5 th AGILE Conference on Geographical Information Science, Palma (Balearic Islands, Spain) April 25 th- 27th 2002

Various Data Sources of Different Quality for

DTM production
Tomaž Podobnikar
Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Gosposka ulica 13, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: tomaz@zrc-sazu.si

Keywords: digital terrain model, surface, heights, geographical information system, quality control, statistic
analyses.

Introduction
The form of the Earth’s surface can be described with a model, recorded as continuous and usually smoothed
surfaces. Surfaces are defined with a finite set of heights, measured with regard to mean sea level. Such models
were in analogue form until forty years ago, but today are known as digital terrain models (DTMs). Basic
principles for the management, acquisition, recording, updating, spatial analyses, visualisation, and integration of
such models with other systems are well known. Despite this, new developments provide the opportunity for the
improvement of DTM modelling.
The main goal of this article is the integration of existing data of different quality and its implementation with
convenient technology for high quality DTM production. The methodology refers to the production of DTM
surfaces with respect to the different data quality of sources. Beside a contribution to modelling digital terrain
model as science, an applied aspect of the study had been developed. It therefore includes practical suggestions
for data selection, pre-processing, and evaluation decisions, the possibilities and limitations of particular
techniques for quality control, interpolation parameters, etc.
One of technological challenges of the DTM production is the ever larger amount of digital data now available,
which generally contains much semantic information about surface geomorphology. Despite this large amount of
information, generally the mass of data does not seem useful for DTM production. Problems with such data
mostly lies in its quality which is non-homogeneous, different methods and standards used for quality estimation
and topological structure, making it unsuitable for terrain surface modelling. Different data quality is mainly an
outcome of the method of acquisition, which can be directly or more frequently, indirectly acquired from
generalised analogue data sources. Different estimation methods can cause unpredictable gross and systematic
errors. Possible solutions for these problems, confirmed through applied experimentation, enable cost-effective
and high quality production. In the article, it will be described that these data sources could be used as a basis for
high quality digital terrain model production without the requirement of additional data acquiring.
DTM Modelling
The main part of the article will be devoted to two DTM production methods. The first method is that of
simultaneous sources interpolation. The second is the weighted sum of sources with geomorphological
corrections. Both methods rely on substantial knowledge of used sources and the theory of DTM modelling.
Further stages of DTM production were divided into:
• preparation,
• pre-processing,
• processing,
• (management of DTM data)
Preparation
Preparation for DTM processing is important for identifying problems which may appear during DTM
production. Beside theoretical activities, the practical act of modelling figures highly within the article.
Automatic regionalisation should also be mentioned along with complex methods which supporting DTM
production. Beside of preparation for DTM processing, regionalisation was used for metadata monitoring and
pre-processing, and processing. Regionalisation derived from regionalisation variables which were divided
according to natural and anthropogenic characteristics of surfaces and with regard to sources and DTM quality.
Variables were generated from different cartographic sources and spatial databases. Regionalisation were
produced from variables by models (with mostly empirical parameters) based on map algebra operations. It
considered on surface type and roughness (flat surface, hills, karst, mountains, etc.), and also with consideration

1
 5 th AGILE Conference on Geographical Information Science, Palma (Balearic Islands, Spain) April 25 th- 27th 2002

of the vegetation (which has an influence on data accuracy), available datasets (data is non-homogeneously
distributed over Slovenia), previous knowledge about real terrain surfaces, and quality of sources. Within
preparation, the sources were coded with appropriate parameters with regard to types of source.

