int. j.

geographical information science, 2002

vol. 16, no. 5, 455± 473

Research Article

Experimental evaluation of positional accuracy estimates from a linear

network using point- and line-based testing methods

THOMAS G. VAN NIEL1,2 and TIM R. McVICAR1

1 CSIRO Land and Water, PO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia
2 Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production, Yanco, NSW,
2703, Australia; e-mail: Tom.VanNiel@csiro.au

(Received 16 May 2000; accepted 2 September 2001)

Abstract. Positional accuracy estimates of linear features based on their well-

deŽ ned points can be signiŽ cantly diVerent than the accuracy estimates determined
from their adjoining lines. A case study was conducted to determine both the
cause of this diVerence as well as the relative eVect of the number of points used
in calculating the point-based accuracy estimate. Results showed that: (1) the
diVerence between accuracy estimates was primarily due to dissimilar criteria for
measuring closeness of primitive features; and (2) the current US requirement of
using 20 well-deŽ ned points provided a reasonable estimation of accuracy for the
case study. The diVerences in accuracy estimates described in this study should
impact both the deŽ nition of geospatial accuracy standards, and the interpretation
of geographical analyses with respect to error propagation.

1. Introduction
Although positional uncertainty and error assessment have been recognised as
fundamentally important in geographic analysis (Atkinson 1999), very few countries
have digital geospatial data standards dealing with these issues. Instead, map accu-
racy standards relating error to original source scale are often the only indication
of positional accuracy, even though such estimates are, at best, indirectly relevant
to digital data sources. Consequently, without adequate accuracy reporting stand-
ards, data users can unknowingly be provided with datasets that do not meet even
the less pertinent map accuracy standards (Van Niel and McVicar 2001). This can
be particularly problematic because users may assume that spatial data provided by
national or state mapping agencies are reliable.
When positional accuracy estimates of maps or digital geospatial data are calcu-
lated, they are often quantiŽ ed by comparing positions of well-deŽ ned points in a
test dataset to the positions of identical points in a reference dataset of higher
accuracy (e.g. FGDC 1998a, b, Van Niel and McVicar 2001). However, for point-
based assessment to be universally relevant to digital geospatial data, positional
error throughout lines and polygons must be directly related to the error of their
primitive points at identiŽ able locations (Leung and Yan 1998). Errors of point, line,
and polygon GIS features could then be estimated from a point-based positional
Internationa l Journal of Geographica l Informatio n Science
ISSN 1365-881 6 print/ISSN 1362-308 7 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13658810210137022
456 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

error model, thus simplifying the deŽ nition of accuracy standards of GIS datasets
(Leung and Yan 1998). This, in fact, is the basic assumption behind the point-based
methods adopted by the USA in their National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy
(NSSDA) and those likely to be adopted by the international geospatial community.
However, the validity of the point-based testing method for estimating spatial
error of linear features has been questioned, partly because error distributions of
well-deŽ ned points are thought to contain diVerent error distributions than the links
between them (Goodchild and Hunter 1997). Likewise, line segment endpoints have
been determined to contain disproportionatel y higher error terms than midpoints
(Shi 1998). Also, since linear networks often do not contain well-deŽ ned points,
a simple comparison of features to either a linear reference of higher accuracy
(e.g. Goodchild and Hunter 1997, Tveite and Langaas 1999) or to internal digital
data geometry (e.g. Duckham and Drummond 2000, Veregin 2000 ) may be more
appropriate in many cases.
Considering these issues, assessment of point-based testing methods with respect
to alternate techniques is relevant to geospatial data users worldwide, especially
where positional accuracy standards are yet to be deŽ ned. In this study, we compare
point-based positional accuracy results deŽ ned from both US geospatial data stand-
ards and Australian map accuracy standards to results from a linear feature-based
testing method developed by Goodchild and Hunter (1997). A digital road network
previously determined to be non-compliant with Australian map accuracy standards
from a point-based assessment was used as a case study because of its ability
to provide:
1. a large range of positional errors facilitating comparison of point- and
line-based errors; and
2. speciŽ cally relevant information for the anticipated deŽ nition of digital
geospatial positional accuracy standards in Australia.
SpeciŽ cally, error distributions within the dataset and the eVect of the number
of points used in the calculation are examined. A brief discussion of US and
Australian spatial data accuracy standards and the theoretical basis of positional
errors determined from point- and line-based testing methods is provided in §2.

