| Literature DB >> 31988334 |
Chico Q Camargo1, Jonathan Bright1, Graham McNeill1, Sridhar Raman2, Scott A Hale3,4.
Abstract
Accurate understanding and forecasting of traffic is a key contemporary problem for policymakers. Road networks are increasingly congested, yet traffic data is often expensive to obtain, making informed policy-making harder. This paper explores the extent to which traffic disruption can be estimated using features from the volunteered geographic information site OpenStreetMap (OSM). We use OSM features as predictors for linear regressions of counts of traffic disruptions and traffic volume at 6,500 points in the road network within 112 regions of Oxfordshire, UK. We show that more than half the variation in traffic volume and disruptions can be explained with OSM features alone, and use cross-validation and recursive feature elimination to evaluate the predictive power and importance of different land use categories. Finally, we show that using OSM's granular point of interest data allows for better predictions than the broader categories typically used in studies of transportation and land use.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31988334 PMCID: PMC6985234 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-57882-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic pipeline of the linear model for the two sets of linear models in this study. As shown in the top panels (a), we first produce kernel density estimates (KDE) of every OpenStreetMap (OSM) category and meta-category, which we then compare with the number of traffic disruptions at a given latitude and longitude. The bottom panels (b) show we also aggregate the OSM data points into a total count per ward, which we then compare with the traffic volume going into every ward in Oxfordshire.
Granular land-use categories from OpenStreetMap allow for more detailed understandings of traffic disruptions. Compared with the traditional land-use categories shown in (a) that produce an adjusted R2 = 0.11, the granular classifications used in (b) increase the adjusted R2 to 0.55. Only a small subset of the 40 predictor variables are shown for (b), with all other coefficients shown in Table S3 in the Supplementary Information. Respectively, *, ** and *** indicate p < 0.05, p < 0.01 and p < 0.001.
| Variable | Estimate |
|---|---|
| ( | |
| Residential | − 0.09** |
| Industrial | − 0.18** |
| Recreational | − 0.10* |
| Institutional | 0.14* |
| Green space | 0.26*** |
| Commercial | 0.32*** |
| Observations | 6529 |
| Adjusted | 0.11 |
| ( | |
| Residential | 0.61*** |
| Farmland | 0.56*** |
| School | 0.042** |
| Place of worship | 0.009** |
| … | |
| Apartments | − 0.09** |
| Observations | 6529 |
| Adjusted | 0.55 |
Figure 2Clustermap showing the Pearson correlation of the distribution of different OSM categories over all Oxfordshire wards. The heatmap shows the correlation between the number of points of interest tagged as every OSM category in this study. The trees show how OSM categories cluster according to their correlation. For example, OSM categories such as farm, farmland, farmyard form a cluster, indicating that they often appear in the same wards, while not being as correlated to categories such as cafe and fast food.
Average ranking and stability of different meta-categories in predicting the number of traffic disruptions and the incoming volume for every Oxfordshire ward.
| ranking | stability | |
|---|---|---|
| ( | ||
| residential | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| recreational | 1.311 | 0.689 |
| commercial | 1.758 | 0.553 |
| industrial | 2.216 | 0.542 |
| green space | 2.794 | 0.422 |
| institutional | 3.379 | 0.415 |
| ( | ||
| commercial | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| recreational | 1.734 | 0.266 |
| institutional | 2.676 | 0.058 |
| residential | 3.636 | 0.040 |
| green space | 4.606 | 0.030 |
| industrial | 5.602 | 0.004 |
Average ranking and stability of different OSM categories in predicting the number of traffic disruptions and the incoming volume for every Oxfordshire ward. Only the top 10 variables according to ranking are shown.
| ranking | stability | |
|---|---|---|
| ( | ||
| farmland | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| residential | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| parking | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| forest | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| farmyard | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| farm | 1.001 | 0.999 |
| meadow | 1.002 | 0.999 |
| industrial | 1.003 | 0.999 |
| reservoir | 1.010 | 0.993 |
| soccer | 1.020 | 0.990 |
| ( | ||
| fast-food | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| post box | 1.028 | 0.972 |
| cafe | 1.080 | 0.948 |
| bench | 1.211 | 0.869 |
| soccer | 1.409 | 0.802 |
| commercial | 1.648 | 0.761 |
| telephone | 1.916 | 0.732 |
| parking | 2.200 | 0.716 |
| convenience | 2.508 | 0.692 |
| farm | 2.855 | 0.653 |