Map Generation Reliability Evaluation Using Point Cloud Metrics
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing map generation systems fail to properly evaluate the reliability of map information generated by Mobile Mapping Systems, especially when conditions deviate from fair weather or daytime, leading to inefficient manual correction and approval processes.
Innovation Solution
A map generation device that includes a planimetric feature position information generation unit and a planimetric feature position information evaluation unit, which assesses the reliability of map information using multiple evaluation items such as error amount, parallelism, reflection intensity, altitude difference, and correspondence with road features, to determine the reliability of positional information.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If simple evaluation methods (weather and time only) are used to assess map information reliability, then the evaluation process is fast and simple, but the reliability evaluation is insufficient and inaccurate
Solution Approach 1:
The reliability evaluation is divided into multiple independent evaluation items, each assessing a specific aspect of map information quality. The evaluation unit calculates separate scores for different features (road width, reflection intensity, point cloud density, etc.), allowing comprehensive reliability assessment through modular, manageable components rather than a single complex evaluation metric.
Solution Approach 2:
The system transitions from evaluating only environmental parameters (weather, time) to incorporating multiple measurement parameters from the point cloud data itself. By changing the evaluation parameters to include geometric properties, reflection characteristics, and spatial relationships directly from the measurement data, the system achieves more accurate reliability assessment without excessive complexity.
2Reliability
If multiple evaluation items are used to assess map information reliability, then the reliability evaluation becomes comprehensive and accurate, but the evaluation process becomes complex and time-consuming
Solution Approach 1:
The evaluation unit automatically calculates reliability scores for multiple evaluation items using the measurement data already acquired during map generation. By making the system self-evaluating without requiring manual intervention for each evaluation item, comprehensive reliability assessment is achieved without proportionally increasing the time cost. The automated evaluation enables efficient processing of multiple criteria simultaneously.
Solution Approach 2:
The reliability evaluation is performed concurrently with the map information generation process rather than as a separate subsequent step. By conducting the evaluation during data acquisition and processing, the system prepares reliability assessments in advance, reducing the time required for later manual correction and approval without compromising evaluation comprehensiveness.
3Productivity
If comprehensive evaluation of map information reliability is performed, then manual correction and approval can be optimized, but the processing complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies different evaluation criteria and weightings to different types of map features and different measurement conditions. Rather than using a uniform evaluation approach, the system adapts the evaluation process to local characteristics of the data being assessed, such as adjusting for feature type, measurement environment, and data quality variations. This localized evaluation approach improves correction efficiency without requiring excessive overall system complexity.
Data Source
AI summary
A map generation device is configured to determine evaluation value of each of a plurality of evaluation items that serve as indices for evaluation the reliability of the positional information of the planimetric feature. The plurality of evaluation items include any of an error amount when arrangement of composing points of the planimetric feature is approximated, a parallelism between an arrangement direction of composing points of the planimetric feature and a movement trajectory of the measuring vehicle, a distance between a position indicated by the position information of the planimetric feature and a position of the measuring vehicle when the position of the planimetric feature is measured, an absolute value of reflection intensity of a position of the planimetric feature obtained from the measurement information or a difference between a position of the planimetric feature and surrounding reflection intensity of the planimetric feature, and so on.