3D Citymodelling seminar/Workshop, Kuntatalo, 10.2.2015
(memo: Oskari Liukkonen, Eero Holopainen)
Partisipants:
Rick Klooster, Future Insight, CEO
Jane Hermans-van Ree, City of Rotterdam, project manager
Linda van den Brink, advisor (geo-standards), Geonovum Foundation
Tapani Honkanen, City of Espoo, architect
Jaakko Uusitalo, City of Tampere, development manager
Kari-Pekka Karlsson, Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö
Petri Kokko, Sova 3D
Tuula Hannonen, City of Helsinki
Eero Holopainen, Student, Aalto-yliopisto
Oskari Liukkonen, Junior Consultant, Sito, Student, Aalto-yliopisto
Jarkko Männistö, Sito
Kari Kaisla, City of Helsinki, 3D city model project
Jarmo Suomisto, City of Helsinki, 3D city model project manager
Workshop I – Exchange of experience in 3D city modelling
Topics for discussions:
1. Vision
2. Rotterdam 3D 2.0 HKI
3. Lessons learned
4. Semantic 3D-n Project
VISION
“3D is not the future but it is here and now. It should be an integral part of the
internal processes within the municipality of Rotterdam. The municipality of
Rotterdam will evolve to the use of the 3D city model as a base for all its geoinformation and the linked administrative data. The collection, maintenance and
use of this information, will more and more be stored in the 3 city model and
applications from various fields of work will be connected. “
Rotterdam 3D city model v 2.0













No 2D, all data will be part of a 3D model
3D will be the hub old forms of (2D etc.) data will be linked to and move
forward from
the creation is constant and is the route to the data being up-to date
“If things are rushed they won’t be trusted or potentially work as well” so
the thematic model was tested with potential users
Drawback is that there are lots of conversions between model types
HKI is not Rotterdam and should of course adjust their implementation
accordingly
Not only are there technical problems but also it may be hard to make
people want to use them and believe that they can be beneficial and
enhance their work so the concrete gains should be shown through
studying pilot projects and the benefits of modeling
Everything shouldn’t be tried to be distributed or tried to be done
through CityGML, a line between it and IFC should be mantained
Security? Is there even a need to put the most confidential data into the
central database (secured) or should it be distributed through different
channels?
First task of the Rotterdam’s 3D city model v2.0 project was a research on
the user needs (Interviews)
3D is no the future, but is here and now.
It should be an integral part of the existing processes within the
Municipality of Rotterdam
o Make sure the 3d city model fits into existing processes
The Municipality of Rotterdam will evolve to the use of the 3D city model
as a base for all its geo-information and the linked administrative data.
The collection, maintenance and use of this information, will more and
more be stored in the 3D city model and applications from various fields
of work will be connected.
o The aim of the 3D city model development is that in the end
process all data is in centralized 3D city model database, or data
can be linked to that database. This means that Rotterdam can get
a rid of the old 2D SDI

 Process will take several years
o Maintenance processes are not ready yet
 City of Rotterdam hopes that they will solve the challenges
in the maintenance during this year
o Thematic approach
 Based on the scrum method
 Sprints of three months per theme
 Start point is the owner of the theme (mmaintainer) and
two main users
 Develop four themes parallel
 Concrete, practical and usable
 Stepwise developing, learnin and expanding
Based on open 3DcityDB, and 3D SDI offered by VirtualCitySystems
(C.Nagel)
o Drawback is that there are many different kind of conversions
(FME is used for the conversions)

The problem with 3D city model development is to how to present the
benefits and convince the decision-maker to finance 3D city model
development
o Studying 3D city model use cases and pilots with real life data and
situations would help clarify the benefits of 3D city modeling, and
help in the marketing of 3D city models

3D city models have an impact on the urban planning and surveying
process by transforming existing processes
o There is a need for 3D information models in urban planning
processes
o Different planning stages are parallel, so there is a need for easy
information exchange that 3D city models can help to facilitate

Maintenance
o Is the big problem
o Information is there, but processes need to established

A problem is that all of the software developers still doesn’t support
CityGML, and there is a need for tools

Similar challenges and problems in Finland and Netherlands

Lyon, Hampurg?, Prague???, also cities who have started CityGML based
city model development
Workshop II - Exchange of experiences: standardization framework in the
Netherlands and in Finland

In Netherlands, they see standardization as a pyramid, top are more
general standards and international standards like ISO and below are
more exact standard and national standards that inherits the qualities of
the upper level standards. There is standards inside the standards

