automatic classification of remote sensing data ?· automatic classification of remote sensing...


Post on 05-Jun-2018




0 download

Embed Size (px)


  • Walter 641


    Volker WalterInstitute for Photogrammetry (ifp)

    University of StuttgartGeschwister-Scholl-Strasse 24

    D-70174 StuttgartGermany



    Geographic information systems (GIS) are dependent on accurate and up-to-date data sets. The manual revision of GISdata is very cost and time consuming. On the other hand more and more high resolution satellite systems are underdevelopment and will be operational soon - thus high resolution remote sensing data will be available. In this paper a fullyautomated approach for verification of GIS objects using remote sensing data is presented. In a first step a supervisedmaximum likelihood classification is performed. It is necessary that the training areas for the supervised classification arederived automatically in order to develop a fully automated approach. The already existing GIS data are used to computepixel masks (which represent the training areas) for each object class. In order to find inconsistencies between the GISdata and the remote sensing data the result of the classification has to be matched with the GIS data. It is shown thatdifferent approaches are needed when dealing either with area objects or with line objects. Examples on both ap-proaches are presented. The automatic verification was tested with ATKIS data sets and DPA high resolution remotesensing data. ATKIS is the German topographic cartographic spatial database and DPA (Digital Photogrammetric As-sembly) is an optical airborne imaging system for real time data collection. This paper shows the results of the automaticverification of ATKIS objects represented in DPA data.


    Image classification procedures are used to classify mul-tispectral pixels into different land cover classes. Theinput for the classification are multispectral bands andtextural patterns which are computed from the multispec-tral data (see for example [R.M. Haralick and K. Shan-mugam 1973]). There are numerous classification algo-rithms which can be divided into unsupervised and super-vised approaches. In the unsupervised approach pixelsare grouped into different spectral (and textural) classesby clustering algorithms without using prior information.After clustering, the spectral classes have to be associ-ated with the land cover classes by an operator. Unsuper-vised classification algorithms only have a secondary rolein remote sensing.

    Two basic steps are carried out in a supervised classifi-cation. In a training stage an operator digitizes trainingareas that describe typical spectral and textural charac-teristics of the data set. In the classification stage eachpixel of the data set is categorized to a land cover class.There exist a lot of different approaches for the classifica-tion stage such as minimum-distance, parallel-epiped ormaximum likelihood classification [T. Lillesand and R.Kiefer 1987]. Very new approaches exist in the field ofNeural Network Computing (see for example [K. Segl, M.Berger and H. Kaufmann 1994] or [A. Barsi 1996]).Whereas the classification stage can be done automati-cally, the training stage involves the work of an operatorand requires a lot of experience because the quality of thetraining areas is a crucial factor for the quality of the clas-sification result.

    A further problem is that new training areas have to bedigitized for every new data set. The reasons are for ex-ample atmospheric effects, different spectral diffusion

    depending on the sunlight, different spectral characteris-tics of vegetation depending on season or soil, vitality ofthe vegetation, etc. As the digitizing of the training areasis time intensive, a method is needed to generate thetraining areas in an automatic way. Having assumed thatthe number of wrongly captured GIS objects and thenumber of changes in the real world are substantially lessthan the number of all GIS objects of the data set, thetraining areas can be derived automatically from the al-ready existing GIS data. This leads to high quantity butlower quality of training areas instead of low quantity buthigh quality. In the following it is shown how these trainingareas can be computed automatically and how the resultscan be matched with the GIS data sets.


    This research is carried out by order of the surveyinginstitute of the state Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.The project is supported by the German Aerospace Cen-ter (DLR - formerly DARA).


    Two test areas with an extension of approximately 40square kilometers were defined to test the approach.Figure 1 shows DPA data and ATKIS data of a part of onetest area. The different object classes in ATKIS are repre-sented by different grey values.

    ATKIS is the German topographic cartographic spatialdatabase [ATKIS 1988] and presently contains more than60 different feature types for the whole area of Germanyin the scale 1:25,000 (beside this scale there are furtherlevels of data aggregation in the scales 1:200,000 and1:1,000,000). The ATKIS datasets which are used for thiswork were collected in the years 1993 and 1994, whereasthe DPA data were captured in the year 1997.

