Article

Effective Automated Procedures for Hydrographic Data Review

Giuseppe Masetti 1,2, * , Tyanne Faulkes 3 , Matthew Wilson 4 and Julia Wallace 4

1 Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping, NOAA-UNH Joint Hydrographic Center,
University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
2 Danish Geodata Agency, Danish Hydrographic Office, 9400 Nørresundby, Denmark
3 NOAA National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey, Hydrographic Survey Division,
Pacific Hydrographic Branch, Seattle, WA 98115, USA
4 NOAA National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey, Hydrographic Survey Division,
Atlantic Hydrographic Branch, Norfolk, VA 23510, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Reviewing hydrographic data for nautical charting is still a predominately manual pro-
cess, performed by experienced analysts and based on directives developed over the years by the
hydrographic office of interest. With the primary intent to increase the effectiveness of the review
process, a set of automated procedures has been developed over the past few years, translating a
significant portion of the NOAA Office of Coast Survey’s specifications for hydrographic data review
into code (i.e., the HydrOffice applications called QC Tools and CA Tools). When applied to a large
number of hydrographic surveys, it has been confirmed that such procedures improve both the
quality and timeliness of the review process. Increased confidence in the reviewed data, especially
by personnel in training, has also been observed. As such, the combined effect of applying these
procedures is a novel holistic approach to hydrographic data review. Given the similarities of review
procedures among hydrographic offices, the described approach has generated interest in the ocean
mapping community.

Keywords: hydrographic survey; automated procedures; data review; nautical charts

Citation: Masetti, G.; Faulkes, T.;
Wilson, M.; Wallace, J. Effective
Automated Procedures for
Hydrographic Data Review.
1. Introduction
Geomatics 2022, 2, 338–354. https://
doi.org/10.3390/geomatics2030019 The review of hydrographic data for nautical charting is still a predominately manual
process, consisting of tedious and monotonous tasks [1,2]. These tasks typically arise from
Academic Editor: Naser El-Sheimy
the application of directives developed over the years—and in continuous evolution—by
Received: 2 June 2022 the hydrographic office in charge of nautical charting products for specific regions. The
Accepted: 22 August 2022 practical interpretation of such directives requires the intervention of experienced analysts
Published: 25 August 2022 applying monotonous data evaluations, which is, by nature, conducive to inconsistencies
and human error [3–5].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
However, a portion of these directives can be—or have the potential to become—
published maps and institutional affil-
interpreted algorithmically by providing a quantitative translation (e.g., matching thresh-
iations. olds) of what was the original intention of a given rule [6]. Quite often, the algorithmic
translation represents an occasion to clarify and improve the text of the initial directives. By
focusing on the automation of the most monotonous actions performed, the review process
can become significantly faster and more effective, with more efforts dedicated to handling
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. special cases and less common situations. These changes also have the benefit of increasing
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. reproducibility due to the reduction in human subjectivity.
This article is an open access article Bathymetric grids are commonly affected by both fliers—anomalous depth values
distributed under the terms and resulting from spurious soundings—and holidays—empty grid cells due to insufficient
conditions of the Creative Commons bathymetric information [7–9]. In particular, the detection of fliers of different types (e.g.,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// isolated versus clustered) and the effective distinguishing of them from real bathymetric
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Geomatics 2022, 2, 338–354. https://doi.org/10.3390/geomatics2030019 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/geomatics

Geomatics 2022, 2 339

features is a quite challenging task [10–12]. Survey specifications often require that bathy-
metric grids be free of fliers and large holidays, fulfill statistical metrics, and meet format
and metadata requirements.
With the primary intent to reduce the time between the data collection (i.e., sonar
pinging) and the publication of the derived products (the ping-to-public interval), this work
describes a set of automated procedures derived over the past few years, translating a
significant portion of the NOAA Office of Coast Survey’s Hydrographic Survey Specifi-
cations and Deliverables (HSSD) [13] (which are based on the guidelines published by
the International Hydrographic Organization) into code. The mentioned code is made
accessible through two free and open applications, called QC Tools and CA Tools, respec-
tively [6,14,15].
This work starts by describing the rationale and the design principles of the procedures
for quality control of bathymetric grids, validation of significant features, and evaluation
of the survey against the nautical chart to assess chart adequacy. Then, the software
implementation of these procedures is described, and several meaningful results of their
application are highlighted. Finally, conclusions are presented, along with ideas for future
work to improve the user interaction with the algorithms.

