4.7 Article

3D micro-mapping: Towards assessing the quality of crowdsourcing to support 3D point cloud analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.01.009

关键词

LiDAR; Urban trees; Crowdsourcing; Point cloud classification; Quality

资金

  1. Vector Foundation [2015-051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we propose a method to crowdsource the task of complex three-dimensional information extraction from 3D point clouds. We design web-based 3D micro tasks tailored to assess segmented LiDAR point clouds of urban trees and investigate the quality of the approach in an empirical user study. Our results for three different experiments with increasing complexity indicate that a single crowd sourcing task can be solved in a very short time of less than five seconds on average. Furthermore, the results of our empirical case study reveal that the accuracy, sensitivity and precision of 3D crowdsourcing are high for most information extraction problems. For our first experiment (binary classification with single answer) we obtain an accuracy of 91%, a sensitivity of 95% and a precision of 92%. For the more complex tasks of the second Experiment 2 (multiple answer classification) the accuracy ranges from 65% to 99% depending on the label class. Regarding the third experiment - the determination of the crown base height of individual trees - our study highlights that crowdsourcing can be a tool to obtain values with even higher accuracy in comparison to an automated computer-based approach. Finally, we found out that the accuracy of the crowdsourced results for all experiments is hardly influenced by characteristics of the input point cloud data and of the users. Importantly, the results' accuracy can be estimated using agreement among volunteers as an intrinsic indicator, which makes a broad application of 3D micro-mapping very promising. (C) 2018 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Inc. (ISPRS). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据