2. Background
2.1. Spatial data accuracy standards
The US Bureau of Budget (USBB) issued the United States National Map
Accuracy Standards (USNMAS) in 1941 (updated in 1947), which require that not
more than 10% of well-deŽ ned points be in error by more than an allowable distance
calculated from source map scale (USBB 1947). The well-deŽ ned points are compared
to identical points from an independent source of higher accuracy. These map
accuracy standards have been the only indicator of positional error in digital geospa-
tial datasets in the US until the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
published the NSSDA, which outlines both new positioning accuracy standards and
accuracy reporting standards for digital geospatial data (FGDC 1998a, b).
The NSSDA provides a common reporting system for direct comparison of
datasets as well as a relevant estimation of digital geospatial data accuracy (FGDC
1998a) . Like the USNMAS, the NSSDA compares well-deŽ ned points, but uses root-
mean-square error (RMSE) to estimate positional accuracy. Error is reported in
ground distances at the 95% conŽ dence level, meaning that 95% of the positions in
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 457

the dataset should have an error that is equal to or smaller than the reported error
distance. These standards also deŽ ne that at least 20 well-deŽ ned points should be
used in any calculation of accuracy (FGDC 1998b) .
Conversely, Australia currently has no digital geospatial data accuracy standards,
but rather relies on map accuracy indicators to deŽ ne positional accuracy estimates.
The National Mapping Council of Australia (NMCA) standards of map accuracy
test whether well-deŽ ned points are within allowable error distances calculated from
map scale (see table 1). As the map scale indicator is not always a reliable estimate
of spatial accuracy in Australia (e.g. Van Niel and McVicar 2001), the deŽ nition of
digital geospatial data standards is likely to be considered in the near future.

2.2. Absolute and functional positional error in linear networks

Because points are the constituent elements of lines, positional error of linear
features can be calculated by either comparing matching points or matching lines of
independent digital datasets. In many cases, comparison of entire lines in a linear
network using buVers can be deemed preferable to matching well-deŽ ned points
because the buVering technique may avoid certain limitations considered inherent in
the point-based method regarding feature deŽ nition and error distribution (Goodchild
and Hunter 1997). However, matching entire lines requires, at some level, a proximity
analysis of primitive points, thus introducing a complication in how these non-descript
points are associated to one another (Matos and Goncalves 1998). It is important,
then, to identify how diVerent criteria for matching primitives will aVect positional
accuracy estimates. As will be demonstrated forthwith, the intrinsic nature of assessing
well-deŽ ned points versus entire lines results in the measurement of two diVerent
categories of positional accuracy. Clearly deŽ ning these categories is critical for proper
geospatial analysis and accuracy standards development.
The deŽ nition of absolute positional accuracy must include at least two
components:
1. a measure of the closeness of coordinates to a speciŽ ed reference; and
2. the ability to refer these coordinates to all other locations on the earth
(Hunter 1991).
Consequently, both the well-deŽ ned point and buVering techniques measure
forms of absolute accuracy because they report closeness of coordinate values in a

Table 1. Allowable error distances calculated for common map scales by Australian and US
map accuracy standard speciŽ cations.

Allowable distance (m) Allowable distance (m)

Map scale Australia USA

1:10 000 5.00 8.47

1:20 000 10.00 10.16
1:24 000 12.00 12.19
1:50 000 25.00 25.40
1:100 000 50.00 50.80
1:250 000 125.00 127.00
1:1 000 000 500.00 508.00
1:2 000 000 1 000.00 1 016.00
1:2 500 000 1 250.00 1 270.00
458 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

