English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Mapping utility poles using side-view images acquired with car-mounted cameras is a time-consuming task, mainly in larger areas due to the need for street-by-street surveying. Aerial images cover larger areas and can be feasible alternatives although the detection and mapping of the utility poles in urban environments using top-view images is challenging. Thus, we propose the use of Adaptive Training Sample Selection (ATSS) for detecting utility poles in urban areas since it is a novel method and has not yet investigated in remote sensing applications. Here, we compared ATSS with Faster Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks (Faster R-CNN) and Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection (RetinaNet ), currently used in remote sensing applications, to assess the performance of the proposed methodology. We used 99,473 patches of 256 × 256 pixels with ground sample distance (GSD) of 10 cm. The patches were divided into training, validation and test datasets in approximate proportions of 60%, 20% and 20%, respectively. As the utility pole labels are point coordinates and the object detection methods require a bounding box, we assessed the influence of the bounding box size on the ATSS method by varying the dimensions from 30×30 to 70×70 pixels. For the proposal task, our findings show that ATSS is, on average, 5% more accurate than Faster R-CNN and RetinaNet. For a bounding box size of 40×40, we achieved Average Precision with intersection over union of 50% (AP50) of 0.913 for ATSS, 0.875 for Faster R-CNN and 0.874 for RetinaNet. Regarding the influence of the bounding box size on ATSS, our results indicate that the AP50 is about 6.5% higher for 60×60 compared to 30×30. For AP75, this margin reaches 23.1% in favor of the 60×60 bounding box size. In terms of computational costs, all the methods tested remain at the same level, with an average processing time around of 0.048 s per patch. Our findings show that ATSS outperforms other methodologies and is suitable for developing operation tools that can automatically detect and map utility poles.

Mapping Utility Poles in Aerial Orthoimages Using ATSS Deep Learning Method