    D. Fritsch, M. Englich & M. Sester, eds, 'IAPRS', Vol. 32/4, ISPRS Commission IV Symposium on GIS - Between Visions and Applications,Stuttgart, Germany.

  • 642 IAPRS, Vol. 32, Part 4 "GIS-Between Visions and Applications", Stuttgart, 1998



    Figure 1: DPA (a) and ATKIS (b) data

    The Digital Photogrammetric Assembly (DPA) is an opti-cal airborne imaging system for real time data collection.The ground pixel size is dependent on the flying heightand is for example 0.60 m for multispectral data whenflying 2300 m above ground. Beside the multispectralsensor, the DPA camera system offers also three pan-chromatic CCD line arrays for inflight stereo imaging (formore details of the DPA camera see: [M. Hahn, D. Stall-mann and C. Staetter 1996]). In order to find a compro-mise between quality of the object verification and com-puting time the data were resampled to a pixel size of 2m. This resolution is sufficient for the verification of ATKISobjects and it will be shown later that a higher resolutionleads not necessarily to qualitative better results.


    The supervised classification requires a quantitative de-scription of the spectral and textural characteristics (inform of training areas) of the different land cover classesin order to be able to assign unknown pixels to one ofthese classes. The higher the quality of the training areasthe better will be the result of the classification. Thereforethe object geometry is not used as stored in the GIS data-base - a preprocessing has to be performed first.

    It is very important that the training areas contain as littleas possible mixed pixels. Mixed pixels arise especially atobject borders where two different objects are neighboredto each other. Therefore a buffer is computed around theobject border which has a width of four pixels. This bufferis also broad enough to eliminate wrong pixels which canarise because of inaccurate data acquisition.

    In ATKIS the street geometry is not captured by areas butby lines which represent the street centerlines. This leads

    to the fact that neighboring area objects of streets arecaptured not by their exact geometry but they are en-larged by the half width of the street (this is the idealsituation - if the captured middle axis is not exactly on themiddle of the street this leads to a more inaccurate ge-ometry of the neighboring objects). Therefore we generatea buffer around all streets and cut this out from the train-ing areas.

    Figure 2 shows the training areas for the land coverclasses agricultural area, forest and settlement. Additionaltraining areas for the classes water and street are gener-ated from the ATKIS data. In ATKIS many further objectclasses exist. These object classes can not be distin-guished alone by their spectral and textural characteristicswithout addition of further information sources. Examplesare the object classes wood and grove or residential area,industrial area and area of mixed use. Even a humanoperator is very often not able to distinguish these objectclasses without additional information. In addition, it is stilladded that the definition of these object classes are am-biguous and often not clearly delimitable from each other.Therefore, object classes of this kind are combined to-gether to one of the five different spectral classes definedabove.


    DPA data agricultural area

    Figure 2: Automatically generated training areas

    Training pixels for the class streets are not cut out asareas because streets are typically very narrow and longobjects and consist therefore of many mixed pixels. Addi-tionally, the acquisition accuracy is a very important factoras already mentioned above. From that fact only thosepixels are taken which are located exactly on the middleaxis of the ATKIS streets. A further problem are streets inforest areas. Since streets are mostly hidden in forests, notraining areas are generated here at all. But also in otherareas streets are often hidden by trees. In order to avoidwrong pixels here, the vegetation index can be used. Allpixels which have a high vegetation index are removedfrom the training areas for streets.

    D. Fritsch, M. Englich & M. Sester, eds, 'IAPRS', Vol. 32/4, ISPRS Commission IV Symposium on GIS - Between Visions and Applications,Stuttgart, Germany.

  • Walter 643


    The classification method used in our approach is amaximum likelihood algorithm. Figure 3 shows a sche-matical representation of the classification approach. Theclassification process is fully automatic.

    Figure 4 shows


View more >