Forum standaardisatie
o Municiplaities are reqiured to produce annual report where they
explain what standards they are using and what they aren’t and
why
o svb-bgt (svb-bgt.nl) validates the municipal data and compiles it
and sends it on to the cadaster that publishes it so the
municipalities themselves don’t have to
o Has a budget from ministry to maintain these standards
o There are different laws to enforce these different standards
o It would be helpfull in Finland to have the collection or simple list
of different laws that effect to different dutch standards
o Usually, nothing happens if organizitions don’t follow the laws,
Sometimes they might get fines???????
o Municipalities have problems with budget and to fill requirements
of these laws

Coordinate systems
o Finland ETRS-TM35FIN (whole finland in one zone) and GKn
(several zones 19-31)

Standards developed by Geonovum
o Geonovum is responsible for the preparation of Dutch national
standards for planning and modelling. The ones that were created
by Geonovum and are maintained there are:
o IMGeo, the national standard for large scale topography
o IMRo, the national standard for land use planning
o NEN 3610, abstract base model for geo-information modeling
o IMKAD, the national cadaster standard (on cadastral parcels and
ownership rights etc.)
o IMKL, national standard for utility networks
 Cable, pipes
 Describes the risky areas
 People who are digiing underground are described by law
to use this sytem before and get the information and the
permission to dig
o IMNAD, national standard for nature management
 Green areas
 Cycling tracks
o IMOOV, information model for public safety
 Where to get water for fire trucks, where to park fire
trucks, ect..



IMKl is about the exchange of maps that tell “what is in the ground”
(cables etc.) and decree what these maps must hold and where they must
be available in case of the information being needed
Standards prepared by geonovum are in some cases like IMGeo and IMRO,
enforced by laws on the municipalities and state actors. In the case of
IMGeo: Rijkswaterstaat, provinces, ministry of defense, ministry of
economic affairs, water boards
Urban/regional planning in Holland
o Three leves
 Government
 Provinces
 Municipalities
o The complete collection of regional plans in Holland:
www.ruimtelijkeplannen.nl
 Need for similar system in Finland
Workshop III - Lessons to be learned from work in the Netherlands in
preparation for Finnish national guidelines for city modeling

Validation tool created for geometry validation during the 3D pilot
o citygml validation guidelines are currently being developed
further in Germany
o Dutch 3D validation guidelines exist mainly for checking geometry,
for semantics things no

What kind of guideline should be produced technical vs. process guideline
o Should the guideline guided more by technical side or the process
requirement e.g. requirements in land use planning

IMGeo
o Van den Brick promised to forward the ULM model of IMGeo
structure
o 2D and 3D geometry in one standard
o Less than 10 municipalities that have created the 3D CityGML form
data but in 2D according to IMGeo as 3D isn’t mandatory yet but
places like Rotterdam have done it for themselves
o In Netherlands they don’t tell how municipalities should construct
their databases, just that they should be able to produce IMGeo
from their solution
 “Should we regulate the database or only the data you
should get out of it? (Netherlands does this latter).
Standardizing the databases would be too costly so just
standardize the interface”
 Strategy is to standardize the interfaces
o Model maintenance guidelines: not much some rules about how
current data much be but is quite lenient. For roads it’s about 3
months but a year for most other things
o Transition from vector based 2D SDI to object oriented 3D
database structure is much bigger than from 2D object oriented
database structure
 Municipalities with vector based 2D SDI have had bigger
problems in the transformation
o Tools missing for using ADE
o Guideline for data capture and tendering
 In English
 http://www.geonovum.nl/sites/default/files/3DFinalRepo
rt_2013_2.02_0.pdf







WFS and WMS profile in dutch
3D pilot:
1. Group did data collection
2. Group transformed the source data into standard form data
3. Group focused on what 3D standard to use, made an analysis of all
possibilities and studied the pros and cons and CityGML was their choice
because it was the best at semantics
4. Group tried to find out what 3D information is needed and what added
value does 3D information have through different case studies
(http://www.geonovum.nl/sites/default/files/3d_pilot_artikel_engels_2.p
df)
3D Pilot forced software vendors to co-operate with National 3D
development and CityGML
3D pilot 2. phase main results
o 3D validation tool
o Tendering document
http://www.geonovum.nl/sites/default/files/3DFinalReport_201
3_2.02_0.pdf
o Results were more practical or hands-on that in the first phase
Geonovum is facilitating the 3D development in Netherlands
o Decisions are made by discussing together
o Final word is in the core group (app. 10 people) lead by Jantier
Stoter
Advice to Espoo: “First you must find out what you want and then ask for
it from the software providers”
Pilot went from the bottom up finding out what they want and what are
the tools needed an then the approach turned top to bottom as the
implementation of the findings started
The pilot leadership was quite loose