Cadastral spatial units around the world range from simple 2D parcels to complex 3D collections of spaces, defined at levels of sophistication from textural descriptions to complete, rigorous mathematical descriptions based on measurements and coordinates. The most common spatial unit in a cadastral database is the 2D land parcel-the basic unit subject to cadastral Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities (RRR). Built on this is a varying complexity of 3D subdivisions and secondary interests. Spatial units may also be subdivided into smaller units, with the remainder being kept as common property for the owners/tenants of the individual units. This has led to the adoption of hierarchical multi-level schemes. In this paper, we explore the encoding of spatial units in a way that highlights their 2D extent and topology, while fully defining their extent in the third dimension. Obviously, topological encoding itself is not new. However, having mixed a 2D and 3D topological structure is rather challenging. Therefore, despite the potential benefits of mixed 2D and 3D topology, it is currently not used in LandXML, one of the main and best documented formats when representing survey data. This paper presents a multi-level topological encoding for the purposes of survey plan representation in LandXML that is simple and efficient in space requirements, including the question of curved surfaces, (partly) unbounded spatial units, and grouping and division of 2D and 3D spatial units. No off the shelf software is available for validating newly lodged surveys and we present our prototype for this. It is further suggested that the conceptual model behind this encoding approach can be extend to the database schema itself.@en

To be used as input in most simulation and modelling software, 3D city models should be geometrically and topologically valid, and semantically rich. We investigate in this paper what is the quality of currently available CityGML datasets, i.e. we validate the geometry/topology of the 3D primitives (Solid and MultiSurface), and we validate whether the semantics of the boundary surfaces of buildings is correct or not. We have analysed all the CityGML datasets we could find, both from portals of cities and on different websites, plus a few that were made available to us. We have thus validated 40M surfaces in 16M 3D primitives and 3.6M buildings found in 37 CityGML datasets originating from 9 countries, and produced by several companies with diverse software and acquisition techniques. The results indicate that CityGML datasets without errors are rare, and those that are nearly valid are mostly simple LOD1 models. We report on the most common errors we have found, and analyse them. One main observation is that many of these errors could be automatically fixed or prevented with simple modifications to the modelling software. Our principal aim is to highlight the most common errors so that these are not repeated in the future. We hope that our paper and the open-source software we have developed will help raise awareness for data quality among data providers and 3D GIS software producers.@en