Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
are also clearly interpretable. Fractal dimension and Perimeter-area index
uses the same inputs (shape length and area) with the difference that Fractal
dimension index applies logarithm in calculations. Most of indexes from
Shape Metrics Toolbox are more difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, we
suggest using shape metrics whose graphs we showed in the paper,
i.e. Normalized Detour index, Normalized Perimeter index and Normalized
Spin index. Since some of shape metrics are correlated (Parent
2014
), it is
possible to substitute one metric for another, e.g. Normalized Cohesion index
for Normalized Proximity index, and Normalized Exchange index for Nor-
malized Dispersion index. Other indexes, such as Normalized Girth index,
Normalized Depth index, Normalized Range index, Normalized Traversal
index, can be used regarding on what the user wants to show. We also
recommend using only normalized versions of metrics from Shape Metrics
Toolbox, because some indexes, when calculated in absolute numbers, do not
reflect extremities of the shape.
Shape metrics seems to be a useful tool for quantitative evaluation of
cartographic generalization along with expert knowledge. They can help to
reveal discrepancies in the process of semi-automated generalization and
identify such stages of generalization that bring unsuitable results.
Acknowledgments The article was created within the project CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0170, supported
by the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic.
References
Agent (1999) Selection of basic measures. Technical report C1, Agent Consortium, 81 p
Angel S, Parent J, Civco DL (2010) Ten compactness properties of circles: measuring shape in
geography. Can Geogr 54(4):441-461. doi:
10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00304.x
Bard S, Ruas A (2005) Why and how evaluating generalised data? In: Fisher PF
(ed) Developments in spatial data handling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 327-342
Bayer T (2009) Automated building simplification using a recursive approach. In: ICA symposium
on cartography for Central and Eastern Europe, LNG&C. Springer, Vienna, pp 121-145.
ISBN: 978-3-642-03293-6
Bernhardt MC (1992) Quantitative characterization of cartographic lines for generalization.
Report no. 425, Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, 142 p
Burghardt D, Steiniger S (2005) Usage of principal component analysis in the process of auto-
mated generalisation. In: Proceedings of 22nd international cartographic conference, pp 9-16
Cheng T, Li Z (2013) Effect of generalization on area features: a comparative study of two
strategies. Cartogr J 43(2):157-170
ESRI (1996) Automation of map generalization: the cutting-edge technology. ESRI White Paper
Series, 12 p
