Quantifying the Spatial Ratio of Streets in Bei**g Based on Street-View Images
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Data Acquisition and Processing
3.3. Indicator Selection
3.4. Convolutional Neural Networks
4. Results
4.1. Overall Street Aspect Ratio as in Central Bei**g
4.2. Spatial Characteristics of Streets with Different Aspect Ratio Types
4.2.1. Canyon-Type Streets (0 < D/H < 1)
4.2.2. Balanced Streets (1 < D/H < 2)
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Lot Nature | Expressway | Main roads | Historic District | Business District |
Street imagery | ||||
Lot Nature | Commercial Area | Boardwalk residential area | Tower residential area | Campus |
Street imagery |
Appendix B
Lot Nature | Expressway | Historic District | Courtyard and bungalow residential area | Boardwalk residential area |
Street imagery |
Appendix C
References
- Chen, W.; Wu, A.N.; Biljecki, F. Classification of urban morphology with deep learning: Application on urban vitality. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2021, 90, 101706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dover, V.; Massengale, J. Street Design: The Secret to Great Cities and Towns; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Biljecki, F.; Ito, K. Street view imagery in urban analytics and GIS: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 215, 104217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galford, G. Review: Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places by Reed Ewing and Otto Clemente. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2017, 39, 258–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, C.; Aultman-Hall, L. Measuring Urban Streetscapes for Livability: A Review of Approaches. Prof. Geogr. 2015, 68, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, C.; Aultman-Hall, L. Urban Streetscape Design and Crash Severity. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2019, 2500, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Z.; Zhang, D.; Yu, L.; Hui, L. Representing place locales using scene elements. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2018, 71, 153–164. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, F.; Wu, L.; Zhu, D.; Liu, Y. Social sensing from street-level imagery: A case study in learning spatio-temporal urban mobility patterns. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019, 153, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Hajrasouliha, A.; Neckerman, K.M.; Purciel-Hill, M.; Greene, W. Streetscape Features Related to Pedestrian Activity. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2015, 36, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bochenek, A.; Klemm, K. Influence of canyon aspect ratio on microclimatic conditions: Case of Lodz, Poland. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2019; Volume 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoshinobu, A. The Aesthetic Townscape; Riggs, L.E., Translator; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobs, A.B. Great Streets; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, C.-B.; Zhang, F.; Gong, F.-Y.; Ratti, C.; Li, X. Classification and map** of urban canyon geometry using Google Street View images and deep multitask learning. Build. Environ. 2020, 167, 106424.1–106424.12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hang, J.; Luo, Z.; Wang, X.; He, L.; Wang, B.; Zhu, W. The influence of street layouts and viaduct settings on daily carbon monoxide exposure and intake fraction in idealized urban canyons. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harvey, C.; Aultman-Hall, L.; Troy, A.; Hurley, S.E. Streetscape skeleton measurement and classification. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2016, 44, 668–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, M.R.; Haworth, J.; Cheng, T. Understanding cities with machine eyes: A review of deep computer vision in urban analytics. Cities 2019, 96, 102481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larkin, A.; Gu, X.; Chen, L.; Hystad, P. Predicting Perceptions of the Built Environment using GIS, Satellite and Street View Image Approaches. Landsc Urban Plan 2021, 216, 104257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A. Resilient urban forms: A review of literature on streets and street networks. Build. Environ. 2018, 147, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badland, H.M.; Opit, S.; Witten, K.; Kearns, R.A.; Mavoa, S. Can Virtual Streetscape Audits Reliably Replace Physical Streetscape Audits? J. Urban Health 2010, 87, 1007–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berland, A.; Lange, D.A. Google Street View shows promise for virtual street tree surveys. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Y.; Zeng, W.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, X.; Lu, Y. The visual quality of streets: A human-centred continuous measurement based on machine learning algorithms and street view images. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2019, 46, 1439–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ki, D.; Lee, S. Analyzing the effects of Green View Index of neighborhood streets on walking time using Google Street View and deep learning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 205, 103920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naik, N.; Philipoom, J.; Raskar, R.; Hidalgo, C. Streetscore—Predicting the Perceived Safety of One Million Streetscapes. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, Washington, DC, USA, 23–28 June 2014; pp. 793–799. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, Z.; Ma, Q.; Kan, C.; Oi, Q. Classifying Street Spaces with Street View Images for a Spatial Indicator of Urban Functions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, S.; Ma, S.; Tong, D.; Jia, Z.; Li, P.; Long, Y. Associations between the quality of street space and the attributes of the built environment using large volumes of street view pictures. Environ. Plan. B-Urban Anal. City Sci. 2022, 49, 1197–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Vermeulen, F. Life between buildings from a street view image: What do big data analytics reveal about neighbourhood organisational vitality? Urban Stud. 2020, 58, 3118–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, C.M.; Wilson, J.S.; Baker, E.A.; Miller, D.K.; Schootman, M. Using Google Street View to Audit the Built Environment: Inter-rater Reliability Results. Ann. Behav. Med. 2013, 45, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Middel, A.; Lukasczyk, J.; Zakrzewski, S.; Arnold, M.; Maciejewski, R. Urban form and composition of street canyons: A human-centric big data and deep learning approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 183, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, G.; Zhu, X.; Tapper, N.; Bechtel, B. Urban climate zone classification using convolutional neural network and ground-level images. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2019, 43, 410–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Li, W.; Ricard, R.; Meng, Q.; Zhang, W. Assessing street-level urban greenery using Google Street View and a modified green view index. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 675–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, F.Y.; Zeng, Z.C.; Zhang, F.; Li, X.J.; Ng, E.; Norford, L.K. Map** sky, tree, and building view factors of street canyons in a high-density urban environment. Build. Environ. 2018, 134, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Cai, B.Y.; Qiu, W.; Zhao, J.; Ratti, C. A novel method for predicting and map** the occurrence of sun glare using Google Street View. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 106, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nice, K.A.; Wijnands, J.S.; Middel, A.; Wang, J.; Qiu, Y.; Zhao, N.; Thompson, J.; Aschwanden, G.D.; Zhao, H.; Stevenson, M. Sky pixel detection in outdoor imagery using an adaptive algorithm and machine learning. Urban Clim. 2019, 31, 100572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Duarte, F.; Ratti, C. Analyzing the obstruction effects of obstacles on light pollution caused by street lighting system in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Environ. Plan B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2019, 48, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gromke, C.; Ruck, B. Pollutant concentrations in street canyons of different aspect ratio with avenues of trees for various wind directions. Bound-Lay Meteorol. 2012, 144, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiang, G.; Hu, T.; Yang, H. Effects of ground heating on ventilation and pollutant transport in three-dimensional urban street canyons with unit aspect ratio. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gage, R.; Wilson, N.; Signal, L.; Thomson, G. Shade in playgrounds: Findings from a nationwide survey and implications for urban health policy. J. Public Health 2018, 27, 669–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Government of Bei**g Municipality. Bei**g City Master Plan (2016–2035). Available online: https://www.bei**g.gov.cn/gongkai/guihua/wngh/cqgh/201907/t20190701_100008.html (accessed on 1 April 2023).
