Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Impact of Building-Induced Visibility Restrictions on Intersection Accidents

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a road visible percentage computed from OpenStreetMap building footprints is a significant positive predictor of intersection accident counts, with a coefficient of 1.7450 in a Poisson model applied to London and…

desk verdict Novel visibility metric from building footprints, but the zero-truncated sample and impossible BIC make the headline coefficient unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2503.05706 v1 pith:DHZETQZO submitted 2025-02-13 cs.CY stat.AP

Hanlin Tian , Yuxiang Feng , Wei Zhou , Anupriya , Mohammed Quddus , Yiannis Demiris , Panagiotis Angeloudis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYstat.AP
keywords roadsafetyintersectionaccidentsvisibilityOpenStreetMapPoissonregressionbuildingfootprintsaccidentpredictionGISanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Road accidents at intersections are common, but building-induced visibility restrictions are rarely quantified in safety models. This paper builds a 'road visible percentage' for each intersection from OpenStreetMap building footprints, measuring the share of the surrounding view not blocked by buildings, and feeds it into a Poisson model of accident counts. In 967 London intersections the visibility coefficient is $1.7450$ and statistically significant, meaning intersections with more open views are associated with more accidents, not fewer. Adding the visibility measure raises the model's pseudo $R^2$ from 0.9046 to 0.9318 and lowers AIC and BIC, and a replication on 243 Manchester intersections shows the same pattern. The authors present this as evidence that architectural layout is a meaningful accident predictor, while leaving the mechanism behind the positive direction open.

What carries the argument

The central object is the road visible percentage, computed by Algorithm 1 (View Percentage Calculation): from each interpolation point on road segments approaching an intersection, the procedure sums the angular intervals covered by building footprints as seen from that point, then sets view percentage $=1-\frac{\text{blocked angle}}{2\pi}$. In a second implementation step the authors cast 80 rays across an 80-degree field of view at one-degree increments, take the nearest ray-building intersection to form the visible polygon, and average over interpolation points. This scalar enters a Poisson GLM with traffic volume, speed limit, and primary/secondary road dummies, so the visibility measure is the new predictor whose incremental fit is tested by comparing models with and without it.

What would settle it

Recompute the analysis at the same London and Manchester intersections using a 3D line-of-sight visibility measure taken from a driver's eye height, and check whether the map-derived view percentage still predicts accidents once the 3D measure is included; if its coefficient drops to zero or changes sign, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central finding is that the 'road visible percentage'—a scalar obtained by projecting surrounding OpenStreetMap building footprints from points near an intersection and measuring what fraction of the view they fail to block—is a statistically significant predictor of intersection accident counts in a Poisson generalized linear model. In the London model the coefficient is $1.7450$, with $p<0.001$; because the model is log-linked, a one-unit increase in visible percentage corresponds to raising the expected accident count by a factor of $e^{1.7450}\approx 5.7$. Adding the visibility term improves fit on every reported metric: pseudo $R^2$ rises from 0.9046 to 0.9318, log-likelihood rises from $-7699.5$ to $-7537.1$, AIC falls from 15406.98 to 15084.18, and BIC from 5035.25 to 4717.32. The sign is positive, which the authors call intriguing and not fully understood; they suggest higher visibility could invite more aggressive driving. The same qualitative pattern appears in Manchester, which the paper takes as evidence of robustness and generalizability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a driver's view at an intersection is captured by the angular width of two-dimensional building footprints on a map; if those outlines do not track what a driver can actually see, the view percentage is noise and the positive coefficient loses its physical meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Road safety performance functions should include a visibility term derived from building footprints; omitting it leaves a statistically significant predictor out of the model.
  • The positive sign undercuts the simple assumption that more open sightlines automatically reduce intersection crashes, and the paper's own explanation is that openness may encourage more aggressive driving.
  • Because the view percentage is built from OpenStreetMap and public accident and traffic datasets, the same pipeline can be applied to other cities without new field data.
  • Urban planners should treat building layout as a risk-relevant design variable, not purely an aesthetic or land-use concern.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the visibility measure is likely entangled with intersection size and centrality; large open junctions carry more traffic and turning movements, so the positive coefficient may partly reflect exposure that the single traffic-flow control does not fully absorb.
  • Inference: recomputing visibility with 3D building heights and driver eye height would produce a much different scalar, and the paper's positive result may or may not survive a physically realistic sight-line model.
  • Inference: a natural causal test is before-after accident counts around building construction or demolition, where the view percentage changes while road geometry stays roughly constant.
  • Inference: if the positive sign survives exposure controls, the policy implication is not to block views but to pair open intersections with speed-management measures; the paper does not test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a GIS-derived 'road visible percentage' for intersections, computed from OpenStreetMap building footprints around each intersection using an angular-ray method, and uses it as a predictor in Poisson generalized linear models for counts of accidents during 2010-2021 at London and Manchester intersections. Model 2 includes visible_percentage and is reported to yield a coefficient of 1.7450 with p<0.001, together with lower AIC and BIC and higher pseudo R-squared than Model 1 without it. The authors conclude that building-induced visibility restrictions are associated with accident frequency and recommend visibility-oriented urban planning. The main evidence is presented in Tables 2-5, with a replication attempt for Manchester in Table 6.

