CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 234

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Digital Elevation Models: Terminology and Definitions

Guth, Peter L., Van Niekerk, Adriaan, Grohmann, Carlos H., Muller, Jan-Peter, Hawker, Laurence, Florinsky, Igor V., Gesch, Dean, Reuter, Hannes I., Herrera-Cruz, Virginia, Riazanoff, Serge, López-Vázquez, Carlos, Carabajal, Claudia C., Albinet, Clément, Strobl, Peter·2021·Remote Sensing
DOI 10.3390/rs13183581
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Digital elevation models (DEMs) provide fundamental depictions of the three-dimensional shape of the Earth’s surface and are useful to a wide range of disciplines. Ideally, DEMs record the interface between the atmosphere and the lithosphere using a discrete two-dimensional grid, with complexities introduced by the intervening hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and anthroposphere. The treatment of DEM surfaces, affected by these intervening spheres, depends on their intended use, and the characteristics of the sensors that were used to create them. DEM is a general term, and more specific terms such as digital surface model (DSM) or digital terrain model (DTM) record the treatment of the intermediate surfaces. Several global DEMs generated with optical (visible and near-infrared) sensors and synthetic aperture radar (SAR), as well as single/multi-beam sonars and products of satellite altimetry, share the common characteristic of a georectified, gridded storage structure. Nevertheless, not all DEMs share the same vertical datum, not all use the same convention for the area on the ground represented by each pixel in the DEM, and some of them have variable data spacings depending on the latitude. This paper highlights the importance of knowing, understanding and reflecting on the sensor and DEM characteristics and consolidates terminology and definitions of key concepts to facilitate a common understanding among the growing community of DEM users, who do not necessarily share the same background.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rs13183581

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • DEMs can be categorized into digital surface models (DSMs), which represent features above the surface, and digital terrain models (DTMs), which represent the elevation of the ground surface.

    “DEMs can be categorized into two types [19]: digital surface models (DSMs), which represent features above the surface, such as vegetation and buildings, and digital terrain models (DTMs), which represent the elevation of the ground surface.”

