EuroSDR Projects - Host Ireland

Due to the development of scanning systems and improvements in the accuracy of direct
georeferencing, airborne laser scanning (ALS) became a feasible technology to provide range data in
the early 1990s. At that time, ALS was already considered as a mature technology (Baltsavias, 1999).
ALS provides dense point clouds (more than 10 returns per m 2 are possible today) with 3D
coordinates. This makes range data segmentation relatively easy (Brenner, 2005).
The integration of laser point clouds and photogrammetric processes with aerial photos also provides
new technological solutions. By combining the good height assessment accuracy of laser scanner and
good planimetric accuracy of aerial images, both high accuracy and higher automation can in theory
be obtained. However, despite the progress that has been made with integrating laser scanning systems
and digital images, automated processing of the resulting datasets is at a very early research stage
(Brenner, 2005).
A short summary of the state of the art in building extraction methods can be obtained from Baltsavias
(2004) and Brenner (2001, 2005).
A more detailed summary of building extraction methods with emphasis on achievements of the last
years can be obtained from Alharthy and Bethel (2004), Ameri and Fritsch (2000), Baillard and
Dissard (2000), Baillard and Maïtre (1999), Baltsavias (2004), Braun et al. (1995), Brenner (2001,
2003, 2005), Brunn et al. (1998), Brunn and Weidner (1997, 1998), Centeno and Miqueles (2004),
Chen et al. (2004), Cho et al. (2004), Cord and Declerq (2001), Cord et al. (2001), Dash et al. (2004),
Dold and Brenner (2004), Elaksher and Bethel (2002), Elaksher et al. (2003), Fischer et al. (1998),
Forlani et al. (2003, 2006), Fraser et al. (2002), Fuchs and Le-Men (2000), Fujii and Arikawa (2002),
Förstner (1999), Grün (1997, 1998), Grün and Wang (1998a,b, 1999a,b), Grün et al. (2003), Haala et
al. (1998), Haala and Brenner (1999), Haithcoat et al. (2001), Hofmann et al. (2001, 2003), Hofmann
(2004), Jaynes et al. (2003), Jutzi and Stilla (2004), Jülge and Brenner (2004), Khoshelham (2004),
Kim and Muller (1998), Lee and Choi (2004), Li et al. (2004), Maas and Vosselman (1999), Maas
(2001), Madhavan et al. (2004), Mayer (1999), Morgan and Habib (2001,2002), Neidhart and Sester
(2003), Niederöst (2003), Noronha and Nevatia (2001), Oda et al. (2004), Oriot et al. (2004), Overby
et al. (2003), Paparoditis et al. (1998), Peternell and Steiner (2004), Rottensteiner (2000, 2003),
Rottenstener and Briese (2002), Rottensteiner and Jansa (2002), Rottensteiner et al. (2003, 2004,
2005), Sahar and Krupnik (1999), Schwalbe (2004), Sequeira et al. (1999), Shufelt (1999), Sinning-
Meister et al. (1996), Sohn (2004), Stilla and Jurkiewicz (1999), Süveg and Vosselman (2004),
Söderman et al. (2004),Taillandier and Deriche (2004), Takase et al. (2004), Tan and Shibasaki
(2002), Tsay (2001), Tseng and Wang (2003), Vosselman (2002), Vosselman and Dijkman (2001),
Vosselman and Süveg (2001), Wang and Grün (2003), Weidner and Förstner (1995), Zhan et al.
(2002), Zhang and Wang (2004), and Zhao and Shibasaki (2003).
Due to the rapid development of sensors and methods during the last years, it was proposed and
accepted that under the EuroSDR Commission III “Production Systems and Processes”, a joint test
would be undertaken in order to compare various methods. The objective of the EuroSDR Building
Extraction project was to evaluate the quality, accuracy, feasibility and economical aspects of
1. Semi-automatic building extraction based on photogrammetric techniques with the emphasis
on commercial and/or operative systems
2. Semi-automatic and automatic building extraction techniques based on high density laser
scanner data
3. Semi-automatic and automatic building extraction techniques based on integration of laser
scanner data and aerial images
This paper reports the results obtained in the study. Initial results have previously been reported in
Kaartinen et al. (2005a,b).
12