Survey Review

ISSN: 0039-6265 (Print) 1752-2706 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ysre20

A point-based methodology for the automatic

positional accuracy assessment of geospatial
databases

J. J. Ruiz-Lendínez, F. J. Ariza-López & M. A. Ureña-Cámara

To cite this article: J. J. Ruiz-Lendínez, F. J. Ariza-López & M. A. Ureña-Cámara (2016) A point-

based methodology for the automatic positional accuracy assessment of geospatial databases,
Survey Review, 48:349, 269-277, DOI: 10.1179/1752270615Y.0000000030

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1752270615Y.0000000030

Published online: 30 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 51

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ysre20

Download by: [CAPES] Date: 06 December 2016, At: 07:06

A point-based methodology for the automatic
positional accuracy assessment of geospatial
databases
J. J. Ruiz-Lendı́nez*, F. J. Ariza-López and M. A. Ureña-Cámara
This paper is based on our earlier paper (Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al., 2013) of this work and its new
contribution is to develop a point-based methodology for the automatic assessment of positional
and geometric components of spatial data. The starting point for our approach is the set
of homologous polygons obtained according to the methodology developed in Ruiz-Lendı́nez
et al. (2013). From these pairs of polygons, we first have identified and computed homologous
points using a metric for comparing polygonal shapes defined by Arkin et al. (1991) and then
we have applied a point-based standard developed for assessing the positional accuracy of
spatial data. Specifically, we have employed the National Standard Spatial Data Accuracy
(NSSDA) standard. The results obtained demonstrate the viability of this point-based evaluation
and its potential compared to traditional methods.
Keywords: Positional accuracy, Quality, Automatization, Point-based methods

Introduction (Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al., 2009). In addition, the number of

Nowadays, spatial data are very much in demand
because of the use of location in many scopes (business,
military, international aid, tourism, fleet management,
smart territories, etc.). For this reason, the quality of
these data is an issue of growing concern to the scientific
community. In this sense, we must highlight the works
developed by Zandbergen (2008) and Li et al. (2012) on
the description, metrics, and assessment of spatial data
quality. Following these last authors, the description
of spatial data quality is necessary for providing
the potential user of a data set with the necessary
information to decide on the fitness for use of a data set
for his or her particular application. Among all the
components of spatial data quality, positional quality is
one of the quality measures defined in ISO 19157
(ISO, 2013) and, in turn, is determined by positional
accuracy (as indicated by ISO 19113 (ISO, 2002)).
The positional accuracy of geospatial databases
(GDB) has traditionally been assessed by means of the
measures of the positional discrepancies between the
location of ‘well-defined entities’ stored in the GDB and
their true location (real world). However, abundant
difficulties arise when identifying the ground-true
location of the entities because of problems with
the surveying of the sample, which means long sessions
of observation in the field and the necessary distribution
of this sample over a wide geographical area
Dpto. de Ingenierı́a Cartográfica, Geodésica y Fotogrametrı́a, Escuela
Politécnica Superior de Jaén, University of Jaén, Paraje Las Lagunillas,
s/n 23071 – Jaén (Spain)
*Corresponding author, email lendinez@ujaen.es
collected entities is often limited.
Faced with this approach, positional accuracy could
also be defined through measures of the differences
between the location of the entities stored in a GDB
(tested source) and a location determined by another
GDB (reference source) having higher accuracy. Thus, if
the accuracy of the second one is sufficiently high, the
unmeasured difference between it and the truth can be
ignored, and consider the measure of accuracy as a
property of the tested source only (Goodchild and
Hunter, 1997).
Based on this last assumption, in our earlier paper
(Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al., 2013), we proposed a matching
methodology in order to automate the positional accu-
racy assessment of spatial data using polygonal features.
In the above-mentioned paper, we determined a set of
homologous elements (polygons) from two GDB using a
Genetic Algorithm (GA) (Forrest et al., 1993; Herrera
et al., 1998; Myers and Hancock, 2001). Once we had
obtained the homologous polygons, we applied
line-based positional accuracy assessment methods
based on the buffer generation on their perimeter-lines
[Simple Buffer Overlay Method (SBOM) and Double
Buffer Overlay Method (DBOM)] (Ariza-López and
Atkinson-Gordo, 2008b; Tveite and Langaas, 1999),
which allowed us to analyze the displacement between
polygonal features, and therefore to assess the positional
accuracy of the GDB which plays the role of tested
source in relation to the second GDB (which plays
the role of reference source). Simple Buffer Overlay
Method determines the percentage of the controlled
perimeter-line (X) into the control perimeter-line (Q)
buffer. Double Buffer Overlay Method determines
the intersection percentage of buffers generated around