- Wang, Y. A Century of Change: Bei**g’s Urban Structure in the 20th Century; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, F.; He, J.; Jiang, C.; Li, Y. Evolution of the commercial blocks in ancient Bei**g city from the street network perspective. J. Geogr. Sci. 2018, 28, 845–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, P. The Disappearing Historical Hutongs: Key Issues in Preserving Locality in Old Bei**g. In Urbanization and Locality; Wang, F., Prominski, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Y.; Gu, Y.; Han, H. Spatiotemporal heterogeneity of urban planning implementation effectiveness: Evidence from five urban master plans of Bei**g. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 108, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeing, G. Planarity and street network representation in urban form analysis. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2018, 47, 855–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tang, Z.; Ye, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Fu, C.; Huang, R. A data-informed analytical approach to human-scale greenway planning: Integrating multi-sourced urban data with machine learning algorithms. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 56, 126871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law, S.; Seresinhe, C.I.; Shen, Y.; Gutierrez-Roig, M. Street-Frontage-Net: Urban image classification using deep convolutional neural networks. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2018, 34, 681–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Su, T.; Sun, M.; Fan, Z.; Noyman, A.; Pentland, A.; Moro, E. Rhythm of the streets: A street classification framework based on street activity patterns. EPJ Data Sci. 2022, 11, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Arrangement | Model Accuracy | Result Type | Accuracy |
---|---|---|---|
Street location | 74.1% | General street | 73.9% |
Intersection | 78.7% | ||
On-viaduct | 75.8% | ||
Crossroads under the viaduct | 74.8% | ||
Non-crossroads under viaducts | 71.5% | ||
Acoustic barriers | 76.1% | ||
Street aspect ratio | 81.68% | No D/H | 91.4% |
0 < D/H < 1 | 90.2% | ||
1 < D/H < 2 | 78.5% | ||
2 < D/H < 4 | 75.6% | ||
D/H > 4 | 72.7% | ||
Street symmetry | 72.4% | H1 = H2 | 73.2% |
H1 > H2 | 71.4% | ||
H1 < H2 | 72.6% |
Street Aspect Ratio Type | The Imperial City 6.79 km2 | The Historic District 15.98 km2 | Inner City Built-Up Area 15.59 km2 | Outer City Built-Up Area 21.67 km2 | The Second to Third Rings Area 96.58 km2 | Central City 159.83 km2 | Typical Pictures |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canyon-type streets 0 < D/H < 1 | 8.06 km | 92.91 km | 107.48 km | 134.5 km | 668.57 km | 1011.5 km | |
21.70% | 38.41% | 56.46% | 62.92% | 63.10% | 58.05% | ||
Balanced streets 1 < D/H < 2 | 18.18 km | 115.82 km | 55.41 km | 52.75 km | 202.36 km | 444.52 km | |
48.94% | 47.89% | 29.11% | 24.68% | 19.10% | 25.51% | ||
Spacious streets 2 < D/H < 4 | 4.35 km | 17.66 km | 13.93 km | 11.99 km | 59.61 km | 107.54 km | |
11.71% | 7.30% | 7.32% | 5.61% | 5.63% | 6.17% | ||
Open streets D/H > 4 | 6.02 km | 10.83 km | 7.23 km | 5.77 km | 29.41 km | 59.26 km | |
16.20% | 4.48% | 3.80% | 2.70% | 2.78% | 3.40% | ||
No aspect ratio street No D/H | 0.54 km | 4.64 km | 6.32 km | 8.75 km | 99.52 km | 119.77 km | |
1.45% | 1.92% | 3.32% | 4.09% | 9.39% | 6.87% | ||
Total | 37.15 km | 241.86 km | 190.37 km | 213.76 km | 1059.47 km | 1742.61 km | |
100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
