Comparison and validation of the recent freely available ASTER-GDEM ver1, SRTM ver4.1 and GEODATA DEM-9S ver3 digital elevation models over Australia
Open accessAbstract
This study investigates the quality (in terms of elevation accuracy and systematic errors) of three recent publicly available elevation model datasets over Australia: (i) the 9 arc second national GEODATA DEM-9S ver3 from Geoscience Australia and the Australian National University; (ii) the 3 arc second SRTM ver4.1 from CGIAR-CSI; and (iii) the 1 arc second ASTER-GDEM ver1 from NASA/METI. The main features of these datasets are reported from a geodetic point of view. Comparison at about 1 billion locations identifies artefacts (e.g. residual cloud patterns and stripe effects) in ASTER. For DEM-9S, the comparisons against the space-collected SRTM and ASTER models demonstrate that signal omission (due to the ∼270 m spacing) may cause errors of the order of 100–200 m in some rugged areas of Australia. Based on a set of geodetic ground control points over Western Australia, the vertical accuracy of DEM-9S is ∼9 m, SRTM ∼6 m and ASTER ∼15 m. However, these values vary as a function of the terrain type and shape. Thus, CGIAR-CSI SRTM ver4.1 may represent a viable alternative to DEM-9S for some applications. While ASTER GDEM has an unprecedented horizontal resolution of ∼30 m, systematic errors present in this research-grade version of the ASTER GDEM ver1 will impede its immediate use for some applications.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Signal omission was found by Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone (2010) and Rexer and Hirt (2014) to be the main cause for the considerable differences observed among the DEMs.
“The latter was found by Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone (2010); Rexer and Hirt (2014) to be the main cause for the considerable differences observed among the DEMs.”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone (2010)
In “Comparison among the models” (page not specified), the paper identifies signal omission as the cause of considerable differences involving DEM-9S in rugged terrain. The claim omits those limits and presents it as the main cause of differences among the DEMs generally; the same section also identifies stripe patterns associated with ASTER. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrevious studies reported an overall negative bias for ASTER GDEM 2 with respect to GCPs.
“Previous studies reported an overall negative bias for ASTER GDEM 2 with respect to GCPs (Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone 2010;Gesch et al. 2012;Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013;Li et al. 2013Li et al. , 2016;;Athmania and Achour 2014;Jain et al. 2017).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone 2010
In “Model validation with ground truth data,” the paper reports that ASTER heights were about 9 m too low at 6,392 GCPs; Table 5 also gives a negative mean difference for ASTER against 911 GPS GCPs. But the paper explicitly studies ASTER GDEM ver1, not GDEM 2, so it does not establish the claimed bias for version 2. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGeolocation errors significantly influence the vertical accuracy of global DEMs, especially in areas of steep slopes.
“After matching their coordinate systems and datums, the horizontal positional accuracy evaluation was carried out and it shows that geolocation errors significantly influence the vertical accuracy of global DEMs.”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Height systems and vertical datums: A review in the Australian context
Featherstone, W. E., & Kuhn, M. (2006) · Journal of Spatial Science · doi:10.1080/14498596.2006.9635062 · Cited by 93 · cited 2× · see citing works
“To a rough approximation, the model heights refer to local mean sea-level (Torge 2001; Featherstone & Kuhn 2006).”
MethodSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Bildirici O., Ustun A., Ulugtekin N., Zahit Selvi H., Abbak A., Bugdayci I. & Ozgur Dogru A. 2008. Comparison of SRTM and 25K topographic maps in Turkeye. Proceedings Second International Conference on Cartography and GIS, Borovets (Bulgaria), 219-227. Available online: http://www.mmf.selcuk.edu.tr/~aabbak/pubs/8.pdf (accessed on 28.07.2009).
- Denker H. 2004. Evaluation of SRTM3 and GTOPO30 Terrain Data in Germany. GGSM 2004 IAG International Symposium Porto, Portugal (ed. C. Jekeli et al.), Springer, Heidelberg: 218-223
- Farr, T.G., Rosen P.A., Caro E., Crippen R., Duren R., Hensley S., Kobrick M., Paller M., Rodriguez E., Roth L., Seal D., Shaffer S., Shimada J., Umland J., Werner M., Oskin M., Burbank D. & Alsdorf D. 2007. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Rev. Geophys. 45, RG2004, doi:10.1029/2005RG000183. · DOI · Paper page
- Featherstone, W.E. 2004. Evidence of a north-south trend between AUSGeoid98 and the AHD in southwest Australia, Survey Review 37(291): 334-343.
- Filmer, M.S. & Featherstone W.E. 2009. Detecting spirit-levelling errors in the AHD: recent findings and some issues for any new Australian height datum, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 56(4), 559-569
- Fujita K., Suzuki R., Nuimura T., Sakai A. 2008. Performance of ASTER and SRTM DEMs and their potential for assessing glacial lakes in the Lunana region, Bhutan Himalaya. Journal of Glaciology 54(185), 220-228.