global context. However, because these two techniques diVer in how they measure
the closeness of coordinates to the reference at a fundamental level, they are expressed
more precisely as diVerent categories of positional error.
The error calculated from well-deŽ ned points results in what has traditionally
been deŽ ned as absolute positional error. This error, henceforth termed ‘absolute’
positional error, measures closeness by matching primitives (i.e. points) of the features
being assessed to identical primitives in a reference dataset. That is, matching points
to identical points. When Goodchild and Hunter (1997) developed the buVering
technique for measuring linear positional accuracy, they subsequently created an
error estimate that is diVerent from the traditional absolute accuracy measure. This
error, henceforth termed ‘functional’ positional error, like a mean distance between
lines (MDL) calculation, measures closeness of features by deŽ ning the shortest
distance between primitives (Matos and Goncalves 1998 ). That is, measuring the
distance between points along a line to the closest point along a reference line. Thus,
the shortest distance criterion will associate non-matching points (Matos and
Goncalves 1998). Absolute positional accuracy, as deŽ ned in this paper, is more
restricted and thus identiŽ able from functional positional accuracy because all of the
locations tested must match identical locations in the reference dataset.
Although positional error assessment of linear features based on buVering tech-
niques provides fundamentally diVerent output than the traditional well-deŽ ned
point-based technique, this issue is seldom addressed in detail (for an exception, see
Matos and Goncalves 1998). This omission in the literature can increase the likeli-
hood of, for example, improper calculations of error propagation through a geospatial
model because users may believe that these error estimations are interchangeable.
On the contrary, these errors carry very diVerent meanings in an operational sense.
The necessary removal of the restriction on matching points in a linear buVering
assessment predetermines that the functional error at every point along a line will
be deŽ ned by the closest distance between matching line features (Ž gure 1(a)).
Consequently, functional error at any one point can never be greater than its
associated absolute error and results in a signiŽ cant bias between these diVerent
positional accuracy metrics.
This bias, in turn, is explained by at least two factors:
1. Consistently shifted measurements of absolute versus functional positional
error, henceforth called the absolute/functional oVset.
2. DiVerent error distributions at well-deŽ ned points versus non-descript points
along the links between them, henceforth called the point/link oVset.
We suggest that the absolute/functional oVset generally plays a substantially larger
role in determining this overall bias in road networks than does the point/link oVset.
An example of these two components of the overall bias is described in Ž gures 1(a)
and 1 (b), respectively.
Figure 1(a) illustrates the absolute/functional oVset between two lines, a grey
reference dataset and a black test dataset, and Ž ve matching non well-deŽ ned points
along these two lines. The matching lines and points are identical to each other
except for an arbitrary geographic shift included for demonstration purposes. This
example is purely theoretical, for in practice, non-descript points like the ones
illustrated, by deŽ nition, cannot be matched.
Dashed lines connecting light and dark circles illustrate absolute error (e.g. the
line segment between A and A² , denoted AA² ), while thin solid lines connecting light
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 459

Figure 1. Components of the potential error bias between positional error results determined
from (well-deŽ ned) point-based testing methods to those determined from linear
buVering methods. In (a), absolute and functional positional error is demonstrated for
the thick grey line. In (b), absolute positional error is limited by the functional error
of its least accurate link. This error is exacerbated if one of the road intersections is
displaced. See article text for full details.

circles to dark squares illustrate functional error (e.g. the line segment between A
and A¾ , denoted AA¾ ). At any individual point, the functional error will always be
equal to or less than the absolute error, and in many instances, it can be much
smaller (e.g. CC¾ % CC² , and DD¾ % DD² ). The absolute/functional error oVset exists,
then, because the shortest distance between lines will not often represent identical
points within the lines themselves. Consequently, traditional point-based methods of
determining positional accuracy should report consistently higher errors than com-
parative results from a linear buVering method because they report diVerent metrics.
In Ž gure 1(b), one potential explanation for the point/link oVset is demonstrated.
The error in this example is caused by the compounding of errors at the source of
well-deŽ ned points, the road intersections. In cartographic terms, this displace-
ment of intersections is manifested as a loss of positional accuracy in favour of
logical consistency. This means that in digital datasets, although line intersections
460 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

are intuitively expected to be of higher accuracy than non-descript points, this

displacement will often cause the line intersections to be less accurate.
This displacement is demonstrated in Ž gure 1(b) by the distance between identical
road intersections between the black test dataset and the grey reference dataset
corresponding to dark and light stars. In its most simple case, the total error between
the test and reference datasets will be completely dominated by one of the road links
(as shown by the solid black and grey lines). In this case, the error between the test
north–south road link and the reference north-south road link is zero; hence the
black test link is drawn exactly on top of the grey reference line. Because the distance
between these two datasets is zero along the north–south road, the absolute error
between these intersections is the same as its functional error distance to the east-
west road (the least accurate road). That is, both absolute and functional errors
equal the distance represented by the line segment AA¾ (Ž gure 1(b)).
However, if the north–south road of the original grey reference dataset was
actually located along the small dashed grey line (i.e. both road links contain some
error), a compounding of error occurs; the absolute error increases where it becomes
greater than its functional error and the road intersection is displaced. The absolute
error would be represented by the distance of the line segment denoted AA² , while
the functional error remains AA¾ . For this simple case, the absolute error forms the
hypotenuse, or the largest side, of a right triangle.
This well-deŽ ned point/link error distribution eVect is also a potential component
of the overall bias of a comparison between point-based and linear buVering methods.
In practice, however, this point/link oVset cannot usually be directly measured, but
might be inferred by eliminating the absolute/functional oVset from the overall
diVerence between resultant error estimations. These substantive diVerences in posi-
tional accuracy estimates signify that the errors calculated from the point-based
method are not directly interchangeable with the errors calculated using a linear
buVering method.