Street Orientation | The Imperial City | The Historic District | Inner City Built-Up Area | Outer City Built-Up Area | The Second-To-Third Rings Area | All Regions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Street orientation | South-North | 3.89 km | 43.47 km | 59.88 km | 60.32 km | 319 km | 486.56 km |
47.21% | 41.05% | 48.86% | 41.76% | 46.97% | 45.89% | ||
East-West | 4.24 km | 57.82 km | 57.45 km | 78.09 km | 297.68 km | 495.28 km | |
51.46% | 54.60% | 46.88% | 54.06% | 43.83% | 46.71% | ||
Southeast-Northwest | 0.03 km | 2.43 km | 2.6 km | 3.48 km | 33.96 km | 42.5 km | |
0.36% | 2.29% | 2.12% | 2.41% | 5.00% | 4.01% | ||
Northeast-Southwest | 0.08 km | 2.17 km | 2.63 km | 2.57 km | 28.48 km | 35.93 km | |
0.97% | 2.05% | 2.15% | 1.78% | 4.19% | 3.39% | ||
Street Symmetry | H1 = H2 | 4.16 km | 42.60 km | 60.20 km | 61.42 km | 268.96 km | 437.34 km |
51.61% | 45.85% | 56.01% | 45.67% | 40.23% | 43.24% | ||
H1 > H2 | 2.11 km | 24.35 km | 22.20 km | 36.08 km | 199.99 km | 284.73 km | |
26.18% | 26.21% | 20.66% | 26.83% | 29.91% | 28.15% | ||
H1 < H2 | 1.79 km | 25.96 km | 25.08 km | 36.99 km | 199.62 km | 289.44 km | |
22.21% | 27.94% | 23.33% | 27.50% | 29.86% | 28.61% |
Street Orientation | The Imperial City | The Historic District | Inner City Built-Up Area | Outer City Built-Up Area | The Second-To-Third Rings Area | All Regions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Street orientation | South-North | 12.20 km | 41.57 km | 29.98 km | 27.57 km | 92.77 km | 204.09 km |
57.30% | 31.95% | 43.21% | 46.08% | 44.85% | 41.87% | ||
East-West | 8.50 km | 77.23 km | 36.44 km | 28.32 km | 92.85 km | 243.34 km | |
39.92% | 59.37% | 52.52% | 47.33% | 44.89% | 49.92% | ||
Southeast -Northwest | 0.27 km | 5.98 km | 1.30 km | 2.14 km | 8.47 km | 18.16 km | |
1.27% | 4.60% | 1.87% | 3.58% | 4.09% | 3.73% | ||
Northeast -Southwest | 0.32 km | 5.31 km | 1.66 km | 1.80 km | 12.76 km | 21.85 km | |
1.50% | 4.08% | 2.39% | 3.01% | 6.17% | 4.48% | ||
Street Symmetry | H1 = H2 | 3.05 km | 39.62 km | 21.49 km | 13.19 km | 70.94 km | 148.29 km |
16.77% | 34.21% | 38.78% | 25.00% | 35.05% | 33.36% | ||
H1 > H2 | 8.99 km | 39.49 km | 18.05 km | 23.03 km | 60.62 km | 150.18 km | |
49.42% | 34.10% | 32.58% | 43.65% | 29.96% | 33.78% | ||
H1 < H2 | 6.15 km | 36.71 km | 15.87 km | 16.54 | 70.81 km | 146.08 km | |
33.81% | 31.70% | 28.64% | 31.35% | 34.99% | 32.86% |
Street Orientation | The Imperial City | The Historic District | Inner City Built-Up Area | Outer City Built-Up Area | The Second-To-Third Rings Area | All Regions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Street orientation | South-North | 3.96 km | 7.73 km | 7.87 km | 5.12 km | 21.75 km | 46.43 km |
91.03% | 43.77% | 56.46% | 42.70% | 36.49% | 43.17% | ||
East-West | 0.39 km | 8.44 km | 5.98 km | 5.88 km | 31.37 | 52.06 km | |
8.97% | 47.79% | 42.90% | 49.04% | 52.63% | 48.41% | ||
Southeast -Northwest | 0.00 km | 0.93 km | 0.00 km | 0.95 km | 3.02 km | 4.90 km | |
0.00% | 5.27% | 0.00% | 7.92% | 5.07% | 4.56% | ||
Northeast -Southwest | 0.00 km | 0.56 km | 0.09 km | 0.04 km | 3.46 km | 4.15 km | |
0.00% | 3.17% | 0.65% | 0.33% | 5.81% | 3.86% | ||
Street Symmetry | H1 = H2 | 1.08 km | 6.50 km | 4.31 km | 4.79 km | 15.55 km | 32.23 km |
24.83% | 36.81% | 30.94% | 39.95% | 26.09% | 29.97% | ||
H1 > H2 | 1.74 km | 5.54 km | 4.72 km | 2.95 km | 17.86 km | 32.81 km | |
40.00% | 31.37% | 33.88% | 24.60% | 29.97% | 30.51% | ||
H1 < H2 | 1.53 km | 5.62 km | 4.90 km | 4.25 km | 26.19 km | 42.49 km | |
35.17% | 31.82% | 35.18% | 35.45% | 43.94% | 39.51% |
