Urban environments are regions in which spectral variability and spatial variability are extremely high, with a huge range of shapes and sizes, and they also demand high resolution images for applications involving their study. Due to the fact that these environments can grow even more over time, applications related to their monitoring tend to turn to autonomous intelligent systems, which together with remote sensing data could help or even predict daily life situations. The task of mapping cities by autonomous operators was usually carried out by aerial optical images due to its scale and resolution; however new scientific questions have arisen, and this has led research into a new era of highly-detailed data extraction. For many years, using artificial neural models to solve complex problems such as automatic image classification was commonplace, owing much of their popularity to their ability to adapt to complex situations without needing human intervention. In spite of that, their popularity declined in the mid-2000s, mostly due to the complex and time-consuming nature of their methods and workflows. However, newer neural network architectures have brought back the interest in their application for autonomous classifiers, especially for image classification purposes. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have been a trend for pixel-wise image segmentation, showing flexibility when detecting and classifying any kind of object, even in situations where humans failed to perceive differences, such as in city scenarios. In this paper, we aim to explore and experiment with state-of-the-art technologies to semantically label 3D urban models over complex scenarios. To achieve these goals, we split the problem into two main processing lines: first, how to correctly label the façade features in the 2D domain, where a supervised CNN is used to segment ground-based façade images into six feature classes, roof, window, wall, door, balcony and shop; second, a Structure-from-Motion (SfM) and Multi-View-Stereo (MVS) workflow is used to extract the geometry of the façade, wherein the segmented images in the previous stage are then used to label the generated mesh by a “reverse” ray-tracing technique. This paper demonstrates that the proposed methodology is robust in complex scenarios. The façade feature inferences have reached up to 93% accuracy over most of the datasets used. Although it still presents some deficiencies in unknown architectural styles and needs some improvements to be made regarding 3D-labeling, we present a consistent and simple methodology to handle the problem.

The paper presents an efficient methodology of water body extent estimation based on remotely sensed data collected with UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). The methodology includes the data collection with selected sensors and processing of remotely sensed data to obtain accurate geospatial products that are finally used to estimate water body extent. Three sensors were investigated: RGB (Red Green Blue) camera, thermal infrared camera, and laser scanner. The platform used to carry each of these sensors was an Aibot X6—a multirotor type of UAV. Test data was collected at 6 sites containing different types of water bodies, including 4 river sections, an old river bed, and a part of a lake shore. The processing of collected data resulted in 2.5-D and 2-D geospatial products that were used subsequently for water body extent estimation. Depending on the type of used sensor, the created geospatial product, and the type of the water body and the land cover, three strategies employing image processing tools were developed to estimate water body range. The obtained results were assessed in terms of classification accuracy (distinguishing the water body from the land) and geometrical planar accuracy of the water body extent. The product identified as the most suitable in water body detection was four bands RGB+TIR (Thermal InfraRed) ortho mosaic. It allowed to achieve the average kappa coefficient of the water body identification above 0.9. The planar accuracy of water body extent varied depending on the type of the sensor, the geospatial product, and the test site conditions, but it was comparable with results obtained in similar studies.