    From ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    Section 3.3 defines DSMs as DEMs recording the surface that includes vegetation or built features, and DTMs as bare-earth DEMs. But the Conclusions say DEMs can also represent non-vegetated surfaces, sensor surfaces, or combinations, so the claim's division into only two types is too restrictive. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Strobl, 2021, The Digital Elevation Model Intercomparison eXperiment DEMIX, a community based approach at global DEM benchmarking, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., XLIII-B4-2021, 395, 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B4-2021-395-2021 · DOI
  2. Florinsky, I.V. (2016). Digital Terrain Analysis in Soil Science and Geology, Elsevier. · DOI
  3. Shary, P.A. (2008). Advances in Digital Terrain Analysis. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, Springer. Chapter Models of Topography.
  4. Miller, 1958, The Digital Terrain Model-Theory & Application, Photogramm. Eng., 24, 433
  5. Noma, 1959, Programming topographic maps for automatic terrain model construction, Surv. Mapp., 19, 355
  6. 1972, Digital hypsographic map compilation, Photogramm. Eng., 38, 11
  7. Segu, 1985, Terrain Approximation By Fixed Grid Polynomial, Photogramm. Rec., 11, 581, 10.1111/j.1477-9730.1985.tb00525.x · DOI
  8. Stepanova, 2012, S- and R-approximations of the Earth’s surface topographyy, Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng., 20, 499, 10.1080/17415977.2011.637209 · DOI
  9. Pavlis, 2012, The development and evaluation of the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008), J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 117, B04406, 10.1029/2011JB008916 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Martin, 2012, Biogeosciences survey: Studying interactions of the biosphere with the lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ., 36, 833, 10.1177/0309133312457107 · DOI
  11. Shary, 1995, Land surface in gravity points classification by a complete system of curvatures, Math. Geol., 27, 373, 10.1007/BF02084608 · DOI
  12. Hengl, 2009, Mathematical and Digital Models of the Land Surface, Geomorphometry: Concepts, Software, Applications, Volume 33, 31
  13. Heidemann, H.K. (2012). Manual of Airborne Topographic Lidar, Chapter Digital Elevation Models; American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
  14. Florinsky, 2017, An Illustrated Introduction to General Geomorphometry, Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ., 41, 723, 10.1177/0309133317733667 · DOI
  15. Maune, D.F., Heidemann, H.K., Kopp, S.M., and Crawford, C.A. (2019). Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM Users Manual, Chapter Introduction to DEMs; American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
  16. Farr, 2007, The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, Rev. Geophys., 45, RG2004, 10.1029/2005RG000183 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Arundel, S.T., Archuleta, C.M., Phillips, L.A., Roche, B.L., and Constance, E.W. (2015). 1-Meter Digital Elevation Model Specification, US Geological Survey. · DOI
  18. Štular, B., Lozić, E., and Eichert, S. (2021). Airborne LiDAR-Derived Digital Elevation Model for Archaeology. Remote Sens., 13. · DOI
  19. Hengl, 2009, Preparation of DEMs for Geomorphometric Analysis, Geomorphometry: Concepts, Software, Applications, Volume 33, 87
  20. Becker, 2009, Global Bathymetry and Elevation Data at 30 Arc Seconds Resolution: SRTM30_PLUS, Mar. Geod., 32, 355, 10.1080/01490410903297766 · DOI
  21. Tozer, 2019, Global bathymetry and topography at 15 arc sec: SRTM15+, Earth Space Sci., 6, 1847, 10.1029/2019EA000658 · DOI
  22. Abrams, 2010, The ASTER Global DEM, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 76, 344
  23. Abrams, M., Crippen, R., and Fujisada, H. (2020). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM) and ASTER Global Water Body Dataset (ASTWBD). Remote Sens., 12. · DOI
  24. Tadono, 2016, Generation of the 30 M-Mesh Global Digital Surface Model by ALOS PRISM, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., XLI-B4, 157, 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B4-157-2016 · DOI
  25. Crippen, 2016, NASADEM Global Elevation Model: Methods and Progress, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., XLI-B4, 125, 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B4-125-2016 · DOI
  26. NASA JPL (2021, July 19). NASA SRTM-Only Height and Height Precision Global 1 Arc Second V001, 2020, Distributed by NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC. Available online: https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/NASADEM/NASADEM_SHHP.001. · DOI
  27. Rizzoli, 2017, Generation and performance assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote. Sens., 132, 119, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.08.008 · DOI
  28. Yamazaki, 2017, A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844, 10.1002/2017GL072874 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Gregory, 2008, A comparison of intercell metrics on discrete global grid systems, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 32, 188, 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2007.11.003 · DOI
  30. Harrison, 2015, Hexagonal connectivity maps for Digital Earth, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 8, 750, 10.1080/17538947.2014.927597 · DOI
  31. Sabel, 2014, Optimisation of global grids for high-resolution remote sensing data, Comput. Geosci., 72, 84, 10.1016/j.cageo.2014.07.005 · DOI
  32. Jakobsson, 2012, The International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO) Version 3.0, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L12609, 10.1029/2012GL052219 · DOI
  33. Danielson, J.J., and Gesch, D.B. (2011). Global multi-resolution terrain elevation data 2010 (GMTED2010). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1073, U.S. Geological Survey. · DOI
  34. Tobler, 1969, Geographical Filters and their Inverses, Geogr. Anal., 2, 234, 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1969.tb00621.x · DOI
  35. Mark, 1975, Computer Analysis of topography: A comparison of terrain storage methods, Geogr. Ann. Ser. Phys. Geogr., 57, 179, 10.1080/04353676.1975.11879914 · DOI
  36. Guth, 2006, Geomorphometry from SRTM: Comparison to NED, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 72, 269, 10.14358/PERS.72.3.269 · DOI
  37. Fisher, 2006, Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models, Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ., 30, 467, 10.1191/0309133306pp492ra · DOI · Paper page
  38. Polidori, L., and El Hage, M. (2020). Digital Elevation Model Quality Assessment Methods: A Critical Review. Remote Sens., 12. · DOI
  39. Mesa-Mingorance, J.L., and Ariza-López, F.J. (2020). Accuracy Assessment of Digital Elevation Models (DEMs): A Critical Review of Practices of the Past Three Decades. Remote Sens., 12. · DOI
  40. 2009, Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models by means of robust statistical methods, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 64, 398, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Hawker, 2019, Accuracy assessment of the TanDEM-X 90 Digital Elevation Model for selected floodplain sites, Remote Sens. Environ., 232, 111319, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111319 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 2020, Accuracy assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model in a mountain environment, Remote Sens. Environ., 241, 111724, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111724 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Smith, 2003, Accuracy and resolution of shuttle radar topography mission data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1467, 10.1029/2002GL016643 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Guth, P. L., Van Niekerk, A., Grohmann, C. H., Muller, J.-P., Hawker, L., Florinsky, I. V., Gesch, D., Reuter, H. I., Herrera-Cruz, V., Riazanoff, S., López-Vázquez, C., Carabajal, C. C., Albinet, C., & Strobl, P.
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
13
Issue
18
Pages
3581
ISSN
2072-4292
DOI
10.3390/rs13183581
Cited by
234
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (#2019/26568-0)
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (#423481/2018-5, #304413/2018-6)

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