Data quality assessment of OSM datasets of Ringroad, Kathmandu, Nepal
-
Upload
dipesh-suwal -
Category
Education
-
view
349 -
download
8
description
Transcript of Data quality assessment of OSM datasets of Ringroad, Kathmandu, Nepal
Department of Civil and Geomatics Engineering
Kathmandu University
Dhulikhel, Kavre
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF OSM MAP OF KATHMANDU
Members (Group (5))Shaswat Kafle (11)Maheshwor Karki (14)Suresh Manandhar (17)Dipesh Suwal (29)
Project SupervisorMr. Sashish MaharjanMr. Nawaraj Shrestha
Project In chargeProf. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Maskey
Mid-Term Presentation on
04/12/2023
2
PRESENTATION OUTLINES• Background• Introduction• Rationale • Study Area• Objectives• Methodology• Resources Required• Project Schedule• Outcomes• Limitations• Conclusions• References
04/12/2023
3
BACKGROUND
• OSM is open source map can be prepared by anybody• Higher the accuracy of map, higher the use of that map• On the basis of quality of map they are used in various
project• In Nepal the accuracy of OSM map has not been mentioned.
04/12/2023
4
INTRODUCTION
• Data quality assessment means to check the accuracy in various quality aspects of the map and gives the knowledge how much that map can be trusted.
• Aspects• Positional accuracy• Logical consistency• Temporal accuracy• Thematic accuracy• Purpose• Usage• Lineage(how data was collected and evolved)
04/12/2023
5
RATIONALE
• The use of OSM map has been increasing day by day.
• But we aren’t aware about the quality of map.
04/12/2023
6
STUDY AREA
04/12/2023
7
STUDY AREA
04/12/2023
8
STUDY AREA
• Kathmandu is the capital and largest metropolitan city of Nepal
• Our project deals within Ringroad of Kathmandu valley.
• Length of ringroad is approximately 27 km.
04/12/2023
9
OBJECTIVES
• To find the accuracy of OSM map of our project site
Sub-Objective• Use of map in other projects such as disaster risk management ,
planning, tourism, navigation and others.
04/12/2023
10
METHODOLOGY
Data Validation
Data Analysis
Road Network Analysis• Positional Accuracy• Attribute Accuracy
Building Analysis• Positional Accuracy• Attribute Accuracy
Data Preparation
OSM in .shp file Coordinate system
Data Collection
OSM Digital Map
04/12/2023
11
METHODOLOGY
DATA COLLECTION• Openstreesmap and Survey Department map • Downloaded map from Openstreetmap Bulidings and Road
shape file from http://BBBike.orgosmium2shape on Wed Apr 3 2013 08:19:41
• Survey Department map from Survey Department of Nepal
04/12/2023
12
METHODOLOGY
Openstreetmap Survey Department MapRoad Map
04/12/2023
13
METHODOLOGY
Openstreetmap Survey Department MapBuilding Map
04/12/2023
14
METHODOLOGY
Meta Data of Survey Department Map• Topographic map of Nepal• Datum: Everest Bangladesh• projection system :MUTM
Meta Data of Openstreetmap• Volunteered geographic information• Datum:WGS84• projection System: Geographic Coordinate System
04/12/2023
15
METHODOLOGY
DATA PREPARATION• Change of projection system of OSM from WGS_84 to MUTM.• Parameters used in transformation are
ΔX=-293.17m
ΔY=-726.18m
ΔZ=-245.36m
(obtained from Survey department document)
04/12/2023
16
METHODOLOGY
Before TransformationAfter Transformation
OSM
SD
04/12/2023
17
METHODOLOGYDATA ANALYSIS
Positional Accuracy of Road• Calculate the percentage intersect with the buffer of SD map.• Classify the data into 5 classes (Very Good, Good, Medium,
Bad and Very Bad) using equal interval.
Road Centerline in SD
Road in OSM
Road Buffer of SD
04/12/2023
18
METHODOLOGYPositional Accuracy of Building
1.Near Distance Method• distance between centroid of OSM and SD buildings is
calculated• classify the data into 5 classes (Very Good, Good, Medium,
Bad and Very Bad) using equal interval.
Building in OSM
Distance Between Centroid of Buildings
Building in OSM
Fig.:
04/12/2023
19
METHODOLOGY2. Area difference
• difference of area of OSM and SD buildings is calculated• classify the data into 5 classes (Very Good, Good, Medium,
Bad and Very Bad) using equal interval.