2. Rationale and Design Principles

A ping-to-public workflow for hydrographic survey data consists of several steps, each
of them requiring some level of human intervention. A new paradigm has been adopted
which allows the analyst to focus on parts of the data that require remediation, rather
than spreading the effort across the entire dataset equally. Specifically, the tools for quality
control of survey products have been incrementally developed in the past decade [16],
while the tools to assess chart adequacy are based on the seminal work described in [15].
The automated procedures have been developed through stand-alone tools that are
agnostic of the software solution adopted in processing the survey data. This approach was
chosen to achieve the significant advantage of having the tools act like independent agents,
inspecting survey products, evaluating their quality, and thus, increasing the confidence
in the original survey submission. The algorithms have been focused on two typical final
products of a hydrographic survey—bathymetric grids and feature files—and identify
issues common to these data products based on survey specifications. A key requirement
for success has been that the resulting tools are easily customizable to meet new and
modified agency-specific requirements.
To ease their adoptability, the tools access the survey data through two open formats
popular in the ocean mapping field: the International Hydrographic Organization’s S-57
format [17] for vector features, and the Open Navigation Surface’s Bathymetry Attributed
Grid (BAG) format [18] for gridded bathymetry. To avoid preliminary format transforma-
tion steps, closed formats have also been added for manufacturers providing an access
library. A concrete example is represented by the CARIS Spatial Archive™ (CSAR) format,
accessed using the CARIS’ CSAR SDK version 2.3.0 [19]. Furthermore, the support of
the NOAA Bathygrid format, recently developed as part of NOAA’s Kluster project (a
distributed multibeam processing system) [20], is currently in the advanced experimental
phase. The addition of other formats is facilitated by other leading companies providing
libraries to ease the access to their proprietary data formats.
The code has been organized as Python packages [21]. To encourage community
involvement and code contributions, the Python language was selected due to its popularity
in the geospatial field. The packages have also been designed to be highly modularized.

2.1. Grid Quality Control

The fliers are often associated with suboptimal data filtering and cleaning, both
automatic and manual, of high-density hydrographic surveys such as the ones acquired
with multibeam echosounders [1,5,22,23]. A hydrographic data reviewer may identify the
presence of such fliers using traditional methods, such as inspection using 2D/3D viewers
 2.1. Grid Quality Control
The fliers are often associated with suboptimal data filtering and cleaning, both au-
Geomatics 2022, 2 tomatic and manual, of high-density hydrographic surveys such as the ones acquired with 340

multibeam echosounders [1,5,22,23]. A hydrographic data reviewer may identify the pres-
ence of such fliers using traditional methods, such as inspection using 2D/3D viewers or
or evaluation
evaluation of specific
of specific gridgrid metrics,
metrics, and/orand/or shoal-biased
shoal-biased sounding
sounding selection
selection [24,25].[24,25].
How-
However,
ever, thesethese methods
methods are inherently
are inherently error-prone
error-prone and and
quitequite subjective,
subjective, withwith the result
the result that
that several
several fliersfliers
can be can be easily
easily missedmissed
duringduring the hydrographic
the hydrographic data reviewdata [14].
review [14]. it
As such, Asis
such, it is not surprising
not surprising that inthe
that in 2015, 2015, the NOAA
NOAA Hydrographic
Hydrographic Surveys Surveys Division
Division reported
reported that
that nearly
nearly 25%25% of surveys
of the the surveys received
received werewere affected
affected by fliers
by fliers [26].[26].
EvenEven adopting
adopting moremore
than
than
one of the methods mentioned, it is challenging to identify all the fliers that may bemay
one of the methods mentioned, it is challenging to identify all the fliers that be
present
present
on a grid onwith
a grid withmillions
several several millions of cells
of cells [16]. [16]. the
Scanning Scanning
grid withthe automated
grid with automated
algorithms
algorithms that flag anomalies
that flag potential potential anomalies not only supports
not only supports the job ofthethe
jobreviewer,
of the reviewer,
but also but also
builds
builds confidence
confidence in the in the performed
performed manual manual evaluation.
evaluation. This isThis is especially
especially true intrue
areasin with
areasrough
with
rough seafloor
seafloor morphology,
morphology, wherewhere
smallsmall
fliers fliers
can be can be easily
easily confused
confused with with natural
natural features
features (Fig-
(Figure 1)
ure 1) [27]. [27].