3. Study site and datasets

Coleambally Irrigation Area (CIA) in southern New South Wales (NSW) is one
of the largest producers of rice in Australia. Increased area of  ood irrigation in the
region has resulted in increased watertable levels and risk of salinisation, which in
turn has required the deŽ nition of environmenta l restrictions to total rice crop area
(Humphreys et al. 1994). These restrictions have required irrigation land managers to
monitor environmental compliance of farmers; a task usually achieved with a combina-
tion of remote sensing and GIS. The reliance of these compliance measurements on
positional and areal accuracy has prompted the assessment of error on critical digital
geospatial data at CIA, including the Digital Topographi c Data Base (DTDB) roads
data provided by the state mapping agency within NSW. This particular dataset was
found to be non-compliant with NMCA map accuracy standards over the CIA using
a point-based testing methodology (Van Niel and McVicar 2001).

3.1. Digital T opographi c Data Base (DT DB) ‘test’ dataset

The DTDB roads dataset for the CIA comprises seven 1:50 000 scale mapsheets
(map numbers 80271, 80281, 80282, 80283, 81274, 81283, 81284) falling inside of four
1:100 000 scale mapsheets (Ž gure 2). The calculation of positional error for this study
was conducted on a subset of the DTDB roads data in this area, deŽ ned primarily
by the intersection of the main CIA boundary. The DTDB data were provided in
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 461

Figure 2. The DTDB roads data over the CIA. 1:100 000 scale mapsheets are displayed in
thick black lines and labelled by map name, 1:50 000 scale mapsheets are displayed in
thin black lines and labelled by map number. The roads are displayed with grey lines,
and the CIA area is shaded dark grey.

Australian Map Grid 1966 (AMG66), a projection of Australian Geodetic Datum

(AGD66) coordinates synonymous to a block oVset of a Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) projection. The allowable error for 1:50 000 scale datasets under
current guidelines in Australia is 25 m (table 1).
The source maps for this DTDB roads dataset were originally created from aerial
photographs in 1968 and Ž eld completed in 1974 by the NSW Land Information
Centre, in Bathurst, NSW. Various updates occurring since that time are suspected
of decreasing the positional accuracy of this dataset because they were not generated
from the photogrammetri c standard of the base map. Additional spatial errors were
likely to have been introduced when the source maps were digitised. Remapping of
this database is currently underway; positional accuracies of the new dataset are
expected to be much higher than the current data.
462 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

Figure 3. DGPS roads dataset at CIA in thin grey lines. Black points are the 83 road
intersections, the thick black line is the CIA boundary and the thick grey lines are
1:50 000 scale mapsheet boundaries introduced in Ž gure 2. The labelled intersections
illustrate point and link sets deŽ ned in §4.3

3.2. DiVerential Global Positioning System (DGPS) ‘reference’ dataset

The centreline of over 466 km of road (comprising over 20 000 individual posi-
tions), and 83 road intersections were digitised using a Trimble Pro XRS real-time
diVerential global positioning system (DGPS) on 4 February 2001 (Ž gure 3). DGPS
road features were downloaded in Australian Map Grid 1984 (AMG84) and then
converted to AMG66 using a local transform to match the DTDB roads projection.
The diVerence between AMG84 and AMG66 at the CIA is less than 1.25 m; the
local transformation reduces this diVerence to less than 0.75 m. The positional
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 463

accuracy of the DGPS is expected to be within 1.5 m. The DGPS performance was
checked by retracing large portions of road at diVerent times during the day. The
mean diVerence between the 16 km portion of the traced and retraced road deŽ ned
by 1161 DGPS positions was 0.96 m, with 99.8% of the measured distances within
2 m of each other. From this, the DGPS was shown to be performing within expected
speciŽ cations.