Ñ 2016 Survey Review Ltd

Received 03 November 2014; accepted 13 March 2015
DOI 10.1179/1752270615Y.0000000030 Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349 269
Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases
homologous perimeter-lines, the average displacement
of these and the oscillations provoked by crossing buf-
fers (Fig. 1a).
This paper is based on our earlier paper
(Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al., 2013) of this work and its main
contribution is to develop a point-based methodology
for the automatic assessment of positional and geo-
metric components of spatial data. To achieve this, and
on the basis of the set of homologous polygons
obtained according to the methodology developed in
(Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al., 2013), we first have identified and
computed homologous points between these polygons
using a metric for comparing polygonal shapes defined
by Arkin et al. (1991) and then we have applied a point-
based standard developed for assessing the positional
accuracy of spatial data. This positional accuracy is
described by means of a statistical evaluation of random
and systematic errors and specified by means of the root
mean squared error (RMSE) or by the mean value of
errors (m) and their standard deviation (s) (Ariza-López
and Atkinson-Gordo, 2008a; Li et al., 2012) (Fig. 1b).
Specifically, we have applied the National Standard
Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) developed by the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) in 1998
(FGDC, 1998).
This new perspective of the problem has two main
objectives: (i) to increase significantly the number of
entities (points) used in the assessment process and (ii) to
achieve greater efficiency than that obtained with tra-
ditional points-methods, reducing the final cost of the
positional assessment process.
1 Accuracy assessment methods a Perimeter line-based positional accuracy assessment methods; b Point-based positional
accuracy assessment method
270 Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349
This paper is organized in five main sections. As a
reminder, the following section describes the main
characteristics of the official cartographic databases and
samples selected for our approach. After this, we
describe our positional accuracy assessment method-
ology in separate subsections. The fourth section shows
the experimental results obtained. Finally, in section five
conclusions are presented.
Official cartographic databases used
Authors have used the same two official cartographic
databases used in our previous work; (see Ruiz-Lendı́nez
et al. 2013). Thus, as the tested source we have used the
BCN25 and as the reference source we have used the
MTA10 [two official cartographic databases in Andalusia
(southern Spain)]. A detailed description of them,
a justification for their choice and the conditions that they
must meet can be found in the above mentioned work.
In this last aspect, we must highlight that both GDB
have been independently produced and that neither of
these two GDB, in turn, have been derived from another
cartographic product of a larger scale through any
process. All this implies that none of them have undergone
any action involving a degradation of their quality.
In addition both databases (must) should be interoper-
able, which means that we must ensure that they will be
comparable both in terms of reference system and carto-
graphic projection (Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al., 2011).
In the same way, in the above referred work a justi-
fication for the selection of Buildings as polygonal fea-
tures used to assess the positional accuracy is provided.

