1. Down in the Trenches Automating Label Placement in Dense Utility Maps Jill Phelps Kern Cynthia Brewer

2. 2 Problem definition Project objectives Literature review themes Research process Research findings Potential for additional research The Map Label Placement Problem

3. 3 Problem Definition The Map Label Placement Problem Placing map feature labels legibly without overlap (features / other labels) maintaining visual association between features and their labels

4. 4 Problem Definition The Map Label Placement Problem Placing map feature labels consumes up to 50% or more of total map production time Source: Yoeli 1972, p. 99

5. 5 Densely Labeled Maps

6. 6 Project Objectives 1. Evaluate the automated labeling capabilities of current GIS software when applied to dense maps 2. Identify factors which necessitate manual label placement

7. 7 Project Context Town of Concord Sewer Map Book

8. 8 Concord Map Book Evolution 1970s-era mylar drawings  11x17 paper map book GIS data layers  11x17 paper map book GIS data layers  laptop for crew use in field Until 2006: Current effort: As quickly as possible:

9. 9 Point feature: Sewer manhole Attributes: Facility ID, station number, rim elevation, invert elevation Sewer Infrastructure Features

10. 10 Sewer Infrastructure Features Line feature: Sewer main Attributes: Size, material (VCP = vitreous clay pipe)

11. 11 Line feature: Sewer main Attributes: Slope and slope direction Sewer Infrastructure Features

12. 12 Line feature:Sewer tie Attribute: Service number Sewer Infrastructure Features

13. 13 Literature Review Themes Label Placement: rules algorithms metrics

14. 14 Automated software e.g. ESRI Maplex © Literature Review 1972 Rules and metrics for manual map label placement Development of automated map label placement algorithms 20071998 Map Label Placement Through Time Yoeli

15. 15 Literature Review Themes Label Placement: rules algorithms metrics

16. 16 Label Placement Metrics Aesthetics Label visibility Feature visibility Association R i v e r R i v e rR i v e r City ATown BTown ATown BTown Peak Based on Van Dijk et al. (1999)

17. 17 Sewer Map Labeling Metrics A.Labels Placed C. No Overlap B. Labels in Preferred Position

18. 18 Sewer Labeling Metrics A.Labels Placed Total number % of ideal C. No Overlap Label-label Label-sewer tie B. Labels in Preferred Position Point (manhole) Line (sewer mains & ties) Area (streets)

19. 19 Sewer Labeling Metrics A.Labels Placed Total number % of ideal C. No Overlap Label-label Label-sewer tie B. Labels in Preferred Position Point (manhole) Line (sewer mains & ties) Area (streets)

20. 20 Sewer Labeling Metrics A.Labels Placed Total % of ideal C. No Overlap Label-label Label-sewer tie B. Labels in Preferred Position Point (manhole) Line (sewer mains & ties) Area (streets)

21. 21 Research Preparation Selected 3 representative Map Book Pages

22. 22 Research Preparation Applied label buffers for measuring label densities (H/M/L)

23. 23 Research Preparation Calculated Ideal Label Counts as Baseline Ideal=94 Ideal=185 Ideal=34 Ideal=88 Ideal=110 Ideal=68 Ideal=116

24. 24 Research Preparation Calculated Ideal Label Counts as Baseline Feature Number of TypeLabels Point 531 Line 888 Area 55 Ideal label total:1474

25. 25 Research Preparation Calculated ideal label densities Range: 196  424 labels / Million Ft 2

26. 26 Research Process 1.Automated Labeling - Standard Labeling Engine - Maplex 2.Convert to Annotation 3.Manual Refinement

27. 27 Research Process 1.Automated Labeling 2.Convert to Annotation 3.Manual Refinement Label Measure quality Iterate to improve Label Measure quality Iterate to improve

28. 28 Research Process 1.Automated Labeling 2.Convert to Annotation 3.Manual Refinement Results Lessons Learned Results Lessons Learned Results Lessons Learned

29. 29 Research Process 1.Automated Labeling - Standard Labeling Engine - Maplex 2.Convert to Annotation 3.Manual Refinement

30. 30 Results Automated Labeling Standard Maplex (Ideal Total: 1474 Labels) Metrics

31. 31 Results Automated Labeling Ideal No. of Labels: 531 888 55

32. 32 Lessons Learned: Maplex For high-quality results choose “Best” rather than “Fast”

33. 33 Lessons Learned: Standard L.E. vs. Maplex Street names: Different options to control label repetition Standard Labeling EngineMaplex

34. 34 Lessons Learned: Standard L.E. vs. Maplex Sewer ties: Maplex allows label to overrun feature

35. 35 Lessons Learned: Standard L.E. vs. Maplex Standard Labeling EngineMaplex PoorAcceptableIdeal Manholes : Maplex offset settings allowed NSEW label positioning

36. 36 Research Process 1.Automated Labeling - Standard Labeling Engine - Maplex 2.Convert to Annotation 3.Manual Refinement

37. 37 Lessons Learned: Conversion to Annotation To preserve label positions convert all layers’ labels simultaneously

38. 38 Graphics/screen capture vs words Lessons Learned: Conversion to Annotation

39. 39 Lessons Learned: Conversion to Annotation Memory constraint: Could not convert entire 121-page map book at once > many labels moved / not placed

40. 40 Lessons Learned: Conversion to Annotation Memory constraint: Could not convert entire 121-page map book at once > many labels moved / not placed Could convert one page at a time with Layout View as the “current extent” > all labels converted without moving

41. 41 Research Process 1.Automated Labeling - Standard Labeling Engine - Maplex 2.Convert to Annotation 3.Manual Refinement - Place all remaining labels - Adjust label placement to > eliminate Overlaps > improve Preferred Position metric