4. Methods and discussion of results

4.1. Assessment of error
The positional accuracy of the DTDB roads dataset was calculated by comparing
identical features from an independent source of higher accuracy using two diVerent
methods:
1. The point-based method using both NMCA and NSSDA standards as
described in Van Niel and McVicar (2001).
2. The line-based method described by Goodchild and Hunter (1997).
For both calculations, reference features (points and lines) were collected with the
DGPS, while identical test features were acquired from the DTDB roads data. The
same 83 road intersections that were collected with the DGPS were automaticall y
identiŽ ed in the DTDB roads dataset by converting node features to points.
Nearly half of the intersections tested were in error by more than the allowable
distance (25 m) set by the NCMA, showing that this dataset does not comply with
Australian map accuracy standards (table 2). The NSSDA standard positional accu-
racy measure estimates that 95% of the positions in the DTDB dataset would have
an error less than or equal to about 105 m, or slightly over four times the NCMA
acceptable error distance of 25 m. Because of outliers, this error is likely an unrepres-
entatively large estimate for much of the DTDB dataset. Some of the causes of these
outliers (e.g. currency, or data processing ) are discussed in detail later in the text.
The line-based assessment created buVers of speciŽ ed distances around the refer-
ence dataset, (DGPS roads data), and calculated the percent of the test dataset
(DTDB roads data) that fell within the buVer. The percentage of the DTDB dataset
that fell within 25 m interval buVers from 25 m to 325 m were calculated, revealing that
approximately 78% of the linear network was found to be within the NCMA error
distance of 25 m. Four critical buVer size results (25 m, 50 m, 100 m, 200 m) are
presented in Ž gure 4. BuVer distances were also calculated deŽ ning speciŽ ed percent-
iles of the total DTDB dataset. For example, 90% of the DTDB roads dataset was
within approximately 40 m of the DGPS roads dataset, 95% was within approxi-
mately 50 m, and 99% was within approximately 200 m. Demonstrating an extreme

Table 2. NSSDA and NCMA positional accuracy statistics for the DTDB roads dataset
generated using the point-based testing methodology.

Mean RMSE RMSE RMSE NSSDA Number Percentage

diVerence diVerence X Y 95%* exceeding exceeding
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) 25 m 25 m (%)

36.73 63.41 55.45 30.76 105.51 40 of 83 48.19

*NSSDA 95% stands for the US National Standard for Spatial Accuracy estimate for the
95% conŽ dence interval about the RMSE.
464 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

example, a 170 m section of road in mapsheet 80271 was in error by more than
325 m, or over 13 times the NMCA allowable error.
These results show that the absolute error estimate of the DTDB dataset is much
greater than the functional error estimate. That is, 95% of the dataset is functionally
no farther than about 50 m from truth as determined by the whole line network,
whereas the 95th percentile of the absolute error is calculated to be approximatel y
105 m, or over twice the functional error. This analysis also conŽ rmed that the
positional errors in the DTDB dataset are not spatially random, but contain a great
deal of spatial correlation (Ž gures 4(a-d )). Although large portions of the dataset are
above the NMCA standard 25 m (Ž gure 4(a)), the largest errors are consistently
found within one 1:50 000 scale mapsheet (mapsheet 80271) (Ž gures 2, 4(b), 4(c), and
4(d)). Directional distribution and location of errors between the test and reference
datasets showed no sign of either transformation gain or directional bias (Matos
and Goncalves 1998).

4.2. Assessment of the number of points used

The eVect of the number of well-deŽ ned points used in the calculation of positional
accuracy was also tested from the 83 road intersections. Random combinations of
well-deŽ ned points from the total set of 83 points were calculated. The accuracies
calculated from these random combinations were then compared relative to the
accuracy deŽ ned from the entire set of 83 points (Ž gure 5). To achieve a general
trend for the mean accuracy and conŽ dence intervals displayed, 8000 simulations
were run at each point along the x-axis. Because the accuracy calculated from all
83 points is used as the reference, the graph would reach 100% if the x-axis were
extended to a value of 83 points. The optimum number of points required to estimate
the error of the dataset is determined by the position where Ž gure 5 asymptotes.
Above this, the addition of more points will not signiŽ cantly increase the accuracy
of the estimation.
Although the graph reveals that the optimal number of points for this dataset is
above 40, it also shows that the NSSDA standard number of 20 well-deŽ ned points
provides a good approximation of error for the DTDB data. The mean positional
accuracy deŽ ned by 20 road intersections results in approximately 92% of the
accuracy deŽ ned by the calculation from all 83 well-deŽ ned points available in the
dataset. Also, the range of the 90% conŽ dence interval around the mean accuracy,
as expected, becomes smaller as more points are used in the calculation of error.
The magnitude of these conŽ dence intervals is directly proportional to the sensitivity
of the associated estimation of error to outliers (see Ž gure 5).
At 20 points, the 90% conŽ dence interval is about 8%, revealing a reasonable
insensitivity to outliers. Because this DTDB subset contains positional errors that
are very likely to be near the upper extreme for the national DTDB dataset, it is
assumed that this particular assessment provides a conservative estimation of the
impact of the number of well-deŽ ned points on the calculation of accuracy. In other
words, if the DTDB dataset over Australia generally contains outliers that are less
than 13 times the allowable accuracy, error estimation is likely to perform better
than in this case study.