Street Orientation | The Imperial City | The Historic District | Inner City Built-Up Area | Outer City Built-Up Area | The Second-To-Third Rings Area | All Regions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Street orientation | South-North | 1.58 km | 4.36 km | 3.31 km | 2.09 km | 7.84 km | 19.18 km |
26.29% | 40.22% | 45.84% | 36.22% | 26.66% | 32.37% | ||
East-West | 4.43 km | 5.54 km | 3.68 km | 3.41 km | 18.25 km | 35.31 km | |
73.71% | 51.11% | 50.97% | 59.10% | 62.05% | 59.59% | ||
Southeast –Northwest | 0.00 km | 0.85 km | 0.01 km | 0.22 km | 1.58 km | 2.66 km | |
0.00% | 7.84% | 0.14% | 3.81% | 5.37% | 4.49% | ||
Northeast –Southwest | 0.00 km | 0.09 km | 0.22 km | 0.05 km | 1.74 km | 2.10 km | |
0.00% | 0.83% | 3.05% | 0.87% | 5.92% | 3.54% | ||
Street Symmetry | H1 = H2 | 0.69 km | 3.17 km | 1.51 km | 1.08 km | 5.86 km | 12.31 km |
11.48% | 29.24% | 20.89% | 18.69% | 19.92% | 20.77% | ||
H1 > H2 | 1.76 km | 3.31 km | 2.91 km | 2.53 km | 14.65 km | 25.16 km | |
29.28% | 30.54% | 40.25% | 43.77% | 49.80% | 42.44% | ||
H1 < H2 | 3.56 km | 4.36 km | 2.81 km | 2.17 km | 8.91 km | 21.81 km | |
59.23% | 40.22% | 38.87% | 37.54% | 30.29% | 36.79% |
Total Length (km) | Length as a Percentage | Average Road Width (m) | Average Building Height (m) | Average Aspect Ratio | Spatial Rhythm | Quantity | Canyon-Type Streets | Balanced Streets | Spacious Streets | Open Streets | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Expressway | 4.07 | 6.22% | 118.21 | 28.88 | 4.69 | 5.50 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Main roads | 10.28 | 15.72% | 66.36 | 25.56 | 3.51 | 3.98 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3 |
Secondary roads | 11.17 | 17.08% | 31.10 | 20.34 | 1.73 | 1.12 | 15 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 0 |
Branch Road | 39.89 | 60.98% | 18.21 | 18.38 | 1.39 | 1.80 | 108 | 44 | 53 | 9 | 2 |
Street Function Type | Total Length (km) | Length as a Percentage | Average Road Width (m) | Average Building Height (m) | Average Aspect Ratio | Spatial Rhythm | Quantity | Canyon-Type Streets | Balanced Streets | Spacious Streets | Open Streets |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Residential street | 19.89 | 36.05% | 12.90 | 15.49 | 1.18 | 0.51 | 58 | 21 | 32 | 5 | 0 |
Business street | 10.90 | 20.8% | 28.00 | 24.54 | 1.26 | 0.80 | 26 | 12 | 12 | 1 | 1 |
Transportation street | 6.08 | 11.60% | 69.82 | 26.19 | 3.53 | 3.86 | 16 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 |
Landscape and leisure street | 0.99 | 1.89% | 25.42 | 9.16 | 4.74 | 5.43 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Commercial street | 0.71 | 1.35% | 18.21 | 23.57 | 0.91 | 0.53 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Hybrid street | 13.83 | 26.39% | 19.19 | 17.39 | 1.45 | 0.76 | 32 | 11 | 16 | 5 | 0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gao, W.; Hou, J.; Gao, Y.; Zhao, M.; Jia, M. Quantifying the Spatial Ratio of Streets in Bei**g Based on Street-View Images. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2023, 12, 246. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12060246
Gao W, Hou J, Gao Y, Zhao M, Jia M. Quantifying the Spatial Ratio of Streets in Bei**g Based on Street-View Images. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2023; 12(6):246. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12060246
Chicago/Turabian StyleGao, Wei, Jiachen Hou, Yong Gao, Mei Zhao, and Menghan Jia. 2023. "Quantifying the Spatial Ratio of Streets in Bei**g Based on Street-View Images" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 12, no. 6: 246. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12060246