As a reminder, we must note that the four urban areas
selected for our work are included in two sheets (num-
bers 0985 and 1009) of the MTN50k (National Topo-
graphic Map of Spain at scale 1: 50 000). More
specifically, we have used the following urban areas:
Santa Fe (1009-03 sheet), Granada (1009-04 sheet),
Carmona (0985-02 sheet) and Mairena del Alcor (0985-
03 sheet). In order to place these urban areas, the
reader is referred to the web version of (Ruiz-Lendı́nez
et al., 2013).
Methodology
Comparing polygonal shapes and extracting
homologous points
The workflow for the proposed methodology is shown in
Fig. 2. As mentioned above, the matching methodology
which determines the set of homologous polygons
between both GDB (BCN25 and MTA10) was addressed
in Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. (2013). For this reason, this issue is
not discussed here. Thus, the starting point of our current
approach has been the set of polygons matched by the GA
with a match accuracy value (MAV) enough to ensure
that two polygons previously matched are sufficiently
similar to be considered as homologous [the calculation of
this threshold value of MAV was also addressed in (Ruiz-
Lendı́nez et al., 2013)]. In order to extract homologous
points between these pairs of polygons, a metric derived
from the method defined by Arkin et al. (1991) for com-
paring two polygonal shapes has been used.
The most intuitive and easiest method of representing
any 2D polygon is to describe its boundary by giving a list
of coordinates of its vertices. However, following Arkin
et al. (1991), an alternative representation of the bound-
ary of a 2D polygon denoted by A can be obtained by its
2 Accuracy assessment process flow
Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases
turning function hA(s). This function measures the angle
of the counter-clockwise tangent as a function of the arc-
length s, measured from some reference point 0 on A’s
boundary. Thus, hA(0) is the angle v that the tangent at
the reference point 0 makes with some reference orien-
tation associated with the polygon (such as the x-axis).
hA(s) keeps track of the turning that takes place,
increasing with left-hand turns and decreasing with right-
hand turns. In addition, if each polygon is rescaled so that
the total perimeter length is 1, then hA is a function from
(0, 1) to (24p, 4p) (Fig. 3).
The domain of hA(s) can be extended to the entire real
line in a natural way by allowing angles to continue to
accumulate as we continue around the perimeter of the
polygon A. Thus, for a simple closed polygon, the value
of hA(s þ 1) is hA(s) þ 2p for all s. In addition to this,
the function hA(s) has special properties which make it
especially suitable for identifying and extracting
homologous points between two polygons. It is piece-
wise-constant for polygons, making computations
particularly easy and fast. By definition, the function
hA(s) is invariant under translation and scaling of the
polygon A. Rotation of A corresponds to a simple shift
of hA(s) in the h direction.
On the other hand, the degree to which two polygons
A and B are similar can be measured by taking the
distance function D between their turning functions
hA(s) and hB(s). If we assume that A and B are two
matched polygons and that the reference point 0 is the
same for both, then D can be defined as
ð1
D¼ ðhA ðsÞ 2 hB ðsÞÞds
0
The D value between the turning functions hA(s) and hB(s)
has allowed us to establish an additional criterion (toge-
ther with the MAV provided by the GA, see Newby, 1992)
for determining whether two polygons A and B previously
matched are sufficiently similar to be considered as
homologous and therefore for being used in order to
compute homologous points. The integral (1) can be
computed by adding up the value of the integral within
each strip defined by a consecutive pair of discontinuities
in hA(s) and hB(s), (see Fig. 4). These discontinuities,
in turn, are defined by length shifts (LS) (variations on s
axis owing to length changes of the polygon sides) and
angular shifts (AS) (variations on h axis owing to direction
changes of the polygon sides) of the turning functions.
In addition, if the turning functions of two homolo-
gous polygons (A and B) are overlapped (Fig. 5), each
discontinuity (defined by a pair of points on their
graphic representations) represents a vertex1 of the first
polygon (V1) that can be matched with another vertex of
the second one (V91) (homologous points). The distance
between this pair of vertices has been denoted by DV1.
Finally, and in order to avoid match non-homologous
points, two threshold values were fixed for the length
and angular shifts (denoted by TLS and TAS respect-
ively) (the method of determination of these values
will be presented in the Results section). Thus, only
when these shifts are lower than the threshold values
1 The terms ‘vertex’ and ‘point’ are used interchangeably throughout the
text to refer to punctual entities belonging to more complex geometry
entities (polygons).
Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349 271
Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases
3 Defining the turn function h(s) (Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al., 2013)
4 Strips formed by the functions hA(s) and hB(s),
(Arkin et al., 1991)
previously defined, the matching between these points
will be achieved. In addition, the possible residual
anomalous values of DVi (A, B) distance computed for
each pair of points (i and i9) that belong to homologous
polygons (A and B) were removed by means of com-
puting two additional parameters: the Average value
of DVi (A, B) (mDv(A,B)), and the RMSE of DVi (A, B)
(RMSEDv(A,B)). These thresholds values also acted as
control parameters to prevent the acceptance of
unpaired points derived from the difference in the
complexity of the shape of polygons owing to a possible
different level of generalization and scale of represen-
tation. Figure 6 shows a pair of homologous polygons.
The polygon A belonging to MTA10 (larger scale rep-
resentation GDB) is more complex and with a more
detailed shape than its counterpart B belonging to the
BCN25 (GDB with a smaller scale representation and
higher level of generalization). In this polygon A,
5 Turning functions overlapping and matching of homologous points
272 Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349
the vertex V3 has no counterpart on B polygon, there-
fore the discontinuity D included in the turning function
hA (s) is not present in the turning function hB (s). If we
enlarge the threshold values, the vertex V3 could be
matched with either of the two closest vertices (V92 and
V94) from polygon B.
Sampling procedure
With many pairs of homologous points available, the
next step was to establish a sample design criteria. Fol-
lowing Ariza-López and Atkinson-Gordo (2008a), one
of the most controversial aspects of all point-based
positional accuracy assessment standards is the number
and distribution of control elements. Therefore, for
having an adequate representation of the assessment, a
sample with a statistical basis is necessary. In this sense,
two issues were raised: (i) a sampling procedure, and (ii)
the size of the sample.
With regard to the sampling procedure used, and
according to the Standard’s recommendations (FGDC,
1998), a grid sampling pattern was defined (covering all
the terrain) where samples (pairs of homologous points)
were randomly collected within each generated cell. The
number of cells and its size depends on the geographical
area covered and the size of the sample. In addition, in
order to avoid biasing the final results only one point by
polygon was used. Such is the case for a polygon which
occupies part of two or more cells of the sampling grid
(Fig. 7). Thus, if we select the vertex V1 belonging to
the highlighted polygon and included in the cell D4 to
calculate the positional standard, we may not use the