Significance. If the central claim were sound, the paper would offer a cheap, scalable visibility metric and a surprising, policy-relevant finding: that more visible intersections have more accidents. The spatial methodology is clearly described, uses open data, and could be reproduced by others. However, the statistical analysis as presented does not support the claim. The estimation sample is selected on the dependent variable, the Poisson model is severely overdispersed, and the reported AIC/BIC values are internally inconsistent. These issues attack the coefficient estimate itself rather than only its interpretation, so the central result cannot currently be regarded as an empirical finding about visibility and accident counts.

major comments (5)
  1. [Dataset Overview, Table 2] The paper states that preprocessing included 'the elimination of intersections with no recorded accidents' and Table 2 reports accident counts with a range of 2-114. A standard Poisson model assigns positive probability to zero counts, so fitting it to a zero-truncated sample changes the likelihood, the estimand, and the validity of standard errors and information criteria. The reported coefficient for visible_percentage (1.7450) and its p-value are therefore not identifiable as an effect on accident counts at all intersections. The authors should either model the full sample, including zero-count intersections, or use a zero-truncated Poisson/negative binomial model that accounts for the sampling scheme.
  2. [Table 5] The reported AIC and BIC values are arithmetically impossible. For n=967, BIC = AIC + k(ln n - 2), so BIC must be larger than AIC by roughly 5k units, yet Table 5 gives Model 1 AIC = 15406.98 and BIC = 5035.25, a difference of more than 10,000 in the opposite direction. The same problem appears for Model 2. This means the claimed reduction in AIC and BIC when visibility is added cannot be evaluated from the reported numbers, and the statement that Model 2 is preferred by both criteria is unsupported.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4] The model exhibits severe overdispersion that is not addressed. For Model 1, the deviance is 11655 on 963 residual degrees of freedom and Pearson chi-squared is 1.75e+04, implying dispersion ratios around 12-18, far above the Poisson value of 1. The p-values in Table 4, including the p-value for visible_percentage, rely on the Poisson variance assumption and are therefore invalid. A negative binomial, quasi-Poisson, or otherwise overdispersion-robust model is required before any coefficient can be interpreted.
  4. [Dataset Overview and Table 3; Testing on Manchester City, Table 6] The sample size is inconsistent: the Dataset Overview says the London dataset consists of 935 records, while Table 3 reports 967 observations for both models. Additionally, the Manchester replication in Table 6 reports only aggregate fit statistics and gives no coefficient for visible_percentage or any other predictor, although the text claims the findings 'align closely' with those from London. Without reconciled sample definitions and a Manchester coefficient table, the claimed cross-city generalization is not verifiable.
  5. [Methodology, View Percentage Calculation and Algorithm 1] The view percentage is computed by aggregating the angular intervals subtended by building footprints as seen from the intersection (Algorithm 1, lines 4-7), while the surrounding text also describes an 80-ray, 80-degree sector method with interpolation points along road segments, and Algorithm 1 uses total_angle = 2π. The measure ignores building height, distance-dependent obstruction depth, driver eye height, roadside objects, and road geometry. If building footprints do not correspond to what drivers can actually see, the predictor is measurement error and the regression coefficient has no physical interpretation. The authors should reconcile the algorithmic description and validate the measure against a plausible visibility model or field data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The paper describes a 'real-time method for estimating intersection risk,' but no real-time data source, latency analysis, or deployment mechanism is described anywhere in the manuscript.
  2. [Table 4] Table 4 reports coefficients and p-values but no standard errors, which makes it impossible to assess the precision of the estimates or to check them against the reported test statistics.
  3. [Table 2] The traffic variable has a range of 0-5,269,093,361 with a standard deviation of 174,662,408, which is implausible for an annual average daily flow measure and suggests a unit or joining error; this should be clarified because the traffic coefficient is essentially zero but still part of the model.
  4. [Methodology, View Percentage Calculation] The relationship between the stated 80-degree field of view, the 80 rays from -40 to 40 degrees, and the full-circle total_angle in Algorithm 1 is not reconciled; the pseudocode should match the implemented procedure.
  5. [Testing on Manchester City and Table 6] Table 6 provides only model-level fit metrics for Manchester; without coefficient estimates for visible_percentage and the controls, the claimed replication is not supported by the presented evidence.
  6. [References] Reference 1 contains the placeholder text 'accessed on Month DD, YYYY', and several other references lack complete access details or page ranges; the reference list should be checked before resubmission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the visibility predictor is computed from independent OSM building data, and the regression coefficient is estimated rather than defined by the outcome.