Figure1.1. Depth
Figure Depth fliers
fliers(pointed
(pointedout
outby
bythe
theorange
orangearrows)
arrows)of ofaafew
fewmeters
metersin
inaabathymetric
bathymetricgrid
gridwith
with
an average
an average depth
depth ofof 50
50m.
m.Though
Thoughnono
algorithm cancan
algorithm distinguish them
distinguish from
them the natural
from seafloor
the natural with
seafloor
100% accuracy, human reviewers are aided greatly by automated scanning to flag suspect
with 100% accuracy, human reviewers are aided greatly by automated scanning to flag suspect areas. areas.
Image obtained using CARIS HIPS and SIPS software.
Image obtained using CARIS HIPS and SIPS software.

AA manual
manual gridgrid inspection
inspection forfor identification
identification of of all
all the
the holidays
holidays is is aa comparable
comparable chal-chal-
lenge [26]. However, while there are different types of fliers (e.g., isolated
lenge [26]. However, while there are different types of fliers (e.g., isolated vs. clustered), vs. clustered),
thedefinition
the definitionof ofwhat
whatisisconsidered
consideredaasignificant
significantholiday
holiday isis quite
quite objective
objective andand isis usually
usually
outlined in the survey requirements [13]. There is great advantage
outlined in the survey requirements [13]. There is great advantage in developing a robust in developing a robust
algorithmictranslation
algorithmic translationto toautomatically
automaticallyscan scanfor
forpotential
potentialholidays.
holidays.
Severalhydrographic
Several hydrographicspecifications—for
specifications—forinstance,
instance,thethe NOAA
NOAA Hydrographic
Hydrographic Survey Survey
Specifications and
Specifications and Deliverables
Deliverables (HSSD)
(HSSD) [13]—allow
[13]—allow for for the
the manual
manual selection
selection ofof specific
specific
soundings(designated
soundings (designatedsoundings)
soundings)being
beingjudged
judged asas particularly
particularly significant
significant and and thus,
thus, requir-
requiring
ing their depth value to be enforced in the grid. When
their depth value to be enforced in the grid. When designated soundings are indesignated soundings are in use,
use,
their automated
their automated reviewreview isis beneficial
beneficial to to evaluate
evaluate their
their alignment
alignment with with thethespecifications
specifications
(for instance,
(for instance, to identify
identify thethemisuse
misuseofofdesignated
designatedsoundings).
soundings). The The alternative
alternativeto such
to suchau-
automated
tomated review review is is tedious,
tedious, manual
manual work
work based
based onon vertical
vertical oror horizontal
horizontal measurements
measurements in
in the
the surroundings
surroundings ofof each
each designated
designated sounding.
sounding.
ItItis
is also
also quite
quite common
common that that the
the survey
survey specifications
specificationshavehave requirements
requirementsfor forthe
thegrid’s
grid’s
specific statistical metrics (e.g., uncertainty, density of soundings) [28].
specific statistical metrics (e.g., uncertainty, density of soundings) [28]. Although software Although software
providers
providers usually
usually support
support calculation
calculation of of statistical
statistical grid
grid layers,
layers, itit is
is not
not common
common for for the
the
validation
validation against
against hydrographic
hydrographic specifications
specifications to to be
beincluded.
included. The The translation
translation of of such
such
rules into an automated procedure—returning a pass or fail indication and/or providing
a visual representation of the rules—has the positive effects of simplifying the job of the
reviewer, enforcing consistent interpretation across all the datasets, and making any future
customization much easier.
Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 4

rules into an automated procedure—returning a pass or fail indication and/or providing a

Geomatics 2022, 2 visual representation of the rules—has the positive effects of simplifying the job of the 341
reviewer, enforcing consistent interpretation across all the datasets, and making any fu-
ture customization much easier.
Ensuring that
Ensuring that the
the created
created products
products fulfill
fulfill format
format specifications
specifications (e.g.,
(e.g., the
the BAG
BAG Format
Format
Specification Document [18]) is also of great value. Such a fulfillment eases
Specification Document [18]) is also of great value. Such a fulfillment eases the data the data in-
teroperability, ensuring that internal and public users of a survey bathymetric
interoperability, ensuring that internal and public users of a survey bathymetric grid can grid can
properly access
properly access and
and interpret
interpret the
the collected
collected survey
survey data.
data.

