3.8 Proceedings Paper

ICDAR 2021 Competition on Historical Map Segmentation

Journal

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS AND RECOGNITION, ICDAR 2021, PT IV
Volume 12824, Issue -, Pages 693-707

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-86337-1_46

Keywords

Historical maps; Map vectorization; Competition

Funding

  1. French National Research Agency (ANR) [ANR-18-CE38-0013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents the final results of the ICDAR 2021 MapSeg competition, which focuses on historical map segmentation of a series of historical atlases of Paris, France. The winning teams used different network structures and methods for each task. The research outcomes have a positive impact on the development of historical map segmentation technology.
This paper presents the final results of the ICDAR 2021 Competition on Historical Map Segmentation (MapSeg), encouraging research on a series of historical atlases of Paris, France, drawn at 1/5000 scale between 1894 and 1937. The competition featured three tasks, awarded separately. Task 1 consists in detecting building blocks and was won by the L3IRIS team using a DenseNet-121 network trained in a weakly supervised fashion. This task is evaluated on 3 large images containing hundreds of shapes to detect. Task 2 consists in segmenting map content from the larger map sheet, and was won by the UWB team using a U-Net-like FCN combined with a binarization method to increase detection edge accuracy. Task 3 consists in locating intersection points of geo-referencing lines, and was also won by the UWB team who used a dedicated pipeline combining binarization, line detection with Hough transform, candidate filtering, and template matching for intersection refinement. Tasks 2 and 3 are evaluated on 95 map sheets with complex content. Dataset, evaluation tools and results are available under permissive licensing at https://icdar21-mapseg.github.io/.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available