full rationale

The central claim rests on a Poisson GLM in which 'road visible percentage' is a predictor computed by Algorithm 1 from OpenStreetMap building footprints and road geometry, with no use of accident counts. The reported coefficient of 1.7450 is an estimated regression parameter, not an identity, so the positive association is an empirical finding rather than a tautology. The AIC/BIC improvement is an in-sample fit comparison, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction; it does not make the predictor equal to the response. The only overlapping-author citation is reference [33] (Noland and Quddus), used as background in the GIS literature review; it is not load-bearing for the visibility metric or the regression. The exclusion of zero-accident intersections and the chosen buffer radius raise statistical-validity concerns, but they do not constitute definitional circularity, and no step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central result depends on a chain of measurement choices that are not independently validated: the view percentage algorithm, the accident buffer, the exclusion of zero-accident intersections, and the traffic assignment. None of these are derived from first principles or benchmarked against ground truth, and the data or code are not released. The free parameters and domain assumptions above are the main things the reader is asked to accept on trust.

free parameters (4)
  • accident buffer radius = 0.0003 degrees (about 33.3 m)
    Chosen after 'several iterations' to balance capturing accidents and avoiding overlaps; determines the response counts and enables the outcome-based exclusion of zero-accident intersections.
  • interpolation distance along road segments = not reported
    The authors tested various interpolation distances and chose one for computational efficiency, but the chosen value is not stated; it directly affects every view percentage.
  • road width conversion = 0.000133 deg/m; 14.8 m road width
    Used to create road buffers for width estimation; based on London latitude and an assumed standard road width, not measured per road.
  • field of view angle = 80 degrees
    Adopted from cited standards (22, 41); not fitted here, but it determines the visibility measure and could change the results if varied.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption OSM building footprints and road network are sufficiently accurate and complete for visibility estimation.
    The view percentage is computed entirely from OSM; the paper does not validate against ground-truth surveys, LiDAR, or site visits.
  • domain assumption Driver visibility is fully captured by the angular width of building footprints, ignoring building heights, distance, driver eye height, vegetation, vehicles, and signage.
    Algorithm 1 sums angles blocked by building outlines; the paper mentions building height in the dataset but does not use it in the view calculation.
  • domain assumption Accidents within a 33.3 m buffer around an intersection are attributable to that intersection.
    The buffer assignment in Data Processing can double-count accidents when buffers overlap, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Intersections with zero recorded accidents during 2010-2021 can be excluded without biasing the model.
    Dataset Overview states these intersections were eliminated; this truncates the response and invalidates Poisson inference for accident risk.
  • domain assumption Poisson distribution is appropriate for the accident counts.
    Deviance/df about 12 and Pearson chi2/df about 18 indicate severe overdispersion, yet no negative binomial or quasi-Poisson correction is applied.
  • domain assumption Traffic volume at the nearest traffic count point approximates the traffic at each intersection.
    Assigned via spatial index to nearest count point; no distance cutoff or validation of representativeness.
  • domain assumption An 80-degree field of view is a reasonable approximation for driver effective vision at intersections.
