=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2088/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Automating Geological Mapping: a Constraint-Based Approach
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2088/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-2088
|authors=Azimjon Sayidov,Robert Weibel,Kiran Zahra
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/agile/Sayidov17
}}
==Automating Geological Mapping: a Constraint-Based Approach==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2088/paper8.pdf
Automating geological mapping: A constraint-based approach
Azimjon Sayidov Robert Weibel
University of Zurich University of Zurich
Winterthurerstrasse 190 Winterthurerstrasse 190
Zurich, Switzerland Zurich, Switzerland
azimjon.sayidov@geo.uzh.ch robert.weibel@geo.uzh.ch
Abstract
Cartographic generalization in geological mapping is receiving increasing interest, though only few reliable automated generalization tools
are available for this purpose today. Thus, improvements to methods for the generalization of categorical data, such as geological or soil maps
are in demand. We advocate a constraint-based approach for geological map generalization, which could be implemented by integrating vector
and raster based generalization methods. The research is divided into three parts: conceptual development, process modelling and data
processing, and vector and raster based geological map generalization. In the first part, we develop the general methodology of the research,
including identification and classification of constraints for geological map generalization, while the second part is dedicated to process
modelling and its implementation. The third part of the research evaluates the results of generalization while comparing advantages and
drawbacks of vector-based generalization against raster-based generalization. Below we give a short summary of the overall research idea
highlighting the gaps found, methods used and some initial results.
Keywords: Geological mapping, map generalization, constraint-based.
1 Introduction generalization decisions. Such situations can be best formalized
and controlled by using constraints.
Map generalization is both a central and complex process if The constraint-based approach to automating map
map-making. This process is responsible for producing legible generalization has emerged as the leading paradigm over the
and useful maps, by making choices about what to display, past two decades [3, 14]. In this approach, constraints are
simplify, aggregate or even emphasize for specific map understood as design specifications and graphical condition
purpose. Due to the importance of map generalization, its that a valid map should adhere to. For instance, map objects
automation has been an active area of research for several should be sufficiently large to remain visible and legible on a
decades [4]. Most research on map generalization, however, reduced scale map; or map objects should be separated by
has focused on topographic maps, which are the most common sufficient space to remain visually separable when the map
map type used (e.g. national maps, Google maps etc.). Specific scale is reduced. In these two simple examples, a constraint
thematic maps, such as geological map, which have specific would be defined for the minimum size, and a second one for
geometrical and topological demands, have been largely the minimum separation distance. If any of these constraints are
neglected by generalization research [13]. Moreover, applying violated, a conflict resolution action is triggered, such as in the
the same strategies and processes used for topographic map first case, when a map object becomes too small, it may be
generalization to categorical mapping would not render a either removed or enlarged, depending on whether it is
proper solution as requirements and procedures for geological considered unimportant or important. The definition of
map generalization are quite different from topographic constraints has the advantage of formulating the map
mapping. generalization in a modular fashion, and formulating it as an
Geological maps are among the most complex thematic optimization problem [3].
maps, with various elaborate shapes and structures, rendering The overall objective of the research is to develop a
the generalization process more demanding and require in- methodology to automatically generalize geological maps
depth analysis of these structures prior to the generalization. using a constraint-based approach. The methodology considers
One of the key properties of geological maps is that the entire the generalization of individual polygons as well as group of
map space is covered by polygons, with no overlaps or gaps. polygons. This papers presents a methodology that deals with
Geological maps contains big, small, long and narrow, the individual polygons in the geological maps. Next, step of
concave and convex, round and rectangular and etc. shapes of the research however, is dedicated to a procedure to detect
polygons and generalization of such complex fabrics requires meaningful groups of polygons as a precursor to generalizing
making multiple interrelated and possibly conflicting these polygon groups.
AGILE PhD School 2017 – Leeds, 30 October -2 November, 2017
can implement the previously defined constraints and thus
2 Background assess whether any constraints are violated.
Constraints dictate the decisions, limit the search space of the
Generalization of categorical maps can be carried out in raster generalization process and reduce the content of the map, while
as well as in vector environments, depending on the demand on generalizing it. They can be defined conceptually regardless of
the output. Thus, researches are divided in two parts. Early the spatial data model used, vector or raster, however their
research aiming at generalization in a raster environment was implementation may differ. For instance, if the pixel size of a
carried out by [4] or [14]. In vector representations [7, 1, 2, 12, raster is already larger than the minimum visual separation
6] provide examples. The integration of methods for both limit, the associated constraints (minimum size, minimum
representations was addressed by [8, 11]. The approach of [11, separation distance) will not apply. Similarly, the measures
13] is confined to raster-based generalization, i.e. to maps that used to implement the constraints will differ between the two
exist in raster form, where it works relatively well. In terms of spatial data models. For instance, distances are measured
available software tools for geological map generalization, the differently in vector or raster data.
work by [11] still defines the state of the art. However, the In the generalization process constraints have the following
approach is not able to explicitly consider cartographic functions (Figure 1): conflict detection - to identify areas that
properties of features such as the size of polygons or the have to be generalized, for example by evaluating the quantity
distance between them. and severity of constraint violations; and conflict resolution -
Moreover, since most geological maps are stored in vector to guide the choice of operators according to constraints
format, data will have to be converted to raster format in order priorities [2].
to execute the generalization step, and subsequently back to conflict detection conflict resolution
vector format again. These two conversion steps cause a loss of
data accuracy, which is a further drawback of the approach. value value
Thus, the conceptual approach used in this paper aims to Severity List of plans
improve existing methods for the generalization of geological
maps by firstly identifying constraints for geological map value
generalization and modelling them for integrated vector and Importance
raster approaches, which are at the same time able to provide
Method
quality control for the target map.
Evaluation value
Priority
3 Methodology and initial results
method value
Our conceptual framework is based on defining constraints,
Measure(s) Goal value
defining corresponding measures, modelling the generalization
process and finally executing the process, while monitoring
quality evaluation. Moreover, it may also be regarded as a Figure 1. Modeling Constraints.
dynamic generalization model guided by constraints, where
decisions depend on the semantic and geometrical Graphical constraints, also referred to as size constraints, are
characteristics of an object or set of objects, requiring the related to the readability of the map features, such as size, width
existence of procedural knowledge in order to appropriately and differentiation of the objects. They are detected by
select map generalization operators and algorithms. graphical legibility limits and are handled in the first part of the
In categorical maps typically the entire surface of the map is research. Six size constraints as well as associated measures
covered with contiguous polygons or areal features, with no have been identified (Figure 2): 1. The number of polygons in
holes nor overlaps. Such maps can equally be modelled as a the source and target scale should correspond to the number
vector or raster data representation, respectively. which identified by Radical Law [15, 16] (1).
Raster generalization is seen by some authors as the preferred
choice and ideal for geological mapping at all scales [5], using
classification, reclassification, majority filters, or low and high
pass filters. However, it is generally not recommended to use
raster generalization, unless there is a good reason, such as if 2
350 m
the source map is in raster format or if only raster operators can
handle a particular task. Otherwise, converting vector data to
raster causes loss of information as well as positional accuracy
of the features in the map. 2
The vector representation lends itself better to geometrical 913 m
3
transformations of vertices, such as shifting the position of
individual vertices, or removing vertices or polygons
altogether. Also, since geological units are modelled as entire
polygons rather than simply as a collection of pixels, spatial 6
relations between polygons can be explicitly modelled,
enabling better contextual operations, such as contextual
aggregation of sub-categories to a unique category.
The next main steps of the framework consist in defining the Figure 2. Size Constraints: 2. Minimum area;
generalization constraints, and in defining the measures that 3. Object separation; 6. Distance between
boundaries
AGILE PhD School 2017 – Leeds, 30 October -2 November, 2017
process with constraints that define cartographic requirements
(1) and legibility principles. Defining constraints, taking into
account the properties and peculiarities of geological maps,
however, is a key point accompanied by logical and structural
integration of generalization algorithms. It does not only
require generalization algorithms, but also algorithms that
implement the measures needed to assess whether the
constraints are maintained.
References
2. The minimum area of polygons should not be less than
1250 m2 (for the example of a transition from 1:25k to 1:50k); [1] Downs, T. C., and Mackaness, W. A. (2002). An
if there are polygons less then this limit they are either Integrated Approach to the Generalization of Geological
removed, enlarged based on their geological importance, or Maps. In Cartographic Journal, The, 39(2), 137–152.
aggregated based on their similarities with neighbouring http://doi.org/10.1179/000870402786962489.
polygons. 3. The distance between polygons should not be less
than 25 meters, and if so, they are either aggregated (again [2] Galanda, M. (2003). Automated Polygon Generalization
based on the geological properties) or displaced to the in a Multi Agent System. PhD thesis, Department of
minimum distance. 4. and 5. The distance between consecutive Geography, University of Zurich, 188 pages. Retrieved
vertices and the outline granularity may be handled by a from
bandwidth simplification algorithm and smoothing http://www.geo.uzh.ch/fileadmin/files/content/abteilunge
respectively, removing vertices that are very close and giving n/gis/research/phd_theses/thesis_MartinGalanda_2003.p
the shape a smoother look, respectively. 6. The distance df.
between interior boundaries of a polygon should be larger than
15 meters. If not, the polygon is grown by a certain value, until [3] Harrie, L. & Weibel, R., 2007. Modelling the Overall
its width reaches the corresponding graphical limit (Figure 2). Process of Generalisation. In: Mackaness, W.A., Ruas, A.
