Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3603719.3603722acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesssdbmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

A Computer Vision Approach for Detecting Discrepancies in Map Textual Labels

Published: 27 August 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Maps provide various sources of information. An important example of such information is textual labels such as cities, neighborhoods, and street names. Although we treat this information as facts, and despite the massive effort done by providers to continuously improve their accuracy, this data is far from perfect. Discrepancies in textual labels rendered on the map are one of the major sources of inconsistencies across map providers. These discrepancies can have significant impacts on the reliability of the derived information and decision-making processes. Thus, it is important to validate the accuracy and consistency in such data. Most providers treat this data as their propriety data and it is not available to the public, thus we cannot compare the data directly. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel computer vision-based approach for automatically extracting and classifying labels based on the visual characteristics of the label, which indicates its category based on the format convention used by the specific map provider. Based on the extracted data, we detect the degree of discrepancies across map providers. We consider three map providers: Bing Maps, Google Maps, and OpenStreetMaps. The neural network we develop classifies the text labels with an accuracy up to 93% in all providers. We leverage our system to analyze randomly selected regions in different markets. The studied markets are USA, Germany, France, and Brazil. Experimental results and statistical analysis reveal the amount of discrepancies across map providers per region. We calculate the Jaccard distance between the extracted text sets for each pair of map providers, which represents the discrepancy percentage. Discrepancies percentages as high as 90% were found in some markets.

References

[1]
Azure. 2022. Azure Cognitive Services. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cognitive-services/
[2]
Ayush Bandil, Vaishali Girdhar, Hieu Chau, Mohamed Ali, Abdeltawab Hendawi, Harsh Govind, Peiwei Cao, and Ashley Song. 2021. GeoDart: A System for Discovering Maps Discrepancies. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 2535–2546. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE51399.2021.00285
[3]
Ayush Bandil, Vaishali Girdhar, Kivanc Dincer, Harsh Govind, Peiwei Cao, Ashley Song, and Mohamed Ali. 2020. An interactive system to compare, explore and identify discrepancies across map providers. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. 425–428.
[4]
Phagasinee Boottho and Sally E. Goldin. 2017. Automated evaluation of online mapping platforms. In 2017 International Electrical Engineering Congress (iEECON). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEECON.2017.8075809
[5]
Maria Antonia Brovelli, Marco Minghini, Monia Molinari, and Peter Mooney. 2017. Towards an automated comparison of OpenStreetMap with authoritative road datasets. Transactions in GIS 21, 2 (2017), 191–206.
[6]
Yao-Yi Chiang and Craig A Knoblock. 2010. An Approach for Recognizing Text Labels in Raster Maps. In 2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. 3199–3202. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2010.783
[7]
CVAT.ai Corporation. 2022. Computer Vision Annotation Tool (CVAT). https://github.com/opencv/cvat
[8]
Marc Pierrot Deseilligny, Hervé Le Men, and Georges Stamon. 1995. Character string recognition on maps, a rotation-invariant recognition method. Pattern Recognition Letters 16, 12 (1995), 1297–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8655(95)00084-5
[9]
Marco Helbich, Chritoph Amelunxen, Pascal Neis, and Alexander Zipf. 2012. Comparative spatial analysis of positional accuracy of OpenStreetMap and proprietary geodata. Proceedings of GI_Forum 4 (2012), 24.
[10]
Steven P Jackson, William Mullen, Peggy Agouris, Andrew Crooks, Arie Croitoru, and Anthony Stefanidis. 2013. Assessing completeness and spatial error of features in volunteered geographic information. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 2, 2 (2013), 507–530.
[11]
Musfira Jilani, Padraig Corcoran, and Michela Bertolotto. 2013. Automated quality improvement of road network in OpenStreetMap. In Agile Workshop (action and interaction in volunteered geographic information). 19.
[12]
Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. 2017. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2117–2125.
[13]
Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision. Springer, 740–755.
[14]
Bing Maps. 2022. Bing Maps Tile System. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system?redirectedfrom=MSDN
[15]
Ashish Ranjan, Varun Nagesh Jolly Behera, and Motahar Reza. 2021. OCR Using Computer Vision and Machine Learning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50641-4_6
[16]
Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Vol. 28. Curran Associates, Inc.https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2015/file/14bfa6bb14875e45bba028a21ed38046-Paper.pdf
[17]
I. Schlegel. 2021. Automated Extraction of Labels from Large-Scale Historical Maps. AGILE: GIScience Series 2 (2021), 12. https://doi.org/10.5194/agile-giss-2-12-2021
[18]
Fares Tabet, Sikha Pentyala, Birva H. Patel, Abdeltawab Hendawi, Peiwei Cao, Ashley Song, Harsh Govind, and Mohamed Ali. 2021. OSMRunner : A System for Exploring and Fixing OSM Connectivity. In 2021 22nd IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM). 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1109/MDM52706.2021.00039
[19]
Wikipedia. 2023. Jaccard index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaccard_index
[20]
Yuxin Wu, Alexander Kirillov, Francisco Massa, Wan-Yen Lo, and Ross Girshick. 2019. Detectron2. https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2.

Index Terms

  1. A Computer Vision Approach for Detecting Discrepancies in Map Textual Labels
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        SSDBM '23: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management
        July 2023
        232 pages
        ISBN:9798400707469
        DOI:10.1145/3603719
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 27 August 2023

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. azure cognitive services
        2. computer-vision
        3. detectron2
        4. faster-rcnn
        5. geospatial data
        6. maps discrepancies
        7. neural networks
        8. textual labels

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Conference

        SSDBM 2023

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 146 submissions, 38%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • 0
          Total Citations
        • 251
          Total Downloads
        • Downloads (Last 12 months)231
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)47
        Reflects downloads up to 10 Oct 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Get Access

        Login options

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media