4.3. Assessment of bias in accuracy estimates

The overall bias between point- and line-based accuracy estimates was determined
for the DTDB dataset by summarizing the measurements described in §4.1. Because
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 465

Figure 4. Linear accuracy results for diVerent buVer distances between the DTDB and DGPS
roads datasets over the CIA. Grey lines fall within the buVer, black lines fall outside
of the buVer. Results are displayed for (a) 25 m (NMCA allowable distance), (b) 50 m,
(c) 100 m, and (d ) 200 m.
466 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

Figure 5. Mean positional accuracy based on the diVerence between randomly combined
DTDB and DGPS road intersection points at CIA. The mean accuracy of the estimate
increases while the 90% conŽ dence interval about the mean decreases as more points
are used.

the overall bias was calculated by comparing absolute error at the well-deŽ ned
points versus functional error along the links, this bias contains two constituent
parts in unknown proportions. These are:
1. DiVerences between measuring absolute error versus functional error, or the
absolute/functional oVset.
2. DiVerences in error distributions at well-deŽ ned points versus non-descript
points, or the point/link oVset.
The proportion of the point/link oVset could be inferred by eliminating the
absolute/functional oVset from the comparison of accuracy estimates. This was
accomplished by measuring the same type of error (i.e. functional error) at both
points and links. The absolute/functional oVset could then be isolated by subtracting
the point/link oVset from the overall bias.

4.3.1. Determination of overall bias

To calculate the overall bias, a point set was deŽ ned for each of the 83 intersections
in both roads datasets. Each point set consists of a primary road intersection and
its Ž rst-order neighbours. For example, in Ž gure 3, the DGPS point set for the
intersection labelled A consists of points A, B, C, and D. The mean diVerence between
DTDB and DGPS positions was calculated for each point set. For this study, the
potential number of road intersections within a point set was Ž ve.
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 467

Likewise, 83 associated road link sets were deŽ ned for each of the roads datasets.
These were comprised of all the links that join the intersections in each point set.
For example, in Ž gure 3, the DGPS link set for intersection A includes line segments
AB, AC, and AD. The mean diVerence between DTDB and DGPS links was also
calculated for each link set. In this study, the potential number of lines within a link
set was four.
The mean functional error calculated for each link set was then subtracted from
the mean absolute error calculated for each point set. This analysis, denoted the
‘absolute point/functional line assessment’ reveals the overall bias (Ž gure 6(a)).
Because the error of the link sets was subtracted from the error of their associated
point sets, instances where mean absolute error is higher than functional error are
represented by positive values.
Numerous non-descript points are used in the estimation of mean functional
error along links, whereas the mean absolute error determined for any point set only
uses a few points (a maximum of 5). This sample size mismatch makes it possible
for the mean absolute error estimate of a point set to be smaller than the mean
functional error estimate of its associated link set. This was never the case when the
sample size mismatch was eliminated. When absolute and functional errors were
compared at the same points (rather than the mean diVerence between point and
link sets), absolute error was always larger than functional error. For the 83 common
intersections, the minimum diVerence (calculated as absolute–functional) is 0.01 m,
while the maximum diVerence is 354.60 m. The median and mean are 8.31 m and
17.53 m, respectively, indicating that outliers have skewed the distribution in a
positive direction.

4.3.2. Determination of constituent oVsets

To determine how much of the overall bias is due to the point/link oVset, a
similar calculation to the absolute point/functional line assessment was repeated
where functional error was calculated at well-deŽ ned points rather than absolute
error (Ž gure 6(b)). This ‘functional point/functional line assessment’ was achieved by
removing the matching point criterion at the well-deŽ ned points. That is, at every
well-deŽ ned point, the closest distance was calculated between the DTDB road
intersection and the DGPS lines. This means that functional accuracy was calculated
at both well-deŽ ned points as well as along the links between these points. Because
the same type of error is being compared, the absolute/functional oVset component
is eliminated from the resultant histogram (Ž gure 6(b)).
The point/link oVset is shown to be small, and slightly positive (Ž gure 6(b)). If
data production does explain this component of the overall bias, it means that well-
deŽ ned points (speciŽ cally road intersections) are biased towards higher errors when
compared to the links. This explanation diVers from the argument that well-deŽ ned
points are potentially biased towards lower errors in the data production process
(Goodchild and Hunter 1997). Also, because this histogram is near normal and
centred on zero, it reveals that most of the original bias from the histogram in
Ž gure 6(a) is due to the absolute/functional oVset.
This is clearly seen in Ž gure 6(c), where the results from the functional point/
functional line assessment were subtracted from the absolute point/functional line
assessment. This graph represents the component of the overall bias due strictly to
the absolute/functional oVset. SpeciŽ c examples of the interactions between these
constituent oVsets are provided in Ž gure 7.
468 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

