Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Comparison Study on Head/tail Breaks and Topfer’s Method for Model-based Map Generalization on Geographic Features in Country and City Levels
University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Industrial Development, IT and Land Management.
2015 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (One Year)), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Map generalization is a traditional cartographical issue which should be particularly considered in today’sinformation age. The aim of this study is to find some characteristics about head/tail breaks which worksas generalization method compared with the well known Topfer’s method. A questionnaire survey wasconducted to let 30 users choose either of the series maps of both methods and the reason(s) for thatchoice. Also to test their understanding of the series maps histograms were added for them to match.Afterwards the sample results were analyzed using both univariate and bivariate analysis approaches. Itshows that the head/tail breaks method was selected by 58%, compared with 38.7% of Topfer’s method,because of its simplicity. By checking the correctness of histogram question it also shows that those whowell understood answers choose the head/tail breaks rather than the Topfer’s method. However in somecases, where the amount of geographical features is relatively small, Topfer’s method is more selectedbecause of its informative characteristic and similar structure to the original map. It was also found that inthe comparison the head/tail breaks is more advantageous in line feature type generalization than in arealfeature type. This is probably because Topfer’s method changes its minority selection rule to half selectionin line feature type, whereas the head/tail breaks keeps the scaling property. Any difference between thetwo tested scales, Finland level and Helsinki level, is not found in this comparison study. However, futurework should explore more regarding this and other issues.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. , iv+34+appendixes p.
Keyword [en]
map generalization, head/tail breaks, Topfer’s selection rule, scaling property
National Category
Other Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-20453OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-20453DiVA: diva2:862402
Subject / course
Geomatics
Educational program
Geomatics – master’s programme (one year) (swe or eng)
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2015-10-22 Created: 2015-10-22 Last updated: 2017-08-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1656 kB)80 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1656 kBChecksum SHA-512
bb4483b62689276e709a4794957f52efd765c435acab7620cfadf5d4257cac29746596c52f165116b761122bff2766b91e7867f1157f1663e8bf5798f43a963e
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of Industrial Development, IT and Land Management
Other Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 80 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 385 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf