Cargando…

Mapping Utility Poles in Aerial Orthoimages Using ATSS Deep Learning Method

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gomes, Matheus, Silva, Jonathan, Gonçalves, Diogo, Zamboni, Pedro, Perez, Jader, Batista, Edson, Ramos, Ana, Osco, Lucas, Matsubara, Edson, Li, Jonathan, Marcato Junior, José, Gonçalves, Wesley
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7663448/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33114475
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s20216070
Descripción
Sumario: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 [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] 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 [Formula: see text] , we achieved Average Precision with intersection over union of 50% ([Formula: see text]) 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 [Formula: see text] is about 6.5% higher for [Formula: see text] compared to [Formula: see text]. For [Formula: see text] , this margin reaches 23.1% in favor of the [Formula: see text] 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.