2015
DOI: 10.1109/jstars.2015.2467160
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pole-Like Road Object Detection From Mobile Lidar System Using a Coarse-to-Fine Approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The detection rate for the three data sets tested were 83%, 91% and 83% by the method of El-Halawany and Lichti [8], respectively. The detection rate was about 90% by the method of Teo and Chiu [36]. The method of Rodríguez-Cuenca, et al [24] detected rates in the two datasets at 94.3% and 95.7%.…”
Section: Comparison With Previous Methodsmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The detection rate for the three data sets tested were 83%, 91% and 83% by the method of El-Halawany and Lichti [8], respectively. The detection rate was about 90% by the method of Teo and Chiu [36]. The method of Rodríguez-Cuenca, et al [24] detected rates in the two datasets at 94.3% and 95.7%.…”
Section: Comparison With Previous Methodsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…These ground points include a large number of redundant points. If the ground points are effectively removed, the efficiency of subsequent detection and extraction of the PLOs is improved [36,37]. In order to filter ground points, Zhang, et al [38] used progressive window algorithm based on the mathematical morphology ground filtering method.…”
Section: Ground Points Filteringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The process involves identifying required parameters to shape segmented point clouds into parametric or polyhedral model components describing individual building elements (Teo and Chiu, 2015) , and then connecting all components using CSG (Constructive Solid Geometry) or similar algorithms to form a barebones model representing the skeleton structure of the target. If necessary, additional levels of detail of the bare-bones model can be achieved using procedural (Koehl and Roussel, 2015) or projected generalization algorithms.…”
Section: Proposed Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the results of these methods are often effective in using the data from a practical perspective, the fact remains that there can still be a significant loss of information from the ignored data. Without removing the points during the partition procedure, other methods divide the data into sections or tiles, such that each section can be processed separately to reduce the computation complexity (e.g., Chen, et al [6], Holgado-Barco, et al [8], Wu, et al [10], Soilán, et al [16], Jung, et al [17], Teo and Chiu [19], Pu, et al [23]). Furthermore, depending on the desired analysis, the refinement of the data partition can be achieved by merging multiple profiles to generate a series of overlapping tiles (e.g., Zai, et al [11], Wang, et al [20]), or by dividing a profile based on some other constraints, such as the slope of the roadway (e.g., Wang, et al [9]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also consider the scan angle in bounding that estimate. Similarly, Teo and Chiu [19] first estimate the elevation of the road, using the height of the trajectory, and then based on the normal vector and horizontal range to the road centerlines generated from the trajectory, the road surface is segmented. Holgado-Barco, et al [8] also extract the ground points by considering scan angles within a given range threshold.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%