2.2. Significant Features Validation

The outcome of a hydrographic survey is not usually limited to a bathymetric point
cloud andand the thebathymetric
bathymetricgridgridderived
derived from
from it. it.
TheThe
surveyor is quite
surveyor oftenoften
is quite called to inte-
called to
grate the collected
integrate the collectedbathymetry
bathymetry withwith
a set aofset
significant features.
of significant TheseThese
features. features may carry
features may
carry a variety
a variety of information
of information that interest
that may may interest the seafarers,
the seafarers, such such as dangers,
as dangers, or auxiliary
or auxiliary aids
aids to navigation.
to navigation. Although
Although several several manufacturer-specific
manufacturer-specific methodsmethods for feature
for feature valida-
validation ex-
tion exist, it is beneficial for a hydrographic office to be able to not only
ist, it is beneficial for a hydrographic office to be able to not only enforce specific feature enforce specific
feature
validation validation
tests, buttests, butrun
also to also
themto run them independently
independently of the
of the specific specific software
processing processingin
software
use. in use.
In approach and harbor areas, the number of significant features can be large and the
review of the associated metadata time consuming, error-prone, and particularly tedious
(Figure
(Figure 2).2). In
In addition,
addition, the
the task
task at
at hand
hand is made even
is made even more
more challenging
challenging by by the
the necessity
necessity of
of
adhering to all the rules required to ensure proper cartographic attribution.
adhering to all the rules required to ensure proper cartographic attribution. However, However, most
of theof
most mentioned
the mentioned requirements do notdorequire
requirements judgement
not require by a skilled
judgement analyst
by a skilled and thus,
analyst and
are
thus, are easy to automate. Furthermore, redundant features and attributes canbealso
easy to automate. Furthermore, redundant features and attributes can also easily
be
identified and reported
easily identified to the hydrographic
and reported data reviewer.
to the hydrographic data reviewer.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. In
In nautical
nautical chart
chart updates,
updates, the
the sheer
sheer number
number of
of features
features (represented
(represented by
by light
light blue
blue circles,
circles,
with the feature least depth sounding displayed inside) in nearshore areas is a task poorly befitting
with the feature least depth sounding displayed inside) in nearshore areas is a task poorly befitting
a manual review and is greatly aided by automation. Shown here is an Electronic Navigational
a manual review and is greatly aided by automation. Shown here is an Electronic Navigational
Chart (ENC) US5NYCFJ, depicting part of the Western Long Island Sound, New York, NY, USA,
Chart (ENC) US5NYCFJ,
with prospective depicting
chart features part of
overlain thegridded
atop Westernmultibeam
Long Island Sound, New
bathymetry York,
(both fromNY, USA,
NOAA
with prospective chart features overlain atop gridded multibeam bathymetry (both from
hydrographic survey H13384), which is colored by depth. All soundings are in meters; when shown,NOAA
hydrographic
the sub-index survey H13384),
represents which is colored by depth. All soundings are in meters; when shown,
decimeters.
the sub-index represents decimeters.

Finally, significant features with an associated depth can be evaluated against the
bathymetric grid to ensure that the grid and the feature attributes are consistent [13].
This latter task may appear simple, but the required amount of time quickly increases in
nearshore areas saturated with features [17].
Geomatics 2022, 2 342

