2013
DOI: 10.5194/isprsarchives-xl-1-w1-213-2013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From DSM to 3d Building Models: A Quantitative Evaluation

Abstract: ABS TRACT:The paper reviews the state-of-the-art in 3D city models and building block generation, with a description of the most common solutions and approaches. Then the digital reconstruction and comparison of LoD1 and LoD2 building models obtained with commercial packages and using different input data are presented. As input data, a DSM at 1m resolution derived from a GeoEye-1 stereo-pair, a DSM from an aerial block at 50 cm GSD and a LiDAR-based DSM at 1m resolution are used. The geometric buildings produ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However occlusions management in high density urban cities is one of the major challenges and therefore limit the approach to the 2D building outline diagnosis (Nyaruhuma et al, 2012). Quantitative and qualitative evaluations can involve visual inspection (Durupt and Taillandier, 2006), another reconstructed reference scene (Meidow and Schuster, 2005) or ground truth surveyed measurements (Macay Moreira et al, 2013). These papers highlight the role of the accuracy of the input data (here a DSM) and of the 2D topographic maps used for the reconstruction process.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However occlusions management in high density urban cities is one of the major challenges and therefore limit the approach to the 2D building outline diagnosis (Nyaruhuma et al, 2012). Quantitative and qualitative evaluations can involve visual inspection (Durupt and Taillandier, 2006), another reconstructed reference scene (Meidow and Schuster, 2005) or ground truth surveyed measurements (Macay Moreira et al, 2013). These papers highlight the role of the accuracy of the input data (here a DSM) and of the 2D topographic maps used for the reconstruction process.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The adopted methods heavily depend on the spatial resolution of the input data and no generic method has been developed so far. Regardless of the computed approach, the evaluation of generated 3D building city models has been barely tackled in the literature, apart from measures proposed in the ISPRS benchmark of Rottensteiner et al (2012), and simple distances between 3D models and ground truth measurements (Macay Moreira et al, 2013). Currently, evaluation can be only detected with (expensive) visual inspection or with (non-generic) intrinsic criteria of reconstruction methods, which are both unsatisfactory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The topic has already been investigated to different extents by other authors (e.g. Macay Moreira et al, 2013;Wate et al, 2016;Biljecki et al, 2018). Here we will restrict the reasoning to the CityGML "world", as the number of possibilities tied to the different LoDs and the rather loose definition of LoD in the CityGML specifications can already lead to rather different results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The potential of VHR optical sensors for 3D city model generation has been addressed in [15][16][17], showing promising results for automatic building extraction when compared to a LiDAR elevation model, although highlighting some difficulties in the case of small individual house reconstruction. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of 3D building models from different data sources was presented in [18], where a DSM at 1 m resolution derived from a GeoEye-1 stereo-pair, a DSM from an aerial block at 50 cm GSD, and a LiDAR-based DSM at 1 m resolution were used. Their results show that the percentage of correctly reconstructed models is very similar for airborne and LiDAR data (59% and 67%, respectively), while for GeoEye data it is lower (only 41%).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%