Building in OSM
Building in SD
04/12/2023
20
METHODOLOGY3. Circulatory Ratio Difference (CRD)
• CRD=4*pi*Area /Perimeter2
• Difference of ratio of OSM and SD buildings is calculated• Checks the variation in shape• Classify the data into 5 classes (Very Good, Good, Medium, Bad and
Very Bad) using equal interval.
Building in OSM
Building in SD
04/12/2023
21
METHODOLOGY
• Attribute Accuracy
-name, one way ,bridge of road map
-verify attributes from field survey
04/12/2023
22
RESOURCES REQUIRED
• ArcGis Software• OSM map• Survey Department Map• Microsoft Excel 2007
04/12/2023
23
WORK SCHEDULES.No Weeks
Works1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 Concept paper
2 Proposal Defense
3 Data Collection
4 Data Preparation
4 Data Analysis
5 Mid term Presentation
6 Report preparation and Final Presentation
Proposed schedule Work Accomplished
04/12/2023
24
OUTCOMES
04/12/2023
25
04/12/2023
26
PROVISIONAL OUTCOMES
04/12/2023
27
04/12/2023
28
PROVISIONAL OUTCOMES
04/12/2023
29
OUTCOMESBuilding Analysis (Ward 12)
Fig: Near Distance Analysis
Near Distance
QUALITY Class(m) Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 0-6.4 56 82.35294
GOOD 6.4-12.8 8 11.76471
AVERAGE 12.8-19.2 2 2.941176
BAD 19.2-25.6 0 0
VERY BAD 25.6-32 2 2.941176
04/12/2023
30
Fig.: Circulatory Ratio Difference Analysis
Ciculatory Ratio Difference
QUALITY Class Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 0-0.06 56 82.35294
GOOD 0.06-0.12 7 10.29412
AVERAGE 0.12-0.18 3 4.411765
BAD 0.18-0.24 0 0
VERY BAD 0.24-0.31 2 2.941176
OUTCOMES
04/12/2023
31
VERY GOOD GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
10
20
30
40
50
60
54
82 2 2
Fig.: Area Difference Analysis
Area Difference
QUALITY Class(sq.m.) Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 0-0.06 54 79.41176
GOOD 0.06-0.12 8 11.76471
AVERAGE 0.12-0.18 2 2.941176
BAD 0.18-0.24 2 2.941176
VERY BAD 0.24-0.31 2 2.941176
OUTCOMES
04/12/2023
32
OUTCOMES
COMBINED RESULT
QUALITY Class(Score) Frequency in %
VERY GOOD 84-100 63 92.64706GOOD 68-84 5 7.352941
AVERAGE 52-68 0 0
BAD 36-52 0 0VERY BAD 20-36 0 0
04/12/2023
33
OUTCOMESBuilding Analysis (Ward 11)
Fig: Near Distance Analysis
Near DistanceQuality Class(m) Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 0.06 - 4.64 117 71.34GOOD 4.64 - 9.21 34 20.73
AVERAGE 9.21 - 13.78 9 5.49BAD 13.78 - 18.35 2 1.22
VERY BAD 18.35 - 22.92 2 1.22
VERY GOOD
GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
20
40
60
80
100
120
117
34
92 2
Near Distance Bar Diagram
Quality
Fre
quen
cy
04/12/2023
34
OUTCOMES
Fig.: Circulatory Ratio Difference Analysis
Circulatory Ratio Difference
Quuality Class Frequency In %VERY GOOD 0.00 - 0.08 114 69.51
GOOD 0.08 - 0.17 34 20.73
AVERAGE 0.17 - 0.25 8 4.88
BAD 0.25 - 0.33 6 3.66
VERY BAD 0.33 - 0.42 2 1.22
VERY GOOD
GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
20
40
60
80
100
120
114
34
8 6 2
Circulatory Ratio Bar Diagram
Quality
Freq
uenc
y
04/12/2023
35
OUTCOMES
Fig.: Area Difference Analysis
Area Difference
Quality Class(m2) Frequency in %
VERY GOOD 0.19 - 133.88 134 81.71
GOOD 133.88 - 267.57 14 8.54
AVERAGE 267.57 - 401.26 9 5.49
BAD 401.26 - 534.96 4 2.44
VERY BAD 534.96 - 668.65 3 1.83
VERY GOOD GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
134
14 9 4 3
Area Difference Bar Diagram
Quality
Fre
quen
cy
04/12/2023
36
OUTCOMES
VERY GOOD GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
140