    Taken from standards (22, 41); the view percentage results would depend on this angle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Building-Induced Visibility Restrictions on Intersection Accidents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DHZETQZO

@misc{pith2026250305706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Building-Induced Visibility Restrictions on Intersection Accidents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DHZETQZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2503.05706}
}
read the original abstract

Traffic accidents, especially at intersections, are a major road safety concern. Previous research has extensively studied intersection-related accidents, but the effect of building-induced visibility restrictions at intersections on accident rates has been under-explored, particularly in urban contexts. Using OpenStreetMap data, the UK's geographic and accident datasets, and the UK Traffic Count Dataset, we formulated a novel approach to estimate accident risk at intersections. This method factors in the area visible to drivers, accounting for views blocked by buildings - a distinctive aspect in traffic accident analysis. Our findings reveal a notable correlation between the road visible percentage and accident frequency. In the model, the coefficient for "road visible percentage" is 1.7450, implying a strong positive relationship. Incorporating this visibility factor enhances the model's explanatory power, with increased R-square values and reduced AIC and BIC, indicating a better data fit. This study underscores the essential role of architectural layouts in road safety and suggests that urban planning strategies should consider building-induced visibility restrictions. Such consideration could be an effective approach to mitigate accident rates at intersections. This research opens up new avenues for innovative, data-driven urban planning and traffic management strategies, highlighting the importance of visibility enhancements for safer roads.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Roadside Units Enhance Intersection Safety? Cooperative Autonomous Driving System Design and A Proof of Concept

    eess.SY 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An RSU-centered digital-twin control loop, pre-trained offline and fine-tuned online, coordinates CAVs at intersections and is shown in simulation plus a campus proof-of-concept.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    https://www.who

    WorldHealthOrganization, Globalstatusreportonroadsafety2020 . https://www.who. int/publications/i/item/9789241565684, 2020, accessed on Month DD, YYYY

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    World Health Organization, Road traffic injuries, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    68, 2014, pp

    Lee,J.,M.Abdel-Aty,andK.Choi,Analysisofresidencecharacteristicsofat-faultdrivers in traffic crashes.Safety science, Vol. 68, 2014, pp. 6–13

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Tomoda, M., H. Uno, S. Hashimoto, S. Yoshiki, and T. Ujihara, Analysis on the impact of trafficsafetymeasuresonchildren’sgazebehaviorandtheirsafetyawarenessatresidential road intersections in Japan.Safety science, Vol. 150, 2022, p. 105706

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Huang, H., H. C. Chin, and M. M. Haque, Severity of driver injury and vehicle damage in traffic crashes at intersections: a Bayesian hierarchical analysis.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2008, pp. 45–54

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Useche,S.,L.Montoro,F.Alonso,andO.Oviedo-Trespalacios,Infrastructuralandhuman factors affecting safety outcomes of cyclists.Sustainability, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2018, p. 299

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Elvik, R., A. Høye, T. Vaa, and M. Sørensen, The handbook of road safety measures. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Svensson, and C