2.3. Survey Soundings and Chart Adequacy

High-density hydrographic surveys commonly consist of millions of survey sound-
ings [1,7]. A bathymetric grid may be seen as a spatial filter for those hydrographic datasets
to reduce the number of soundings based on reliable criteria. To preserve the safety of
navigation, a common requirement is to assign the shoalest depth value among all the
soundings within each grid cell [29]. However, gridding is just one of the possible methods
used to identify a meaningful subset of the survey dataset to be used for cartographic
processes [30–32].
During the hydrographic data review, it is often necessary to compare two different
sets of depth values, e.g., a sounding selection. A common requirement is to compare a
dense selection from the hydrographic survey under review with a sparser set of soundings
and depth-attributed features derived from the chart. From such a comparison, shoals
and dangers to navigation can be easily identified [15]. A similar procedure can be used
to validate a set of newly proposed charted soundings against the original dense survey
dataset. In both cases, the denser of the two sets may normally consist of tens of thousands
of soundings, thus the manual execution of a similar task by the reviewer may end with
several inconsistencies, some of them potentially associated with high safety-of-navigation
risks [15]. As such, the development of automated procedures targeting the comparison of
sets of depths has been critical for supporting the review process and specifically, to ensure
that no critical shoal depths were missed.

3. Implementation and Results

In the past few years, the automated procedures outlined in the previous section
have been implemented in two software applications, called QC Tools and CA Tools,
developed in the HydrOffice framework [15,16]. HydrOffice (www.hydroffice.org, accessed
on 8 August 2022) is an open-source collaborative project to develop a research software
environment containing applications to strengthen all phases of the ping-to-public process
in order to facilitate data acquisition, automate and enhance data processing, and improve
hydrographic products [6].
QC Tools and CA Tools are currently implementing the survey specifications (i.e., the
NOAA HSSD [13]) and other internal best practices of the NOAA Office of Coast Survey.
Both tools are publicly available in Pydro—a free and open Python distribution—and
as stand-alone applications (downloadable from the HydrOffice website: https://www.
hydroffice.org/qctools/main, accessed on 8 August 2022; and https://www.hydroffice.
org/catools/main, accessed on 8 August 2022) [33]. The stand-alone applications are
currently distributed only for Microsoft Windows, although the underlying source code is
cross-platform (e.g., Linux).
The algorithmic interpretation of the Office of Coast Survey’s directives in both tools
is regularly updated to reflect relevant changes introduced by the agency. The tools are also
useful to train new personnel by helping them identify grid inconsistencies and feature
issues, as well as in the interpretation of the survey specifications.
The code base of both software tools is similarly organized, consisting of a library,
where the algorithms are implemented, and mechanisms to access such a library:
• Several scripts that can be used as a foundation to create new, custom algorithms.
• A command line interface useful to integrate some of the algorithms in the
processing pipeline.
• An application with a graphical user interface (the app).
Both apps have a similar design to ease the user experience: they are arranged with a
few main tabs and several sub-tabs. Specifically, the QC Tools app is organized into three
main tabs. The first two are the Survey Validation tab and the Chart Review tab; these provide
access to the QC tools themselves. The CA Tools app is organized into two main tabs, with
the first one being the Chart Adequacy tab, providing access to the chart adequacy tools.
Finally, for both apps, the last tab (the Info tab) includes support material, such as access to
offline/online documentation and license information.
Geomatics 2022, 2 343

3.1. QC Tools
QC Tools provides automated procedures to:
• Detect candidate fliers and significant holidays in gridded bathymetry.
• Ensure that gridded bathymetry fulfills statistical requirements (e.g., sounding density
and uncertainty).
• Check the validity of BAG files containing gridded bathymetry.
• Scan selected designated soundings to ensure their significance.
• Validate the attributes of significant features.
• Ensure consistency between grids and significant features.
• Extract seabed area characteristics for public distribution.
• Analyze the folder structure of a survey dataset for proper archival.

3.1.1. Grid Quality Controls

The Detect Fliers tool, also known as Flier Finder, aims to identify potential fliers in
dense bathymetric grids. As previously mentioned, fliers can come in different types.
As such, seven distinct algorithms have been developed over the past several years (see
Table 1). Some of the algorithms require a search height as a parameter. When required by
the algorithm, the search height may be used to tune the sensitivity to potential anomalies.
For instance, the optimal search height on a relatively flat seafloor and shallow waters is
usually smaller than for a dynamic area covered by a deep-water survey. Although the
search height may be manually defined by the reviewer, the suggested solution is to have it
automatically derived by an internal algorithm implementing a heuristic approach function
of the median depth, depth variability, and grid roughness. The automated estimation of
the search height helps standardize the hydrographic data review.

Table 1. Algorithms currently in use by the Detect Fliers tool.