Pre-processing
Pre-processing based on detailed visual and statistical quality control of sources, supported by automatic
regionalisation. Data was also statistically and geomorphologically corrected and improved. Preparation for
DTM processing is important for identifying problems which may appear during DTM production.
An assessment of the impact of overall sources quality was derived using visual controls. With statistical
methods other aspects of data nature investigated. It was assumed that it would find a ‘global’ method for data
tests, which would be effective for any geographical area. There are following steps were followed for statistical
methods:
• elimination of gross errors of reference points using reference DEMs (DTMs as grids)
• statistical evaluation of non-point sources with reference points
• systematic error elimination from non-point sources
For elimination of gross errors from reference points, a high quality reference DEM was produced. At a later
date a weight coverage was processed as an another key data set. Weight coverages were based on prior
knowledge of the nature of random deviations of the reference DEM. Regionalisation for this task considers
terrain roughness, karstic qualities, vegetation, hydrological networks, standing water and other flat areas,
transport networks, and operator error. ‘Method of variances’ were used to eliminate gross errors from reference
points. The method compares absolute difference between reference points and reference DEMs with threshold
(permitted distance), relating to the weight coverage. When threshold is exceeded, the relevant point was
considered to contain a gross error. It was marked and eliminated.
The statistical evaluation of the non-point sources was allowed with a corrected reference set. After initial
analyses, standard regions for metadata monitoring were used. The most important categorisations were selected
in respect to: terrain roughness, slope, terrain skeleton (sinks, valleys, saddles, ridges, and peaks), and
vegetation. The most important parameters were the RMS error, which whilst coarse and approximate,
determines a random error, and mean error that accords with a systematic error.
With very precise parameters for sources quality, systematic errors should be eliminated from non-point sources.
For this task, parameters were used for mean error and derived from statistical evaluation. Considering
parameters and regarding standard regions, every source was corrected separately. Results of another statistical
evaluation showed that systematic error elimination is necessary for DTM processing with data of variable
quality.
Processing
Following DTM production evaluation two methods for DTM processing were developed and tested:
• a method of simultaneous sources interpolation (producing the DTM and from it the DEM),
• a method of weighted sum of sources – with gemorphological enhancement (direct processing of the
DEM).
The method of simultaneous sources interpolation is based on interpolation of all suitable sources together. This
used an appropriate interpolation method is known as ‘least square interpolation’ (Kraus 1998) which is based on
computing the minimum variance or ‘linear prediction’. In geostatistics the method is known as ‘kriging’. The
interpolation method is local and it uses so-called computing units. During interpolation it finds an appropriate
function (theoretical surface) by considering particular points to which filter values are assigned. Filter values
are also used to control a degree of the surface smoothens. Different filter values (as variances or weights) were
assigned according to data codes (characteristics) and quality (different height precision).
Techniques, similar to selective and progressive enhancement (Makarovic 1973; Makarovic 1977) of data, play a
very important role. This approach provides an alternative way to consider weights of sources, which are higher
for denser data distribution. The processed results haven’t been analysed very precisely, but some results were
excellent although requiring considerable effort.
The method of weighted sum of sources (with geomorphological enhancement) is easier to employ. It is (raster)
GIS-orientated. In this case interpolation methods are very important during the pre-processing and with respect
of the nature of sources and the final DTM resolution. The final resolution chosen for the DTM was 20 m, and
all data sources were interpolated to the selected resolution. Spline is appropriate for DEM with resolution of

2
 5 th AGILE Conference on Geographical Information Science, Palma (Balearic Islands, Spain) April 25 th- 27th 2002