6 Unpaired points derived from the difference in the complexity of the shape of polygons
vertex V2 (included in the cell E4) because it belongs to
the same polygon. In this case, we must use another
vertex V3 to be included in a different polygon.
With regards to the size of the sample, the number of
points should be enough to ensure, with a given level of
confidence, that a GDB with a non-acceptable quality
level will not be acquired, and it should always be large
enough for the hypothesis of normality to be fulfilled,
this being determined by the laws of large numbers in
statistics. For these reasons standards always suggest at
least 20 points (FGDC, 1998). Nevertheless, this number
seems to be very small and some authors as Li (1991)
and Newby (1992) suggest larger numbers. In this sense,
we highlight the work of Ariza-López and Atkinson-
Gordo (2008a) in which they suggest a sample size of 100
points when applied NSSDA in order to obtain 95%
confidence level on estimation and variability within a
range of + 5%. Following these authors, for the mini-
mum proposed sample size (n¼20 points) the variability
of results is on the order of + 10–11%, which means an
approximate variability of the confidence level of 90%.
Finally, the last step of our methodology was the
application of the NSSDA standard. The NSSDA
standard implements a statistical and testing method-
ology for estimating the positional accuracy of a GDB
by means of points previously selected. National Stan-
dard Spatial Data Accuracy is a compulsorily fulfilled
7 Grid sample pattern
Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases
standard for Federal Agencies of the USA producing
analogue and/or digital cartographic data and is ever
more widely used throughout the world (Ariza-López
and Atkinson-Gordo, 2008a). The main reason for
choosing NSSDA as an accuracy assessment measure
was that it gives results in a more open way than the
previously developed tests because it leaves to the user’s
understanding whether or not the derived accuracy
reaches expectations, which means, in a practical way, if
the product passes or fails the user’s accuracy expec-
tations. So acceptance or rejection is the responsibility of
the user. However, the test only tells us: ‘the product has
been checked/compiled for N meters of horizontal/vertical
accuracy at 95% of level of confidence’ (FGDC, 1998).
Table 1 summarizes the steps for applying the standard.
Results
The results obtained by applying the proposed pos-
itional control methodology based on points to the
described GDB are shown below. The following sub-
sections explain the thresholds setting; report the results
of the extraction of homologous points and present the
results provided by the NSSDA standard.
Table 1 Summary of the NSSDA when applied to the
horizontal component
1 – Select a sample of a minimum of 20 check points (n. ¼ 20).
2 – Compute individual errors for each point i:
hxi ¼ x 10ki 2 x 25ki . . .hyi 2 y 10ki 2 y 25ki
3 – ComputesRMSE
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi for each component:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sh2xi Sh2yi
RMSEX ¼ RMSEY ¼
n n
4 – Compute the horizontal RMSE using appropriate expression:
– If RMSEX ¼ RMSEY then
NSSDAðHÞ ¼ 2·44771=2 RMSE R ¼ 2·4477 RMSE X
– If RMSEX?RMSEY and 0?6,(RMSEmin/RMSEmax),1 then
NSSDAðHÞ 5 2·4477 0·5 ðRMSE X þ RMSEY Þ
Note: If error is normally distributed and independent in each of
the x- and y-components, the factor 2?4477 is used to compute
horizontal accuracy at the 95% confidence level (Greenwalt and
Shultz, 1962).
Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349 273
Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases

Thresholds setting Matching and extracting of homologous points

For setting the TLS and TAS values a sample of 32 pairs
of homologous polygons belonging to the work data-
bases with a number of vertices ranged from 3 to 20 was
used. Over this sample, pairs of homologous points were
identified taking into account all possible combinations
of TAS and TLS including values within the following
ranges: TAS range from 0 to 1 rad (with D¼0?2 rad),
and TLS range from 0 to 10 m (with D ¼ 2 m) (this last
value must be rescaled for each case). Finally, for each
setting of threshold values a confusion matrix was
computed. In this matrix, errors of omission were
defined by the rejection of right matched pairs of points,
and errors of commission were defined by the acceptance
of erroneously matched pairs of points. The last one
(commission) is the type of error which must be avoided
as much as possible because it is which add noise into the
matching process. With this last consideration in mind,
the criterion for setting the thresholds was to maximize
the number of well-matched points and to minimize the
number of points erroneously matched which are
accepted. Table 2 shows the results for some of the 25
possible combinations of TLS and TAS. This table
includes the optimal combination that we were
looking for.
The first option (0?2 rad/2 m) presents the lowest
percentage of errors of commission. However, this
option was discarded owing to low percentage of correct
matches provided. In this sense, we can conclude that
the values assigned to the parameters are too restrictive
for our purposes. The opposite occurs in the last three
options (0?6, 0?8 and 1 rad/10 m). Thus, although sig-
nificant percentages of correct matches were obtained,
they were achieved at the cost of including error rates
also high fee. Therefore, these options were also dis-
carded. So, the option chosen was the second (with
values assigned to the parameters of 0?4 rad and 4 m
respectively). This option was selected because it pre-
sents the ratio (Id. Correct/Commissions) more suitable
according to the criteria mentioned above.
Table 3 shows the results of the matching between points
for each urban area and under the TLS and TAS values
previously discussed. In this table, the number of mat-
ched points relates to those which are detected on pairs
of polygons homologous, and according to the sampling
procedure defined.
The total number of matched points from our set of
polygons was 4761 representing 22?3 and 14?2% of the
total number of vertices for BCN25 and MTA10 re-
spectively. The percentage results achieved are greatly
conditioned not only by the restrictive values of TAS
and TLS which act as control parameters to prevent the
acceptance of unpaired points derived from the differ-
ence in the complexity of the shape of polygons owing to
a possible different level of generalization and scale of
representation, but also by the limited number of pairs
of polygons used. Authors must remember that not all
matched polygons are sufficiently similar to be con-
sidered as homologous.
The high quantity of homologous points computed
have also allowed us to obtain positional distortion
models by mapping the differences between BCN25 and
MTA10 locations calculated from the coordinates of the
homologous points obtained for each BDG. Following
Hunter and Goodchild (1996), these differences are
assumed to be strongly spatially autocorrelated. How-
ever, this spatial dependence has not been proved and
many others authors argue that positional distortion
does not act as a regionalized variable. For this reason,
these models must be considered merely as a practical
tool to help us understand the positional distortion
behavior. Figure 8 shows the distortion model corre-
sponding to the case of Carmona (0985 sheet).
NSSDA standard results
The results obtained by applying the NSSDA standard
to the selected samples are shown in Table 4. The
standard was applied on 20 different samples for each
sample size (20 and 100 points) in order to obtain give

Table 2 Per cent distribution of matched points according to the TAS and TLS values

Points matched [%]

TAS/TLS Pairs of polygons Well-matched Omission Commission Nonmatched points [%]

0?2 rad/2 m 32 8?5 3?7 1?6 86?2

0?4 rad/4 m 32 30?7 5?7 3?4 60?2
0?6 rad/6 m 32 35?5 10?1 15?3 39?1
0?8 rad/8 m 32 38?1 15?7 27?7 18?5
1 rad/10 m 32 27?4 21?2 35?3 16?1