Detect Fliers’ Algorithm Search Height Required

Laplacian Operator Yes
Gaussian Curvature No
Adjacent Cells Yes
Edge Slivers Yes
Isolated Nodes No
Noisy Edges No
Noisy Margins No

The Laplacian Operator (Figure 3), the Gaussian Curvature (Figure 4), and the Adjacent
Cells algorithms aim to detect shoal or deep spikes throughout the entirety of the bathy-
metric grid, whereas the Edge Slivers algorithm identifies potential fliers—mainly due to
sparse data—on grid edges. The Isolated Node algorithm detects the presence of soundings
detached from the main bathymetric grid that are often difficult to identify manually. Both
the Noisy Edges (Figure 5) and Noisy Margins algorithms are tailored to identify fliers along
noisy swath edges using the International Hydrographic Organization’s S-440 s Total Vertical
Uncertainty (in place of the mentioned search height) [34]. The development of these latter
algorithms was triggered by the fact that depth values associated with isolated nodes or on
the grid edges are often unreliable when derived from the outmost beams of a bathymetric
swath [35,36].
The Detect Holidays tool, also known as Holiday Finder, performs a grid search for
holidays. The algorithm first identifies all the grid holidays, regardless of their size; then
those holidays are tested against the survey specifications. Following the NOAA HSSD, the
tool assess holidays based on the required survey coverage: either Full Coverage (Figure 6)
or Object Detection (the latter having more restrictive criteria) [13]. The algorithm has
been coded to calculate the holiday size (in number of nodes) based on the minimum
Geomatics 2022, 2 344
Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 7

Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 7

allowable resolution and the grid resolution, but it is flexible for adjustments to different
nodes or on the grid edges are often unreliable when derived from the outmost beams of
holiday descriptions.
Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEWa bathymetric swath [35,36]. 7
nodes or on the grid edges are often unreliable when derived from the outmost beams of
a bathymetric swath [35,36].
nodes or on the grid edges are often unreliable when derived from the outmost beams of
a bathymetric swath [35,36].

Figure 3. Example of potential fliers detected by the Laplacian Operator algorithm (marked with an
Figure 3. Example of potential fliers detected by the Laplacian Operator algorithm (marked with an
orange 1). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; when shown, the
orange
sub-index1).represents
The black valuesThe
decimeters. arealgorithm
depth values in meters
calculates fromoperator
the Laplacian the evaluated grid;
as a measure of when shown, the
Figure 3. Example of potential fliers detected by the Laplacian Operator algorithm (marked with an
curvature byrepresents
sub-index summing thedecimeters.
depth gradients of the
The adjacent nodes.
algorithm A cell is the
calculates flagged as a potential
Laplacian flier as a measure of
operator
orange 1). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; when shown, the
when the resulting absolute value is greater than the search height.
sub-index
curvature
Figure represents
by summing
3. Example decimeters.
of potential The
thefliers
depth algorithm
gradients
detected calculates
by the of thethe
Laplacian Laplacian
adjacent
Operator operator
nodes.
algorithm as a is
A(marked
cell measure anof as a potential flier
flagged
with
curvature
orange 1). by
Thesumming
black the depth
values are gradients
depth valuesofin
themeters
adjacent
fromnodes.
the A cell is flagged
evaluated grid; as a potential
when shown, flier
the
when the resulting absolute value is greater than the search height.
when the resulting
sub-index absolute
represents valueThe
decimeters. is greater thancalculates
algorithm the searchthe
height.
Laplacian operator as a measure of
curvature by summing the depth gradients of the adjacent nodes. A cell is flagged as a potential flier
when the resulting absolute value is greater than the search height.

Figure 4. Example of a potential flier detected by the Gaussian Curvature algorithm (marked with an
orange 2). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; when shown, the
sub-index represents decimeters. The algorithm bases the detection of potential fliers on the Gauss-
Figure 4. Example of a potential flier detected by the Gaussian Curvature algorithm (marked with an
Figure 4. Example
ian curvature of a of
as a measure potential each node.by the Gaussian Curvature algorithm (marked with an
flieratdetected
the concavity
orange 2). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; when shown, the
orange
sub-index
Figure 2). The
4. Example black
represents values
of adecimeters. are depth
Thedetected
potential flier algorithmbyvalues
bases
the theindetection
Gaussianmeters offrom
Curvature the fliers
potential
algorithm evaluated
on the
(marked grid;
an when shown, the
Gauss-
with
ian curvature
orange 2). Theas a measure
black values of
arethe concavity
depth values at each
in node.
meters from the evaluated grid; when shown,
sub-index represents decimeters. The algorithm bases the detection of potential fliers on the Gaussian the
sub-index represents decimeters. The algorithm bases the detection of potential fliers on the Gauss-
curvature
ian curvatureasasaameasure
measure ofofthethe concavity
concavity at eachatnode.
each node.

