Cited by 135

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Algorithm and implementation uncertainty in viewshed analysis

Fisher, Peter F.·1993·International journal of geographical information systems

Abstract

In most documentation of geographical information systems (GIS) it is very rare to find details of the algorithms used in the software, but alternative formulations of the same process may derive different results. In this research several alternatives in the design of viewshed algorithms are explored. Three major features of viewshed algorithms are examined: how elevations in the digital elevation model are inferred, how viewpoint and target are represented, and the mathematical formulation of the comparison. It is found that the second of these produces the greatest variability in the viewable area (up to 50 per cent over the mean viewable area), while the last gives the least. The same test data are run in a number of different GIS implementations of the viewshed operation, and smaller, but still considerable, variability in the viewable area is observed. The study highlights three issues: the need for standards and/or empirical benchmark datasets for GIS functions; the desirability of publication of algorithms used in GIS operations; and the fallacy of the binary representation of a complex GIS product such as the viewshed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02693799308901965

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To date there is little consensus on which optimized viewshed algorithm approach offers the best way forward, and no rigorous formal comparison of the accuracy of the solutions tendered.

    “to date there been little in the way of consensus as to which offers the best way forward and no rigorous formal comparison with regard to the accuracy of the solutions tendered”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. BURROUGH P. A., 1986, Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Resource Evaluation
  2. CLARKE K. C., 1985, Photoyrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 51, 575
  3. 10.1559/152304088783887161 · DOI
  4. FELLEMAN J., 1990, The Role of Error in GIS-based Viewshed Determination: A Problem Analysis.
  5. FISHER P. F., 1991, First experiments in viewshed uncertainity: the accuracy of the viewshed area, 57, 1321
  6. FISHER P. F., 1992, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 58, 345
  7. HEMENWAY D., 1992, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 58, 31
  8. JORDAN L. E., 1992, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 58, 863
  9. 10.1080/02693799208901902 · DOI
  10. KVAMME K., 1990, Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, 112
  11. 10.1080/02693799108927855 · DOI
  12. MARK D. M., 1987, Proceedings of the First Latin American Conference on Computers in Cartography, San José, 375
  13. 10.1080/02693799008941557 · DOI
  14. SRINIVASAN R., 1991, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 7, 779, 10.13031/2013.26302 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/02693798908941519 · DOI
  16. SKIDMORE A. K., International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 4, 33, 10.1080/02693799008941527 · DOI
  17. TENG Y. A., 1992, Visibility Analysis on Digital Terrain Models and its Parallel Implementation.
  18. TOMLIN C. D., 1991, Cartographic Modelling and Geographic Information Systems.
  19. TRAVIS M. R., 1975, VIEWIT: Computation of Seen Areas, Slope, and Aspect for Land-use Planning.
  20. WAGNER D. F., 1989, A comparison and evaluation of three polygon overlay algorithms.
  21. YOELI P., 1985, Cartographica, 22, 88, 10.3138/J275-6460-8326-3733 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, P. F.
Venue
International journal of geographical information systems
Published
1993-07
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
331-347
ISSN
0269-3798
Cited by
135
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review