Figure 6. Histograms of (a) the overall error distribution bias containing both absolute/
functional and point/link oVset components, (b) the point/link oVset component of
the overall bias, and (c) the absolute/functional oVset component of the overall bias.
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 469

Figure 7(a) shows an example where the absolute error at the well-deŽ ned point
is much larger than the functional error along most of its two adjoining roads. In
this case, the error is most likely related to either data processing or temporal
variance. That is, the road intersection has either been moved since the creation of
the DTDB data, or it was misallocated in the data processing procedure. Processing
error is likely the cause since this problem is typical of a straightening eVect, where
the end of one road is extended until it intersects with another road. This generally
results in inappropriate positioning and simpliŽ cation of shape. The point-based
method is more sensitive to outliers such as these. Although these outlier errors are
not the typical case in this dataset, they are not extremely rare either. This example
clearly demonstrates where data production can exacerbate the diVerence between
absolute and functional error by maximising the error at the well-deŽ ned point.
Conversely, Ž gure 7(b) shows a rare example where the absolute error at one
well-deŽ ned point underestimated the mean functional error of its adjoining roads.
The large positional inaccuracies seen here are related to a missing road intersection,
which in turn is very likely caused by either interpreter error or processing error.
The missing intersection was probably either not digitised by the interpreter or was
deleted in data processing, resulting in a shift of one road by over 100 metres east
of its DGPS location. Underestimates of error of this kind are rare for this dataset.
The intersection shown in Ž gure 7(c) demonstrates a case where the absolute
error at this one well-deŽ ned point and the mean functional error along its two
adjoining road links are very similar. Much of this absolute error is probably caused
by either interpreter or data processing error, but could also be symptomatic of
imprecise measurement. Of note is the dominance of the least accurate adjoining
470 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

Figure 7. Examples of well-deŽ ned point and linear link errors (a)–(e) for the DTDB dataset
and their eVect on error estimation of absolute and functional positional error. DTDB
roads and road intersections are displayed in black, while DGPS roads and road
intersections are displayed in grey. Positions of these examples within the CIA are
illustrated in ( f ).
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 471

roads’ functional error term in the magnitude of the well-deŽ ned points’ absolute
error term. Although the magnitude of error in this example is uncommon, this
relationship between absolute and functional error is typical of this dataset.
As seen in Ž gures 7(d) and 7(e), this limitation of road intersection accuracy
probably increases the absolute error at these well-deŽ ned points slightly. Typically,
the error at the road intersection usually either matches the error of the least accurate
road (Ž gure 7(d)), or combines to result in an error that is greater than either of the
adjoining roads (Ž gure 7(e)). In the special case where one road link is very close to
its true position (e.g. Ž gure 7(d)), not only is the absolute error term at the well-
deŽ ned point dominated by the functional error term of the least accurate road, but
these absolute and functional error terms will also be almost equal. When the
functional error terms of both adjoining roads are signiŽ cantly far from the truth,
then both functional error terms combine to increase the absolute error term at the
well-deŽ ned point. For example, although the functional error along the two roads
in Ž gure 7(e) is approximately 11 m and 24 m, the diVerence between the two road
intersections (absolute error) is approximately 38 m. Due to the nature of these
overestimates, it seems likely that they would be found ubiquitously in digital road
networks, at least in Australia given common data sources, e.g. aerial photographs ,
and similar data processing steps.

5. Conclusions
From this study there were four noteworthy Ž ndings with respect to the deŽ nition
and interpretation of geospatial positional accuracy standards:
1. Absolute and functional positional errors were not interchangeable.
2. Absolute error at well-deŽ ned points provided a relevant measure of the
absolute error of its links.
3. Displacement of road intersections caused the error of well-deŽ ned points to
be slightly higher than non-descript points.
4. The NSSDA standard of 20 well-deŽ ned points provided a reasonable
estimation of absolute error.
Overall absolute error estimation at well-deŽ ned points was found to be greater
than two times the overall functional error estimation along linear features for the
DTDB dataset. This quantiŽ cation of bias helped to determine that absolute and
functional positional errors are fundamentally diVerent, and although not totally
unrelated, they are not interchangeable. It was suggested that this bias was caused
by two constituent components:
1. DiVerences in the errors measured due to dissimilar closeness criterion (the
absolute/functional oVset).
2. DiVerences due to dissimilar error distributions at well-deŽ ned points and the
links between them (the point/link oVset).
In this DTDB dataset, it was found that the absolute/functional oVset was much
greater than the point/link oVset, meaning that most of the diVerences between
point-based and line-based errors are due to the fact that they measure diVerent
types of positional error. Although the point/link oVset was small, it was determined
to be positive, revealing that well-deŽ ned points for this dataset were biased towards
higher errors than were links. Importantly, the magnitude of this point/link oVset
shows that the diVerences in error distributions at points versus along links is only
472 T . G. Van Niel and T . R. McV icar