- Gamache M. 2004. Free and low cost data sets for international mountain cartography. Paper presented at the Workshop of the Commission on Mountain Cartography if the International Cartographic Association, Vall de Nuria, Spain 2004, 39 pages. Online available at: http://www.mountaincartography.org/publications/papers/papers_nuria_04/gamache.pdf (accessed 28.July 2009). Geoscience Australia 2008. GEODATA 9 Second Digital Elevation Model (DEM-9S) Version 3. Web document. http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/htsqr?file=/oracle/geomet/geomet2.htsqr&datasetno=11541 (accessed 28.July 2009).
- Hayakawa Y.S., Oguchi T., Lin Z. 2008. Comparison of new and existing global digital elevation models: ASTER G-DEM and SRTM-3. Geophysical Research Letters 35(17), L17404.
- Hanssen R.F. 2001. Radar interferometry: Data Interpretation and error analysis. Springer, New York.
- Hilton R.D., Featherstone W.E., Berry P.A.M., Johnston C.P.D & Kirby J.F. 2003. Comparison of digital elevation models over Australia and external validation using ERS-1 satellite radar altimetry, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 50(2): 157-168. doi: 10.1046/j.1440- 0952.2003.00982.x · DOI
- Hu, G. 2009. Analysis of Regional GPS Campaigns and their Alignment to the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) , Journal of Spatial Sciences. 54: 15-22
- Hutchinson, M.F. 1989. A new procedure for gridding elevation and stream line data with automatic removal of spurious pits. Journal of Hydrology 106: 211-232
- Jacobsen K. 2004. Analysis of digital elevation models based on space information. EARSeL conference proceedings, Dubrovnik. 8 pages. Available at: http://www.ipi.uni- hannover.de/uploads/tx_tkpublikationen/JAC_dubrov04.pdf (accessed 28.July 2009)
- Jacobsen K. 2005. Analysis of SRTM Elevation Models. EARSeL conference proceedings, Porto, 7 pages. Available at: http://www.ipi.uni- hannover.de/uploads/tx_tkpublikationen/ASEjac.pdf (accessed 28.July 2009).
- Kervyn M., Ernst G.G.J., Goosens R., Jacobs P. 2008. Mapping volcano topography with remote sensing: ASTER vs. GDEM. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29(22), 6515-6538.
- Lohr U. 1998. Digital Elevation Models by Laser Scanning. Photogrammetric Record 16(91), 105-109.
- Marti U. 2004. Comparison of SRTM data with the national DTMs of Switzerland. Paper presented at GGSM 2004 IAG International Symposium Porto, Portugal. Also published by Swisstopo, Wabern, Switzerland.
- Nikolakopoulos K.G., Kamaratakis E.K., Chrysoulakis N. 2006. SRTM vs ASTER elevation products. Comparison for two regions in Crete, Greece. International Journal of Remote Sensing 27( 21), 4819-4838 NIMA 2004.
- Reuter H.I., Nelson A., & Jarvis A. 2007. An evaluation of void filling interpolation methods for SRTM data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 21(9): 983-1008
- Shapiro L.G. & Stockman G.C. 2000. Computer Vision. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
- Torge W. 2001. Geodesy. Third edition. W. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
- van Ede R. 2004. Destriping and Geometric Correction of an ASTER Level 1A Image. Thesis, Faculty of GeoSciences, Utrecht University, Netherlands. Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3752774/Aster-Correction-Thesis (accessed 18. August 2009).
- Werner M. 2001. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Mission overview. Journal of Telecommunication 55, 75-79.
- Wood J. 2008. Digital Elevation Model (DEM). In: Encyclopedia of Geographic Information Science (ed. K.K. Kemp). SAGE Publications, London.
- Wessel, P. & W. H. F. Smith 1998. New, improved version of the Generic Mapping Tools released, EOS Trans. AGU, 79, 579.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yap, L., Kandé, L. H., Nouayou, R., Kamguia, J., Ngouh, N. A., & Makuate, M. B. (2019) · International Journal of Digital Earth · doi:10.1080/17538947.2018.1458163 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hirt, C., Filmer, M. S., & Featherstone, W. E.
- Affiliations
- Curtin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hirt, C.
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Earth Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 337-347
- ISSN
- 0812-0099 (ISSN-L)
- 1440-0952
- OpenAlex
- W1974365058
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 29.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Institute for Geoscience Research
- Australian Research Council (DP0663020)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Satellite Image Processing and Photogrammetry
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › GNSS positioning and interference
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
- Keywords
- digital elevation model, ASTER GDEM, SRTM, elevation accuracy, systematic errors, DEM comparison, Australia, Western Australia, ground control points, terrain ruggedness
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