Zhang, T., Li, J., & Lian, X. (2011). Synthetic fuzzy eval-
uation method of trajectory similarity in map-matching. Journal of
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 15(4), 193–204.
Yin, H., & Wolfson, O. (2004). A weight-based map-matching method
in moving objects databases. Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management,
437–438.
Zhang, T., Yang, D., Li, T., Li, K., & Lian, X. (2011). An improved
virtual intersection model for vehicle navigation at intersections.
Transportation Research Part C, 19, 413–423.
vol. 16 no. 3 2012