100 m interpolation to a 20 m grid, because it provided high quality source. For DEM with resolution of 25 m,
bilinear interpolation was better (Longley et al. 2001), and for contour lines a LIDIC (Jaakkola and Oksanen
2000) interpolation method with many improvements regarding basic method was applied. Improvements were
necessary to enable interpolation in the situations where there were missing contour lines. The main advantage of
the weighted sum of sources as a method is that it is a natural extension of statistical pre-processing. The
principal steps to produce a DTM (DEM) with this method are:
• mosaicing to produce a basic DEM
• ‘parallel’ weighted sum of secondary data
• geomorphological enhancement
• reference point consideration, and
• monitoring of result quality following the weighted sum of data
A basic DEM was first constructed as a mosaic of sources. For this task, sources that cover the area most
homogeneously were chosen.
With ‘parallel’ weighted sum other, secondary sources were included within DTM production. Most secondary
sources were local. For production of weighted coverages for data sources, a method was used similar to that for
systematic error elimination, a difference was that parameters for random errors were also taken into
consideration. Higher weights were assigned locally to source with a lower random error and for every
combination of sources calculating arithmetic mean with weights. Thresholds (vertical differences) were
controlled for every grid cell by a combination of weighted coverages. If the distance was too large, the area was
noted. Individual selected areas were tested with reference points (if they were available for these areas). Higher
weights were assigned to the areas to which reference points had lower absolute mean distances. If no reference
points were available for a selected area, the area was considered to be of insufficient quality. With the ‘parallel’
weighted sum method, the reference points were included within some portion of the final DEM.
With ‘parallel’ weighted sum, the final DEM became a bit smoother than the original sources.
Geomorphological correction of the DEM was then necessary. The geomorphological characteristics of
statistically better sources were applied to the DEM. For that, a trend surface was produced with DEM
generalisation. The same conditions of generalisation were applied for DEM and original source from which
geomorphology had to be assigned. In the end the calculated difference between the trend of the source surface
and the source were added to the trend of the DEM. With this correction a DEM was produced which was
statistically insignificantly worse, but which was geomorphologically much improved.
Many reference points were available for testing, but they were also used for DEM quality improvement. With
each step of the ‘parallel’ weighted sum, the terrain surface was closer to the reference points. To use reference
points separately as the most accurate available data would be particularly sensitive on flat areas. It is very
possible that with only a slight change of point height, geomorphology might be significantly and detrimentally
changed. It was decided to use reference points only if they were within a mountainous area (with regard to
regionalisation), if they were within the areas of sinks and peaks, if they were 1st order trigonometrical points,
and if they were close to a hydrological network. Inclusion of points was carried out with a smoothing
interpolation relating to their nearest neighbour.
The Actual Results
The data, used for DTM production for the case study (Slovenia) were:
• DEMs (grids) with resolution of 100, 25, 10 (local) and 5 m (local)
• various geodetic points, cadastre points, points of Central database of buildings
• spot elevations (hill numbers)
• hydrography from maps in scale (scale 1 : 25,000; polygons of standing water)
• lines of rivers (scale 1 : 25,000 and 1 : 5000)
• contour lines (1 : 25,000 and 1 : 5000)
The techniques employed for DTM production were tested for each individual step of processing, and quality
parameters were monitored. The study case was area of Slovenia and data, available for. Data, used on the test
regions were as far as possible objective and describe every part of Slovenia and its surrounding. The results
were confirmed with statistical and visual quality analyses for both proposed methods of DTM production. The
results indicate statistically, geomorphologically and visually – a high quality and efficient DTM production in
Slovenia, better than those currently used and present an expected average vertical precision of 3.5 m or better
for the whole of Slovenia (with average relative high slope of 14.5º). An important additional product of this

3
 5 th AGILE Conference on Geographical Information Science, Palma (Balearic Islands, Spain) April 25 th- 27th 2002

approach to DTMs are automatically produced contour lines, terrain skeletons and hillshading. Secondary
products include acquisition of quality parameters and reduction of gross and systematic errors in geodetic
databases.
With combination of various sources, for about 50% to 80% better results were reached with regard the best data
sources, which covers all of (tested) area for DTM modelling. The described methods are not useful only for
DTM production with various data sources, when there are not enough resources to produce high quality DTM
with “classical methods”, but even to combine high and lover quality data to evaluate and improve DTM.

References
Jaakkola, O., Oksanen, J., 2000, Creating DEMs from Contour Lines: interpolation techniques which save terrain
morphology. GIM international, (Lemmer, The Netherlands), Vol. 14, No. 9, 46–49.
Kraus, K., 1998, Interpolation nach kleinsten Quadraten versus Krige-Schätzer. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Vermessung
und Geoinformation. Vol. 1/98, 45–48.
Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., Rhind, D. W., 2001, Geographic Information Systems and Science. John
Willey & Sons, 454 pp.
Makarovic, B., 1973, Progressive Sampling for Digital Terrain Models. ITC Journal, (Enschede, The Netherlands), Vol. 3,
397–416.
Makarovic, B., 1977, Composite Sampling for Digital Terrain Models. ITC Journal, (Enschede, The Netherlands), Vol. 3,
406–433.