Design and development of a web-based 3D cadastral visualisation prototype

Figures & data

Table 1. The list of 3D cadastral visualisation requirements.

Features	Visualisation requirements	Description
Cadastral features	Handling massive data	Representing massive cadastral data using visualisation techniques
	Result of functions and queries	Visualising the results of cadastral functions and queries
	Underground view	Representing objects beneath ground level
	Cross-section view	Slicing an object at a plane
	Measurements (3D)	Measuring unofficial distances or areas
	Display non-spatial data	Illustrating legal documents attached to each development
Visualisation features	Interactivity	Required tools for exploring a 3D scene
	Levels of detail	Visualisation technique for accelerating the rendering process
	Symbols	Cartographical elements
	Colour, thickness, line-style	Object properties for visualisation of data
	Labelling	Annotations attached to objects on a scene
	Transparency	Object properties for visualisation of data
	Tooltips	An identify tool to presents attribute data
Non-functional features	Technical diversity	Diversity in supported technology
	System integration and interoperability	The ability to exchange data and connect different components of applications
	Usability	Ease of use and learnability
	Platform independence	Independence from a specific platform
	Cost	Cost of developing and maintenance a visualisation application
	Web-based 3D visualisation	Web-based solution

Source: Shojaei et al. (2013).

Table 2. Comparison table.

	Visualisation solutions
Visualisation features	WebGL	Google Earth	NASA WW	BS Contact	TerraExplorer	XNavigator
Handling massive data	No	Yes (Network links)	Yes	No	Yes	No
Result of functions and queries	Yes	Yes (only search)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Underground view	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Cross-section view	No	No	No	No	No	No
Measurements (3D)	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
Non-spatial data visualisation	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Interactivity	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Levels of detail	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Symbols	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Colour, thickness, line-style	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Labelling	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Transparency	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Tooltips	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Technical diversity	Weak	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
System integration and interoperability	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Usability	Low	High	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low
Platform independence	PC, Mac, Linux, Android	PC, Mac, Linux	Platform Independent (java based)	PC, Mac, Linux, Mobile	Windows	Platform Independent (java based)
Cost	Open-source	Freeware	Open-source	Proprietary	Proprietary	Open-source
Web-based 3D visualisation	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Plug-in free	Yes	No	Yes (Java is required)	No (X3DOM is plug-in free)	No	No (Java is required)

Figure 1. (a) The GUI developed using Google Earth API WebGL. (b) Search and find buildings based on the 2D cadastral parcel address.

Figure 2. A snapshot of the GUI and WebGL tab.

Figure 3. The proposed architecture for design and development of the prototype.

Figure 4. A snapshot of the prototype on a mobile platform. Although several browsers support WebGL on desktop devices, Blackberry and Android systems currently support WebGL on mobile devices.

Table 3. The list of participants and their expertise in the evaluation of the prototype.

Specialists	Number of participants
Land surveyors	10
Land registrars	8
City managers (Council)	5
Building managers (owners corporation)	1

Table 4. Key questions for evaluating the prototype in the questionnaire.

Category	Question number	Question
System functionality	3	I found this 3D visualisation prototype more useful than 2D plans (e.g. architectural plans, subdivision plans, etc.) for understanding ownership boundaries.
	4	Integration of physical (walls, doors, ceilings and floors) and legal objects (lots, easements, common property) in the 3D visualisation prototype facilitates understanding of ownership boundaries.
	6	Visualising some physical building components such as slabs and walls that are considered as common property (shared areas) may increase the complexity of a 3D model; therefore a simpler model without them is preferred.
	7	Utilising such 3D web-based visualisation prototypes will improve communication of 3D cadastral data among various users.
	8	Utilising such prototypes will improve managing of ownership rights.
	11	The 3D presentation of property information is effective in helping me complete my tasks.
	12	How satisfied are you with this prototype as a way of presenting 3D property information (e.g. underground lots) and the available functions? Please include any comments regarding your level of satisfaction.
	13	I believe I quickly became more productive when using this prototype.
	14	I can see that this prototype would potentially contribute to improving productivity in my daily tasks.
	15	I would like to see this 3D visualisation prototype implemented for decision-making processes in my organisation.
	16	A web-based visualisation application is more effective than a desktop-based application in my tasks.
	17	Not needing to install a plug-in is beneficial from a security and convenience point of view.
System usability	22	I feel comfortable using this prototype.
	23	The prototype is user friendly.
	24	The information (such as subdivision plans, on-screen messages and other documentation) provided with this prototype is clear.
	25	It is easy to find the information I need.
	26	The functions in this prototype are well positioned in the interface.
	27	I like the interface of this prototype.
	29	I need the support of a technical person to be able to use this prototype.
System efficiency	36	Using an application like this, 3D visualisation prototype will result in saving time for understanding ownership rights and associated information in my organisation.
	37	Using an application like this, 3D visualisation prototype may result in cost savings for my organisation.

Table 5. Analysis of the responses.

Question number	Discussion	Land surveyors	Building managers	Land registrars	City managers (council)	overall average
3	It seems that city managers still prefer to work with paper-based plans. The reason is they are very familiar with interpreting ownership boundaries in subdivision plans.	4.4	5	3.6	3.4	4
4	All the groups preferred this integration as it facilitates interpreting of ownership boundaries.	4.6	5	3.8	4.2	4.3
6	Very few people felt that they preferred a simpler model without shared areas.	2.8	1	2.4	2	2.4
7	They would like to have a 3D web-based visualisation application.	3.7	5	4	4	3.9
8	Most of the participants agreed with this. However, the functionality of the application is very important.	4	5	3.5	3.2	3.7
11	They confirmed that this prototype can help them in their tasks.	3.4	5	3.3	3.4	3.4
12	The participants were mostly satisfied with this prototype.	4	5	3.9	3.6	3.9
13	The city managers raised some issues regarding the performance and functionality. They have other types of requirements such as energy usages and shadow analysis.	3.1	5	3.2	2.5	3.1
14	They accepted that this prototype would potentially contribute to improving productivity.	3.6	5	3.5	3.6	3.6
15	Most of the participants agreed to have this prototype implemented in their organisations.	4.1	5	3.3	3	3.6
16	In some tasks, such as data creation and updating, desktop-based applications are more efficient.	3.8	5	3.6	3	3.6
17	They agreed the benefits of plug-ins free applications.	3.9	3	4	4	3.9
22	They feel comfortable with the prototype.	3.6	4	3.4	3.5	3.6
23	Nearly all approved this prototype as a user friendly application.	3.8	4	3.4	3.4	3.6
24	The information attached to the prototype was clear to understand.	3.7	3	3.4	3.5	3.6
25	They found this prototype very easy to use.	3.8	4	2.8	3	3.4
26	The participants from council were expecting more functions according to their needs.	3.8	4	3.4	2.5	3.5
27	Most of the participants liked the interface. However, there is room for improvement.	3.8	4	3.4	3	3.5
29	Very few respondents felt that they needed the support of a technical person to be able to use this prototype (The rates are showing their disagreement with the statement).	2.8	3	3	2.4	2.8
36	Nearly all accepted using this prototype will result in saving time for understanding ownership rights.	3.8	5	3.8	3.4	3.8
37	Most of the participants accepted using this prototype will result in saving cost for understanding ownership rights.	3.9	5	3.6	2.6	3.6

Shojaei, D., M. Kalantari, I. D. Bishop, A. Rajabifard, and A. Aien. 2013. “Visualization Requirements for 3D Cadastral Systems.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 41: 39–54. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.04.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar