Show simple item record

Differences in Feature Representation in Digital Map Databases

dc.contributor.authorNystuen, John D.
dc.contributor.authorFrank, Andrea I.
dc.date.accessioned2008-07-02T10:48:29Z
dc.date.available2008-07-02T10:48:29Z
dc.date.issued1997-12-21
dc.identifier.citationNystuen, John D. and Frank, Andrea I. "Differences in Feature Representation in Digital Map Databases." Solstice: An Electronic Journal of Geography and Mathematics, Volume VIII, Number 2. Ann Arbor: Institute of Mathematical Geography, 1997. Persistent URL (URI): http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/60253en_US
dc.identifier.issn1059-5325
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/60253
dc.description.abstractMap databases are integral to many ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) applications in navigation, traffic forecasting, and route planning. With the increasing deployment of ITS technology demands for accurate and complete digital map databases of the nation's road network are surging. The development and maintenance of high quality digital map databases is expensive and time-consuming. Database sharing will be a sensible approach whenever possible in order to reduce cost. In the US map databses are being produced by a variety of public agencies and private vendors. Quality and levels of accuracy vary depending on data sources and production procedures. Verifying the quality and accuracy of map databases for purposes of navigation is a pragmatic and important concern. The Society of Automotive Engineers has developed a Truth-in-Labeling Standard, the goal of which is to provide a consistent method for describing and comparing map databases. While the standard requires that database vendors provide a standardized label that lists basic database characteristics such as lineage, coverage, accuracy, content and scope of a database, there are currently no guidelines for feature representation (such as the layout of road intersections) in digital databases. Comparison of two different map databases reveals significant representational differences due to differences in precision of source material, data model and intended uses.en_US
dc.format.extent183804 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherInstitute of Mathematical Geographyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSolstice, Volume VIII, Number 2en_US
dc.subjectDigital Map Databasesen_US
dc.subjectFeature Representationen_US
dc.titleDifferences in Feature Representation in Digital Map Databasesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelGeography and Maps
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumNystuen: Professor of Urban Planning and Geography, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planningen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrank: Ph.D. Candidate, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planningen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/60253/1/Reprint97Nystuen.pdf
dc.owningcollnameMathematical Geography, Institute of (IMaGe)


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.