Verhagen Et Al Amsterdam 270616

TECHNIQUES TO ENHANCE THE DETECTION
OF PATHS WITH LIDAR
SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF

ANCIENT PATHWAYS’
AMSTERDAM, 27 JUNE 2016
PHILIP VERHAGEN
ŽIGA KOKALJ
LAURE NUNINGER
OUTLINE
 visualisation tools
 (semi-)automated detection
 application to pathway detection
 improving detection, interpretation and comparison
2 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
DETECTION AND VISUALISATION
 visual recognition and manual delineation of objects of archaeological

interest
> building on experiences in aerial photography reconnaissance
> data processing techniques geared towards enhancement of visual recognition
> time-consuming
> problem of non-comparability between operators
 based on morphometric characteristics

> visual / statistical contrast
> shape (in 2D and 3 D)
> size

VISUALISATION TOOLS
 standard GIS operations

> histogram stretch
> hillshade
> 3D
 http://www.ahn.nl/pagina/apps-en-tools/viewer.html
 http://ahn2.pointclouds.nl/

ADVANCED VISUALISATION: LOCAL RELIEF MODELS
 trend removal technique

> smoothing of elevation within a neighbourhood
> subtracting true elevation from smoothed elevation better reveals microtopography
Bofinger and Hesse 2011

ADVANCED VISUALISATION: SKYVIEW FACTOR
 determines size of visible sky

> looking into different directions within a neighbourhood
> only looking upward
Kokalj et al. 2010

ADVANCED VISUALISATION: OPENNESS
 quantifies the degree of unobstructedness of a location

> Yokoyama et al. 2002, Doneus 2013
skyview factor
positive openness
negative openness

ADVANCED VISUALISATION: BONEMAPPING
 SMRF filter
> Simple MoRphological Filter
 creates DTM from point-cloud data

> filters data with user-defined slope and
window-size
> enhances features of a particular size and
vertical prominence
Pingel et al. 2015

PROS AND CONS OF VISUALISATIONS
 hillshade
> best in flat terrain, but: features parallel to light source
>  PCA of hillshading in multiple directions
 slope
> works well in combination with hillshading
 local relief models

> for use in gently sloping terrain, use hillshading afterwards
> can create some artifacts, smoothing can blur contrasts
 skyview factor
> works well with ‘noisy’ data and complex features
> not the best in very flat terrain
 openness
> well suited for the visualization of long linear subtle features like road and paths (Vletter 2015)
 bonemapping
> good at retaining subtle features
> too much smoothing may blur contrasts

normal hillshaded terrain
enhanced visualization
Maya sacbe
combination of HS, SVF, and openness

modern and ancient crossroads

mule tracks

hollow ways

VISUALISATION PACKAGES
 http://www.arcland.eu/news/1487-lidar-toolbox-livt-10019
> import- and export to GIS
> no manual 
 http://iaps.zrc-sazu.si/en/rvt#v
> import- and export to GIS
> extensive manual 
> nice PowerPoint with more explanation 
 http://tpingel.org/code/smrf/smrf.html
> Matlab only 
> No manual 

AUTOMATED DETECTION
 techniques in development
> (statistical) methods well established in remote sensing
> problem: definition and classification of objects of interest
 successful examples mainly restricted to

simple shapes
> mounds, pits (Trier et al. 2015)
> linear structures (Vletter 2015)
> more complex: rectangular enclosures (Zingman et al. 2015)
 ‘automation’ in two steps

> define shapes of interest in mathematical and statistical
terms (2D and 3D)
> extract features conforming to these definitions as
(vectorized) objects
 segmentation Zingman et al. 2015

> first extract different shapes, then classify them
> advantage: can be used on multispectral images

AUTOMATED DETECTION AND SOFTWARE
 remote sensing software is expensive

> most users rely on packages like ENVI and ERDAS
> open source options are limited (SAGA, GRASS)
 segmentation software is even more expensive

> eCognition is the most versatile
> other packages only have limited options
 successful case studies use custom-made tools

> basically, we don’t know how well the tools perform
Vletter 2015

FROM DETECTION TO INTERPRETATION
 detection provides shapes, not archaeology

> ground-truthing
> using other cartographic and written sources
> fieldwork
 automated detection is much quicker, but needs post-processing