Figure 5. Example of a potential flier detected by the Noisy Edges algorithm (marked with an orange
6). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; the sub-index represents
Figure 5. Example of a potential flier detected by the Noisy Edges algorithm (marked with an orange
6). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; the sub-index represents
Figure 5. Example of a potential flier detected by the Noisy Edges algorithm (marked with an orange
Figure 5. Example of a potential flier detected by the Noisy Edges algorithm (marked with an orange
6). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; the sub-index represents
6). The black values are depth values in meters from the evaluated grid; the sub-index represents
decimeters. The algorithm crawls across empty cells to establish the edge nodes. Once an edge
node is identified, the least depth and the maximum difference from its neighbors are calculated.
The least depth is used to calculate to local Total Vertical Uncertainty, which is used for the flagging
threshold [34].
 idays. The algorithm first identifies all the grid holidays, regardless of their size; then
those holidays are tested against the survey specifications. Following the NOAA HSSD,
those holidays are tested against the survey specifications. Following the NOAA HSSD,
the tool assess holidays based on the required survey coverage: either Full Coverage (Fig-
the tool assess holidays based on the required survey coverage: either Full Coverage (Fig-
ure 6) or Object Detection (the latter having more restrictive criteria) [13]. The algorithm
ure 6) or Object Detection (the latter having more restrictive criteria) [13]. The algorithm
has been coded to calculate the holiday size (in number of nodes) based on the minimum
has been coded to calculate the holiday size (in number of nodes) based on the minimum
Geomatics 2022, 2 allowable resolution and the grid resolution, but it is flexible for adjustments to different
345
allowable resolution and the grid resolution, but it is flexible for adjustments to different
holiday descriptions.
holiday descriptions.

Figure 6. Outcomes from the Detect Holidays algorithm. The cells are marked with orange dots. The
Figure
Figure 6. Outcomes
6.
white areas Outcomes fromgaps.
from
are the grid theDetect
the Detect Holidays
BasedHolidays algorithm.
on Full algorithm.
Coverage The cells
The cellsare
requirements, arethe
marked
marked with
with
gap of orange
orange
12 grid dots.
dots.
nodes The
The
(black
white
white areas
areas are the grid gaps. Based on Full Coverage
Full Coverage requirements, the gap of 12 grid nodes (black
number) is are the grid
marked as agaps. Based
holiday if it on
contains requirements,
an instance the gap of 12
of 3 × 3 unpopulated grid
grid nodes
nodes (black
[13] . The
number)
number) is
is marked
marked as
as aa holiday
holiday if
if it
it contains
contains anan instance
instance of
of 33 ×
× 33
holes (white areas) with 7 nodes and 2 nodes do not fulfill such specifications.unpopulated
unpopulated grid
grid nodes
nodes [13]
[13]. . The
The
holes (white areas) with 7 nodes and 2 nodes do not fulfill such specifications.
holes (white areas) with 7 nodes and 2 nodes do not fulfill such specifications.
The Grid QA tool performs statistical analysis on the bathymetric grid, looking at
TheGrid
The GridQAQAtool
toolperforms
performs statistical
statistical analysis
analysis on the
on(Figure
the bathymetric grid,
bathymetric looking at
metrics such as data density (Figure 7), uncertainty 8), and, forgrid, looking at met-
variable-resolution
metrics
rics such such
as as data
data density
density (Figure
(Figure 7), 7), uncertainty
uncertainty (Figure(Figure
8), 8),for
and, and, for variable-resolution
variable-resolution grids,
grids, resolution requirements (Figure 9). Similar to the Detect Holidays tool, the current
grids, resolution
resolution requirements
requirements (Figure (Figure 9). Similar
9). Similar to theHolidays
the Detect
to [13], Detect Holidays
tool, the tool, therequire-
current current
requirements are based on the NOAA HSSD but can be adjusted to meet other spec-
requirements
ments are based on the NOAA HSSD [13], but can be adjusted to meet
are based on the NOAA HSSD [13], but can be adjusted to meet other specifications. other spec-
ifications.
ifications.