Table 3 Per cent distribution of matched points for each urban area

Total number of % of matched

Vertices points

Urban area Number of Polygons Number of

Sheet denomination BCN/MTA BCN25 MTA10 matched points BCN25 MTA10

0985 Mairena del Alcor 847/875 4421 6179 452 10?22 7?31
0985 Carmona 851/870 5276 6606 579 10?97 8?76
1009 Santa Fe 649/670 2696 4543 352 13?05 7?74
1009 Granada 2250/2301 8999 16144 3378 37?53 20?92

274 Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349

 Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases

8 Positional distortion model Carmona case (0985 sheet)

greater statistical significance of the results. In addition,
the normal distribution of positional errors was checked
for each sample (40). All cases show homogeneous
results with mean accuracy values that range from 9?7
to 16?3 m (confidence level ¼ 90%) and from 9?5 to
15?9 m (confidence level ¼ 95%). In addition, the mean
accuracy values present a clear decreasing tendency
when the sample size increases. The same happens with
the mean deviation values. Therefore, these results
agreed with one of the main conclusions derived from

Table 4 Positional accuracy assessment by means NSSDA

Sample size ¼ 20 Sample size ¼ 100

Mean accuracy Mean accuracy

Urban area Number of (90% confidence Number of (95% confidence
denomination Samples level) (m) Mean deviation (m) Samples level) (m) Mean deviation (m)

Mairena del Alcor 20 11?1 0?80 20 10?9 0?71

Carmona 20 9?7 0?59 20 9?5 0?54
Santa Fe 20 16?3 1?40 20 15?9 1?31
Granada 20 11?2 1?07 20 10?7 0?92

Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349 275

Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases
Table 5 Comparison between positional assessment results
Urban area denomination Measure/Method
Mairena del Alcor Perimeter-line uncertainty/SBOM
Carmona Perimeter-line uncertainty/SBOM
Santa Fe Perimeter-line uncertainty/SBOM
Granada Perimeter-line uncertainty/SBOM
the work of Ariza-López and Atkinson-Gordo (2008a):
The NSSDA has a little tendency to underestimate accu-
racy when the minimum proposed sample size (n ¼ 20
points) is used.
Finally, these results are very close to those obtained
using line-based methods (specifically when the SBOM is
used) for these same set of BDG, (see Ruiz-Lendı́nez
et al. 2013). Table 5 shows a comparison between the
values of uncertainty for a 95% level of confidence
achieved by the SBOM, and the values provided by the
NSSDA standard for this same level of confidence.
In this sense, Carmona case shows again better results
than the other cases, achieving uncertainty values lower
than the values achieved by the rest of the cases.
Computation time
An important advantage of the application of the
metrics and operations described above to assess pos-
itional accuracy of GDBs is the low computational time
required compared to traditional methodologies (es-
pecially when applied on a large number of GDB, and if
we consider field work for GPS data acquisition). This is
particularly significant measuring the efficiency of our
approach by means of the ratio (number of points/
minutes) achieved: (25/60) applying this methodology in
a manual way; and (452/1?5), (579/1?8), (352/1?2),
(3378/11?2) applying this methodology automatically for
the four cases presented: Mairena del Alcor, Carmona,
Santa Fe and Granada respectively. Logically, the effi-
ciency of our approach depends on the size of the GDBs
employed (number of polygons of both datasets: tested
GDB and reference GDB, and total number of vertices).
Finally, we must note that our test platform was an
Intel Core i5 2?4 GHz processor with 4 GB memory and
the development tool was Microsoft Visual Studio 2010.
Conclusions
This study provides an efficient methodology for auto-
mating the positional accuracy assessment of spatial
data using point features. To this end, the use of the
Arkin metric for comparing polygonal shapes has gave
us the capability to obtain, in an unattended way, a high
quantity of well-matched points for each polygon. Thus,
although our identifying procedure of homologous
points can provide unmatched points too, the number of
homologous points obtained will always be higher than
that obtained by using field samples. In addition, the
effect of non-random sampling has been removed. That
way, the probability of obtaining a better representation
of the errors is greater than using field samples.
On the other hand, the experimental results have
proven the feasibility of the proposed method,
which provides the following advantages: (i) it over-
comes one of the main problems in positional quality
assessment processes: the high cost of traditional
methodologies in obtaining control points, e.g. GPS
276 Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349
Value (m) Measure/Method Value (m)
11?2 RMSE/NSSDA 10?9
9?2 RMSE/NSSDA 9?5
16?1 RMSE/NSSDA 15?9
10?4 RMSE/NSSDA 10?7
data acquisition, (ii) the low computational time
required compared to traditional methodologies
(especially when applied on a large number of GDB, and
if we consider field work for GPS data acquisition).
However, one of the limitations of this research is the
effect of the accuracy of the reference data. While in our
case, the positional accuracy of the reference data is
significantly better than the data being evaluated,
improved accuracy of reference data may provide more
robust results. For this reason, in future studies we plan
to diversify our work to different map scales.
Acknowledgement
This work has been partially funded by the Ministry of
Science and Technology of Spain under Grant
No. BIA2011-23217 and by the Regional Government
of Andalusia (Spain). The authors also acknowledge the
Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain) for the
financial support since 1997 for their research group
(Ingenierı́a Cartográfica) with code PAIDI-TEP-164.
References
Ariza-López, F. and Atkinson-Gordo, A. 2008a. Variability of NSSDA
estimations. Journal of Surveying Engineering, 134(2), pp.39–44.
Ariza-López, F. and Atkinson-Gordo, A. 2008b. Analysis of some
positional accuracy assessment methodologies. Journal of
Surveying Engineering, 134(2), pp.404–7.
Arkin, E. M., Chew, L. P., Huttenlocher, D. P., Kedem, K. and
Mitchell, J. S. B. 1991. An efficiently computable metric for
computing polygonal shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13(3), pp.209–16.
FGDC. 1998. Geospatial positioning accuracy standards. Part 3:
national standard for spatial data accuracy, Available at:
,http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-
projects/accuracy/part3/chapter3. [Accessed 1 November 2014].
Forrest, S., Javornik, B., Smith, R. E. and Perelson, A. S. 1993. Using
genetic algorithms to explore pattern recognition in the immune
system. Evolutionary Computation, 1, pp.191–212.
Goodchild, M. and Hunter, G. 1997. A simple positional accuracy
measure for linear features. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 11(3), pp.299–306.
Greenwalt, C. and Shultz, M. 1962. Principles of error theory and
cartographic applications. Technical Report – 96. St Louis,
USA: ACIC.
Herrera, F., Lozano, M. and Verdegay, J. 1998. Tackling real-coded
genetic algorithms: operators and tools for behavioural analysis.
Artificial Intelligence Review, 12, pp.265–319.
Hunter, G. and Goodchild, M. 1996. A new model for handling vector
data uncertainty in geographic information systems. Journal of the
Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 8(1),
pp.51–7.
ISO. 2002. ISO 19113: geographic information – quality principles. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2013. ISO 19157: geographic information – data quality. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization,
pp.146.
Li, D., Zhang, J. and Wu, H. 2012. Spatial data quality and beyond.
International Journal Geographical Information Science, 26(12),
pp.2277–90.
Li, Z. 1991. Effects of check points on the reliability of DTM accuracy
estimates obtained from experimental test. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 57(10), pp.1333–40.