> ‘undistinctive’ structures are harder to define in morphometric terms
> Trier & Pilø (2012): high number of ‘false positives’
> Vletter (2015): > 80% of detected linear structures are paths
 solution?
> create thesauri
> based on well-defined ontology of features (to be) recognized in LiDAR

AN ONTOLOGY OF PATHWAYS?
MORPHOLOGY TRAJECTORY
 linear features  construction / practice

> straight or curved, but generally with low sinuosity > intentional / non-intentional
> limited width, substantial length > distance of movement
> may go against the gradient > environmental context
> incomplete / fragmented > technology of movement
> intersections of linear features at sharp angles
 history of usage / function

 network structures > changes in usage
> points of departure and arrival > multiple uses
> additional nodes in network > ownership
 limited vertical expression  afterlife

> positive (talus) and negative (hollow ways)
> sometimes very specific (ditch – talus – ditch) > (partial) destruction
> erosion / sedimentation

Dessin, B. Poire
photograph: L. Nuninger
LIEPPEC ® MSHE C.N. Ledoux - LEA ModeLTER, L. Nuninger
REFERENCES
 Bofinger, J. & R. Hesse, 2011. “As far as the laser can reach… Laminar analysis of LiDAR detected structures as a powerful instrument
for archaeological heritage management in Baden-Württemberg, Germany”. In: Cowley, D.C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for
Archaeological Heritage Management. Brussels, EAC, pp. 161-171.
 Doneus, M. 2013. “Openness as Visualization Technique for Interpretative Mapping of Airborne Lidar Derived Digital Terrain
Models.” Remote Sensing 5 (12): 6427–6442.
 Kokalj, Ž., K. Zakšek & K. Oštir 2010. “Archaeological Application of an Advanced Visualisation Technique Based on Diffuse
Illumination”. In: Reuter, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the 30th EARSeL Symposium: Remote Sensing for Science, Education and Culture.
Paris, EARSeL, pp. 113-120.
 Pingel, T.J., K. Clarke & A. Ford, 2015. “Bonemapping: a LiDAR processing and visualization technique in support of archaeology
under the canopy”. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 42 (S1): S18–S26.
 Trier, Ø.D, & L.H. Pilø, 2012. “Automatic Detection of Pit Structures in Airborne Laser Scanning Data”. Archaeological Prospection 19:
103-121.
 Trier, Ø., M. Zortea & C. Tonning, 2015. “Automatic detection of mound structures in airborne laser scanning data”. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 2: 69-79.
 Vletter, W. F. 2015. “A workflow for (Semi) automatic extraction of roads and paths in forested areas from airborne laser scan data”.
AARGNews 50: 33-40.
 Yokoyama, R., M. Sirasawa &. R.J. Pike, 2002. “Visualizing topography by openness: A new application of image processing to digital
elevation models”. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 68: 257–265.
 Zingman, I., D. Saupe & K. Lambers, 2015. “Detection of incomplete enclosures of rectangular shape in remotely sensed images”.
Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pp. 87-96.


Verhagen Et Al Amsterdam 270616

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Verhagen Et Al Amsterdam 270616

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TECHNIQUES TO ENHANCE THE DETECTION

OF PATHS WITH LIDAR

SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF

 application to pathway detection

 improving detection, interpretation and comparison

2 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 visual recognition and manual delineation of objects of archaeological

 based on morphometric characteristics

3 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 standard GIS operations

4 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 trend removal technique

Bofinger and Hesse 2011

5 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 determines size of visible sky

Kokalj et al. 2010

6 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 quantifies the degree of unobstructedness of a location

7 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 creates DTM from point-cloud data

Pingel et al. 2015

8 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 local relief models

9 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

combination of HS, SVF, and openness

combination of HS, SVF, and openness

combination of HS, SVF, and openness

combination of HS, SVF, and openness

15 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 successful examples mainly restricted to

 ‘automation’ in two steps

 segmentation Zingman et al. 2015

16 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 remote sensing software is expensive

 segmentation software is even more expensive

 successful case studies use custom-made tools

17 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 detection provides shapes, not archaeology

 automated detection is much quicker, but needs post-processing

18 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

 linear features  construction / practice

 history of usage / function

 limited vertical expression  afterlife

19 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

22 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016

S-ar putea să vă placă și