42. 42 Results Manual Refinement Manual Refinement Auto (Maplex) (Ideal Total: 1474 Labels) 9% Metrics

43. 43 Results Manual Refinement Ideal No. of Labels: 531 888 55

44. 44 Lessons Learned: Manual Refinement Manual placement required when: Feature spacing tighter than legible label size

45. 45 Lessons Learned: Manual Refinement Manual placement required when: Feature spacing tighter than legible label size Line feature length too short for legible label size

46. 46 Lessons Learned: Manual Refinement Manual placement required when: Feature spacing tighter than legible label size Line feature length too short for legible label size Area feature too constrained for legible label size

47. 47 Lessons Learned: Manual Refinement Manual placement required when: Feature spacing tighter than legible label size Line feature length too short for legible label size Area feature too narrow for legible label size Labels must not obscure “non-feature” elements (e.g. sewer main-sewer tie junction)

48. 48 The Bottom Line Maplex Standard LE Number of labels placed Point feature Equal Line feature 15% Area feature 15% Overall 7% Quality of label placement Equally high

49. 49 The Bottom Line Maplex Standard LE Number of labels placed Point feature Equal Line feature 15% Area feature 15% Overall 7% Quality of label placement Equally high Manual Refinement Number placed (no overlap) 15% to 100% of ideal Quality (preferred position) 9%

50. 50 Research Limitations Limitation 1: ESRI ArcGIS 9.2 only Compare different software products Test follow-on versions Limitation 2: Single type of map Test a variety of densely-labeled map types

51. 51 Potential for Additional Exploration Time Tools Templates

52. 52 Time Potential for Additional Exploration Test proportion of map design time consumed by automated labeling

53. 53 Time Potential for Additional Exploration Major time sinks: Initial settings Manual leader-lined labels Eliminating non-feature overlaps Test proportion of map design time consumed by automated labeling

54. 54 Potential for Additional Exploration Tools Automatic leader-line callout for clusters that don’t fit Designation of non-feature elements not to be obscured by labels

55. 55 Potential for Additional Exploration Templates Manhole label “style”Sewer main label “style”

56. 56 Ultimate Goal Live automated labeling without going to annotation that equals both the quantity and quality of manual placement in significantly less time overall

57. 57 Map Book Evolution 1. 1970s-era mylar drawings  11x17 paper map book 2. GIS data layers  11x17 paper map book 3. GIS data layers  laptop for crew use in field Until 2006: Current effort: As quickly as possible: Already happening – LIVE!

58. 58 Many thanks to: Charlie Frye – ESRI Craig Williams – ESRI

59. 59 Questions?

60. 60 References Christensen, Jon, Joe Marks, and Stuart Shieber. 1994. Placing text labels on maps and diagrams. Graphics Gems IV, Cambridge MA: Academic Press, 497-504. Christensen, Jon, Joe Marks, and Stuart Shieber. 1995. An empirical study of algorithms for point-feature label placement. ACM Transactions on Graphics (14)3: 203-232. Cook, Anthony C. and Christopher B. Jones. 1990. A Prolog interface to a cartographic database for name placement. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, International Geographical Union and International Cartographic Association, pp. 701-710. Doerschler, Jeffrey S. and Herbert Freeman. 1992. A rule-based system for dense-map name placement. Communications of the ACM (35)1: 68- 79. Ebner, Dietmar, Gunner W. Klau and Rene Weiskirscher. 2003. Force-based label number maximization. Technical Report TR 186-1-03-02, Vienna: Vienna University of Technology. Edmondson, Shawn, Jon Christensen, Joe Marks, and Stuart M. Shieber. 1996. A general cartographic labeling algorithm. Cartographica (33)4: 13-23. Freeman, Herbert and John Ahn. 1984. AUTONAP – an expert system for automatic name placement. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, International Geographical Union and International Cartographic Association, pp. 544-569. Freeman, Herbert and John Ahn. 1987. On the problem of placing names in a geographic map. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 1(1): 121-140. Hirsch, Steven A. 1982. An algorithm for automatic name placement around point data. The American Cartographer 9(1): 5-17. Imhof, Eduard. 1962. Die Anordnung der Namen in der Karte [Positioning names on maps]. Internationales Jahrbuch fur Kartographie, vol. 2, Verlagsgruppe Bertelsmann GmbH/Kartographisches Institut Bertelsman, pp. 93-129. Imhof, Eduard. 1975. Positioning names on maps. The American Cartographer 2(2): 128-144. Jones, Christopher B. 1989. Cartographic name placement with Prolog. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 9(5): 36-47. Kameda, Takayuki, and Keiko Imai. 2003. Map label placement for points and curves. IEICE Transaction Fundamentals E86-A(4): 835-840. Stadler, Georg, Tibor Steiner and Jurgen Beiglbock. 2006. A practical map labeling algorithm utilizing morphological image processing and force- directed methods. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 33(3): 207-215. Van Dijk, S., M. Van Krefeld, Tycho Strijk, and Alecander Wolff. 1999. Towards an evaluation of quality for label placement methods. Proceedings of the 19th International Cartographic Conference and 11th General Assembly, ed. by C. P. Keller, Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 57-64. Van Kreveld, M., Tycho Trijk and Alexander Wolff. 1999. Point labeling with sliding labels. Computational Geometry 13: pp. 21-47. Wood, Clifford H. 2000. Descriptive and illustrated guide for type placement in small scale maps. The Cartographic Journal 37(1): 5-18. Yoeli, P. 1972. The logic of automated map lettering. The Cartographic Journal 9(2): 99-108. Zoraster, Steven. 1997. Practical results using simulated annealing for point feature label placement. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 24(4): 228-238.