minor, suggesting that absolute error determined at well-deŽ ned points is very much
similar to the absolute error of the links themselves (although this could not be
measured directly).
The assessment of the number of points used in the calculation of absolute
positional error at well-deŽ ned points illustrated that the NSSDA standard of 20
points resulted in a reasonable estimation for the DTDB dataset. The conŽ dence
intervals calculated for this analysis show that the sensitivity to outliers was suY-
ciently suppressed when the NSSDA standard of 20 points was used in the estimation
of absolute error for this dataset. Also, since this particular dataset contained a large
range of positional errors, we expect this standard of 20 points to be suYcient for
similar datasets across Australia.
Although this study suggests that the traditional point-based method provides a
suYcient estimation of positional accuracy for the entire road network, this relation-
ship might not be the same for more complex linear networks (e.g. a river network).
Also, because many linear networks do not contain numerous well-deŽ ned points,
we recommend that an allowance be made for the calculation of both absolute and
functional error terms in the deŽ nition of Australian geospatial standards. Most
importantly, GIS data users must realize that the positional accuracy estimates
resulting from point- and line-based techniques should be interpreted diVerently.
This may be particularly true for determining error propagation when combining
diVerent GIS datasets.

Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable
Rice Production and CSIRO Land and Water. Thanks to Arun Tiwari, Janelle
Dufty, and Greg Robertson of Coleambally Irrigation Cooperative Limited for access
to GIS data, Warrick Dawes, Susan Cuddy, Brent Henderson, and Kimberly Van
Niel for their helpful editing suggestions, GeoV Beecher and Brian Dunn of NSW
Department of Agriculture for use of their GPS, and to Dr Gary Hunter and Karin
Reinke, University of Melbourne for free access to the linear feature accuracy testing
code (www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/people/gjh_notes/linetest.htm). Thanks also to the
anonymous reviewers, whose input improved the text. The point-based positional
accuracy extension to ArcView used in this study is also available on the internet
(http://gis.esri.com/arcscripts/details.cfm?CFGRIDKEY 5 C03BD2F2-680F-11D4-
943200508B0CB41 9).

References
Atkinson, P. M., 1999, Geographical information science: geostatistics and uncertainty.
Progress in Physical Geography, 23, 134–142.
Duckham, M., and Drummond, J., 2000, Assessment of error in digital vector data using
fractal geometry. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14, 67–84.
FGDC, 1998a, Geospatial positioning accuracy standards. Part 1: Reporting methodology,
Federal Geographic Data Committee, FGDC-STD-007.1-1998.
FGDC, 1998b, Geospatial positioning accuracy standards. Part 3: National standard for
spatial data accuracy, Federal Geographic Data Committee, FGDC-STD-007.3-1998.
Goodchild, M. F., and Hunter, G. J., 1997, A simple positional accuracy measure for linear
features. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 11, 299– 306.
Humphreys, L., Van Der Lely, A., Muirhead, W., and Hoey, D., 1994, The development of
on-farm restrictions to minimise recharge from rice in New South Wales. Australian
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 7, 11–20.
 Positional accuracy estimates f rom a linear network 473

Hunter, G. J., 1991, Glossary of terms for land and Geographic Information Systems,
Australasian Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (AURISA),
Technical Monograph No. 2 (Revised).
Leung, Y., and Yan, J., 1998, A locational error model for spatial features. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12, 607–620.
Matos, J., and Goncalves, A., 1998, Measurement and analysis of positional errors, In
Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Vancouver,
Canada (International Geographical Union: Geographic Information Science Study
Group, Burnaby, B.C., Canada), 151–160.
Shi, W., 1998, A generic statistical approach for modelling error of geometric features in GIS.
International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 12, 131–143.
Tveite, H., and Langaas, S., 1999, An accuracy assessment method for geographical line data
sets based on buVering. International Journal of Geographical Information Science,
13, 27–47.
USBB, 1947, United States national map accuracy standards, US Bureau of the Budget,
Washington, DC.
Van Niel, T. G., and McVicar, T. R., 2001, Assessing positional accuracy and its eVects on
rice crop area measurement: an application at Coleambally Irrigation Area. Australian
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 41, 557–566.
Veregin, H., 2000, Quantifying positional error induced by line simpliŽ cation. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14, 113–130.