    Laureshyn, A., Å. Svensson, and C. Hydén, Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro- levelbehaviouraldata: Theoreticalframeworkandfirstimplementation. AccidentAnalysis & Prevention, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1637–1646

    work page 2010

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Kumar, S. and D. Toshniwal, A data mining approach to characterize road accident loca- tions.Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol. 24, 2016, pp. 62–72

    2016

  3. [11]

    Francis, A

    Turner, S., T. Francis, A. Roozenburg, and N. L. Transport,Predicting accident rates for cyclists and pedestrians. Land Transport New Zealand Wellington, 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Congress, S. S. C., A. J. Puppala, A. Banerjee, and U. D. Patil, Identifying hazardous obstructions within an intersection using unmanned aerial data analysis.International journal of transportation science and technology, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34–48

    2021

  5. [13]

    S., Analysis of traffic accidents at urban intersections in Riyadh.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol

    Al-Ghamdi, A. S., Analysis of traffic accidents at urban intersections in Riyadh.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 35, No. 5, 2003, pp. 717–724

    2003

  6. [14]

    Monsere, R

    Dixon, K., C. Monsere, R. Avelar, J. Barnett, P. Escobar, S. Kothuri, Y. Wang, et al.,Im- proved safety performance functions for signalized intersections. Oregon. Dept. of Trans- portation. Research Section, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Forciniti, and G

    Eboli, L., C. Forciniti, and G. Mazzulla, Factors influencing accident severity: an analysis by road accident type.Transportation research procedia, Vol. 47, 2020, pp. 449–456

    2020

  8. [16]

    Washington, and K

    Oh, J., S. Washington, and K. Choi, Development of accident prediction models for rural highwayintersections. TransportationResearchRecord,Vol.1897,No.1,2004,pp.18–27

    2004

  9. [17]

    103, 2017, pp

    Mussone,L.,M.Bassani,andP.Masci,Analysisoffactorsaffectingtheseverityofcrashes in urban road intersections.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 103, 2017, pp. 112–122

    2017

  10. [18]

    Gong, H., F. Wang, B. B. Zhou, and S. Dent, Application of random effects negative binomial model with clustered dataset for vehicle crash frequency analysis.International journal of transportation science and technology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2020, pp. 183–194

    2020

  11. [19]

    Cao, and D

    Chen, H., L. Cao, and D. B. Logan, Analysis of risk factors affecting the severity of intersection crashes by logistic regression.Traffic injury prevention, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2012, pp. 300–307. Tian, Feng, Zhou, Anupriya, Quddus, Demiris, and Angeloudis 20

    2012

  12. [20]

    Park, M., D. Lee, J. Jeon, et al., Random parameter negative binomial model of signalized intersections.Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2016, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    AccidentAnalysis&Prevention ,Vol.36,No.5, 2004, pp

    Lam,L.T.,Environmentalfactorsassociatedwithcrash-relatedmortalityandinjuryamong taxidriversinNewSouthWales,Australia. AccidentAnalysis&Prevention ,Vol.36,No.5, 2004, pp. 905–908

    2004

  14. [22]

    Todd, J. J., Y. C. Bui, A. Tavassoli, and D. A. Krauss, Quantitative method for estimating driver eye height. InProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2017, Vol. 61, pp. 1443–1446

    2017

  15. [23]

    Bauer, K., D. W. Harwood, et al., Statistical models of at-grade intersection accidents. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration, 1996

    1996

  16. [24]

    Ferrari, and M

    Mussone, L., A. Ferrari, and M. Oneta, An analysis of urban collisions using an artificial intelligence model.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 31, No. 6, 1999, pp. 705–718

    1999

  17. [25]

    Ma, L., X. Yan, W. Qiao, et al., A quasi-Poisson approach on modeling accident hazard index for urban road segments.Discrete dynamics in nature and society, Vol. 2014, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Hu, L., X. Wu, J. Huang, Y. Peng, and W. Liu, Investigation of clusters and injuries in pedestrian crashes using GIS in Changsha, China.Safety science, Vol. 127, 2020, p. 104710