Myers, E. and Hancock, E. 2001. Least-commitment graph matching
with genetic algorithms. Pattern Recognition, 34, pp.375–94.
Newby, P. 1992. Quality management for surveying, photogrammetry
and digital mapping at the ordnance survey. Photogrammetric
Record, 79(14), pp.45–58.
Ruiz-Lendı́nez, J., Ariza-López, F. and Ureña-Cámara, M. 2013.
Automatic positional accuracy assessment of geospatial
databases using line-based methods. Survey Review, 45(332),
pp.332–42.
Ruiz-Lendı́nez, J., Javier Ariza, F., Ureña, M. A. and Blázquez, E. B.
2011. Digital map conflation: a review of the process and a
Ruiz-Lendı́nez et al. Automatic positional assessment of geospatial databases
proposal of classification. International Journal Geographical
Information Science, 25(9), pp.1439–66.
Ruiz-Lendı́nez, J., Ureña-Cámara, M. and Mozas-Calvache, A. 2009.
GPS survey of roads networks for the positional quality control
of maps. Survey Review, 41(314), pp.374–83.
Tveite, H. and Langaas, S. 1999. An accuracy assessment meted for
geographical line data sets based on buffering. International
Journal Geographical Information Science, 13, pp.27–47.
Zandbergen, P. 2008. Positional accuracy of spatial data: non-normal
distributions and a critique of the national standard for spatial.
Transactions in GIS, 12(1), pp.103–30.
Survey Review 2016 VOL 48 NO 349 277