We have recently developed a workflow-based methodology & Sarjakoski, L.T. (eds.). Generalisation of Geographic
that implements the above size constraints (Sayidov & Weibel, Information: Cartographic Modelling and Applications.
in prep.). The methodology starts by detecting polygons that Elsevier Science, 67-87. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
are too small. Depending on their geological importance, they 08-045374-3.X5000-5.
are then either enlarged or removed. Proximity conflicts that
may have been caused by the enlargement of polygons then [4] Mackaness, W., Ruas, A., & Sarjakoski, L., 2007.
trigger a series of aggregation and displacement operations, and Generalisation of Geographic Information. In
finally the remaining size constraints are dealt with. Cartographic Modelling and Applications. Oxford:
Elsevier. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045374-
So far, in the first stage of this research, we have only 3.X5000-5.
considered constraints that deal mostly with single polygons or
groups of polygons confined to their immediate [5] Marjoribanks, R. (2010). Geological methods in mineral
neighbourhood. The next, second stage will deal with groups of exploration and mining. In Geological Methods in
polygons or polygon patterns, which could be regarded as Mineral Exploration and Mining.
constraints on the level of the entire map. These include e.g. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74375-0.
‘number of categories’, ‘area ratios’, ‘group polygons
proximity’, ‘maintenance of overall shape of patches’. On the [6] McCabe, C. (2008). Vector Approaches to Generalizing
other hand, these two stages, or levels, are closely connected Faults and Polygons in 1:24,000 Geologic Maps: Santa
and it seems fit to always link them and iterate between the two Rosa, California, Case Study.
levels (i.e. individual polygons vs. groups of polygons). For https://www.geovista.psu.edu/publications/2008/CMcCa
instance, reducing the number of polygons in reaction to the be_GeologicMapGeneralization.pdf.
minimum area constraint will directly affect the constraints
‘maintenance of overall shape of patches’, ‘group polygons [7] Muller, J. C. and Wang, Z. (1992). Area-patch
proximity’, and ‘area ratio between source and target map’ generalization for land use and land cover maps. In
which belong to the group level and map level constraints. Cartographic Journal, 29(2), 137-144, (1992).
The final stage of this PhD research will cover the comparison
of operators used in vector- and raster-based geological map [8] Peter, B., & Weibel, R. (1999). Using vector and raster-
generalization to assess their corresponding advantages and based techniques in categorical map generalization. In
weaknesses in order to make further recommendations Third ICA Workshop on Progress in Automated Map
regarding the integration of these two approaches. Generalization.
[9] Sayidov, A.K. & Weibel, R. (in prep.): Size constraints:
4 Conclusion Geological map generalization. In Cartography and
Geographic Information Science.
This PhD project departs from the hypothesis that automating
[10] Schylberg, L. (1993). Computational Methods for
the generalization of geological maps can be made more
Generalization of Cartographic Data in a Raster
objective and flexible by integrating vector and raster-based
generalization techniques and by guiding and monitoring the
AGILE PhD School 2017 – Leeds, 30 October -2 November, 2017
Environment. Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
[11] Smirnoff, A., Paradis, S. J., & Boivin, R. (2008).
Generalizing surficial geological maps for scale change:
ArcGIS tools vs. cellular automata model. In Computers
and Geosciences, 34(11), 1550–1568.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.10.013.
[12] Steiniger, S. and Weibel, R. (2005). A Conceptual
Framework For Automated Generalization and its
Application to Geologic and Soil Maps. In Proceedings
22nd International Cartographic Conference, La Coruña
(Spain), 11-16 July 2005.
[13] Steiniger S., Weibel R., 2007. Relations among map
objects in cartographic generalization. In Cartography
and Geographic Information Science, 34(3): 175-197.
[14] Su, B. Li, Z. Lodwick, G. and Müller, J. C. (1997).
Algebraic models for the aggregation of area features
based upon morphological operators. In International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 11(3):
233–246.
[15] Töpfer, F. (1974). Kartographishe Generalisierung, VEB,
Hermann Haack, Leipzig.
[16] Töpfer, F. and Pillewizer, W. (1966). “The principles of
selection”. The Cartographic Journal, Vol. 3, 1966, pp. 10-
16.
[17] Touya, G., Bucher, B., Falquet, G. & Jaara, K., 2014.
Modelling Geographic Relationships in Automated
Environments. In: Burghardt, D., Duchêne, C., &
Mackaness, W. (eds.). Abstracting Geographic
Information in a Data Rich World. Springer International.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00203-3.