    2020

  19. [27]

    Chen, Z. and W. D. Fan, A multinomial logit model of pedestrian-vehicle crash severity in North Carolina.International journal of transportation science and technology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2019, pp. 43–52

    2019

  20. [28]

    V., The influence of the infrastructure characteristics in urban road accidents occurrence

    Gomes, S. V., The influence of the infrastructure characteristics in urban road accidents occurrence. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 60, 2013, pp. 289–297

    2013

  21. [29]

    Dale, M. R. and M.-J. Fortin, Spatial autocorrelation and statistical tests in ecology.Eco- science, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2002, pp. 162–167

    2002

  22. [30]

    42, 2021, p

    Al-Aamri,A.K.,G.Hornby,L.-C.Zhang,A.A.Al-Maniri,andS.S.Padmadas,Mapping road traffic crash hotspots using GIS-based methods: A case study of Muscat Governorate in the Sultanate of Oman.Spatial Statistics, Vol. 42, 2021, p. 100458

    2021

  23. [31]

    Cheng,Z.,Z.Zu,andJ.Lu,Trafficcrashevolutioncharacteristicanalysisandspatiotempo- ral hotspot identification of urban road intersections.Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2018, p. 160

    2018

  24. [32]

    P., Validating crash locations for quantitative spatial analysis: a GIS-based ap- proach.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol

    Loo, B. P., Validating crash locations for quantitative spatial analysis: a GIS-based ap- proach.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2006, pp. 879–886

    2006

  25. [33]

    Noland, R. B. and M. A. Quddus, A spatially disaggregate analysis of road casualties in England.Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2004, pp. 973–984

    2004

  26. [34]

    Haklay, M. and P. Weber, Openstreetmap: User-generated street maps. IEEE Pervasive computing, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2008, pp. 12–18

    2008

  27. [35]

    https://data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/ road-safety-data, 2022

    Department for Transport, Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain . https://data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/ road-safety-data, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    https://data.gov.uk/dataset/ 2089b8f1-0a14-48f7-889c-6b06a14d7fe1/road-traffic-statistics, 2022

    Department for Transport, Road Traffic Statistics. https://data.gov.uk/dataset/ 2089b8f1-0a14-48f7-889c-6b06a14d7fe1/road-traffic-statistics, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol

    Witt,R.,L.Loos,andA.Zipf,AnalysingtheimpactoflargedataimportsinOpenStreetMap. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 10, No. 8, 2021, p. 528. Tian, Feng, Zhou, Anupriya, Quddus, Demiris, and Angeloudis 21

    2021

  30. [38]

    Panek, J. and L. Sobotova, Community mapping in urban informal settlements: Examples fromNairobi,Kenya. Theelectronicjournalofinformationsystemsindevelopingcountries , Vol. 68, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1–13

    2015

  31. [39]

    237, 2023, p

    Biljecki,F.,Y.S.Chow,andK.Lee,Qualityofcrowdsourcedgeospatialbuildinginforma- tion: A global assessment of OpenStreetMap attributes.Building and Environment, Vol. 237, 2023, p. 110295

    2023

  32. [40]

    TransportationResearch Procedia, Vol

    Glushkov,A.,V.Shepelev,A.Vorobyev,V.Mavrin,A.Marusin,andS.Evtykov,Analysisof theintersectionthroughputatchangesinthetrafficflowstructure. TransportationResearch Procedia, Vol. 57, 2021, pp. 192–199

    2021

  33. [41]

    Manary, M. A., C. A. Flannagan, M. P. Reed, and L. W. Schneider, Development of an improved driver eye position model.SAE transactions, 1998, pp. 43–50

    1998

  34. [42]

    Tibshirani, J

    Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, J. H. Friedman, and J. H. Friedman,The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, Vol. 2. Springer, 2009

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.