155 1 3
Combined Result Bar Diagram
Quality
Freq
uenc
y
Combined Result
QUALITY Class(Score) Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 84-100 140 85.366
GOOD 68-84 15 9.146
AVERAGE 52-68 5 3.049
BAD 36-52 1 0.610
VERY BAD 20-36 3 1.829
04/12/2023
37
OUTCOMES
Fig: Near Distance Analysis
Building Analysis (Ward 10)
Near Distance
QUALITY Class(m) Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 0.12 - 2.29 366 44.80
GOOD 2.29 - 4.45 383 46.88
AVERAGE 4.45 - 6.61 62 7.59
BAD 6.61 - 8.77 5 0.61
VERY BAD 8.77 - 10.94 1 0.12
VERY GOOD GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
366 383
62
5 1
Near Distance Bar Diagram
Quality
Fre
quen
cy]
04/12/2023
38
OUTCOMES
Fig.: Circulatory Ratio Difference Analysis
Circulatory Ratio Difference
QUALITY Class Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 0.00 - 0.05 554 67.81
GOOD 0.05 - 0.11 144 17.63
AVERAGE 0.11 - 0.16 63 7.71
BAD 0.16 - 0.22 35 4.28
VERY BAD 0.22 - 0.27 21 2.57
VERY GOOD GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
100
200
300
400
500
600
554
144
6335 21
Circulatory Ratio Difference Bar Diagram
Quality
Fre
quen
cy
04/12/2023
39
OUTCOMES
Fig.: Area Difference Analysis
Area Difference
QUALITY Class(m2) Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 0.02 - 43.61 639 78.21
GOOD 43.61 - 87.19 145 17.75
AVERAGE 87.19 - 130.78 24 2.94
BAD 130.78 - 174.36 7 0.86
VERY BAD 174.36 - 217.95 2 0.24
VERY GOOD GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
639
145
24 7 2
Area Difference Bar Diagram
Quality
Fre
quen
cy
04/12/2023
40
OUTCOMES
VERY GOOD
GOOD AVERAGE BAD VERY BAD0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
649
151
14 2 1
Combined Rseult Bar Diagram
Quality
Freq
uenc
y COMBINED RESULTQUALITY Class(Score) Frequency In %
VERY GOOD 84-100 649 79.43696GOOD 68-84 151 18.48225
AVERAGE 52-68 14 1.713586BAD 36-52 2 0.244798
VERY BAD 20-36 1 0.122399
04/12/2023
41
OUTCOMES
04/12/2023
42
• Analysis of positional accuracy of building on other wards
WORKS REMAINING
04/12/2023
43
LIMITATIONS
• Accuracy of OSM depends on the map of Survey Department.
04/12/2023
44
SNAPSHOTS DURING PROJECTS
04/12/2023
45
04/12/2023
46
04/12/2023
47
Building Overlap in Ward 12
04/12/2023
48
District Road Intersection of OSM and SD
04/12/2023
49
12
1110
Building Map of Kathmandu ward no. 10,11 &12
04/12/2023
50
REFERENCES• Koundai, Quorinia.(2009), Assessing the quality of OpenStreetMap data, Msc
thesis, London, University College London.• O’Brien.Oliver.(2010).Openstreet map Quality issue
(http://www.oliverobrien.co.uk/ )• Helbitch,Marco,Amelunxen,Christof.Neis,Pascal.Zipf.Alexnader(2010),
Comparative Spatial Analysis of Positional Accuracy of OpenStreetMap and Proprietary Geodata
• Haklay, M. (2010), datasets.Environment anHow good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey d Planning B, 37, 682-703.
• OpenStreetMap (2013), The free wiki world map. http://www.openstreetmap.org/ (last date accessed June, 2013).
• Zielstra, D. & Zipf, A. (2010), A comparative study of proprietary geodata and volunteered geographic information for Germany. 13th AGILE International Conference On Geographic Information Science. Guimaraes, Portugal.
• Humanitarian Openstreetmap Team (2012), Evaluation of OpenstreetMap Data in Indonesia (A Final Report), Department of Geodetic & Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering UGM
04/12/2023
51
THANK YOU