Figure 7. Grid QA output for data density. The histogram shows the percentage of total nodes that
contain a specific sounding per node. To pass the density test, 95% of the nodes must have at least
5 soundings contributing to the population of that node [13]. The histogram bins with less than
5 soundings are in red. Therefore, in this example, this grid does not pass the density test; as noted in
the title section of the figure, only 89% of the nodes pass this test.

The BAG Checks tool ensures compliance with the Open Navigation Surface Bathymetry
Attributed Grid (BAG) format [18] for gridded bathymetry and, if selected, for additional
NOAA-specific requirements. The algorithm checks the overall structure of the file, the
metadata content, the elevation layer, the uncertainty layer, and the tracking list (an ex-
ample of output is provided in Figure 10). It also performs a compatibility check with the
popular GDAL software library and tools [37].
 Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 9

Figure 7. Grid QA output for data density. The histogram shows the percentage of total nodes that
contain a specific sounding per node. To pass the density test, 95% of the nodes must have at least
Geomatics 2022, 2 5 soundings contributing to the population of that node [13]. The histogram bins with less than 5 346
soundings are in red. Therefore, in this example, this grid does not pass the density test; as noted in
the title section of the figure, only 89% of the nodes pass this test.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Grid
Grid QA
QAoutput
outputfor
foruncertainty.
uncertainty. The
Thehistogram
histogramillustrates the the
illustrates percentage of total
percentage nodesnodes that
of total
that contain a node uncertainty as a fraction of the International Hydrographic Organization’s Total
contain a node uncertainty as a fraction of the International Hydrographic Organization’s Total Verti-
Vertical Uncertainty. As such, the histogram bins over 1.0 (in red) do not pass uncertainty require-
cal Uncertainty. As such, the histogram bins over 1.0 (in red) do not pass uncertainty requirements.
ments.

Figure 9. Grid QA output for resolution. Created only for variable-resolution surfaces, the histogram
Figure 9.
Figure 9.Grid
GridQA
QA output forfor
output resolution. Created
resolution. only for
Created onlyvariable-resolution surfaces,surfaces,
for variable-resolution the histogram
the histogram
helps to identify the percentage of nodes that have a node resolution as a fraction of the allowable
helps
Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW to identify the percentage of nodes that have a node resolution as a fraction
resolution at that depth. Anything over 1.0 (in red) does not pass the uncertainty requirements.
of the10allowable
resolution at that depth. Anything over 1.0 (in red) does not pass the uncertainty requirements.
The BAG Checks tool ensures compliance with the Open Navigation Surface Bathym-
etry Attributed Grid (BAG) format [18] for gridded bathymetry and, if selected, for addi-
tional NOAA-specific requirements. The algorithm checks the overall structure of the file,
the metadata content, the elevation layer, the uncertainty layer, and the tracking list (an
example of output is provided in Figure 10). It also performs a compatibility check with
the popular GDAL software library and tools [37].

Figure 10.
Figure 10.Extract
Extractfrom a PDF
from report
a PDF generated
report by the
generated byBAG
the Checks tool. The
BAG Checks report
tool. Theindicates which
report indicates which
checks were performed and the results of the checks (passed checks in green, warnings in orange).
checks were performed and the results of the checks (passed checks in green, warnings
At the end of the report, a summary indicates how many warnings and errors were identified for
in orange).
At
thethe end of the report, a summary indicates how many warnings and errors were identified for
surface.
the surface.
The Scan Designated tool validates the soundings designated by the surveyor against
the bathymetric grid to ensure their significance (according to NOAA HSSD specifica-
tions) [13]. Discrepancies are automatically highlighted for the reviewer (see Figure 11).
 Figure 10. Extract from a PDF report generated by the BAG Checks tool. The report indicates which
Geomatics 2022, 2 checks were performed and the results of the checks (passed checks in green, warnings in orange).
347
At the end of the report, a summary indicates how many warnings and errors were identified for
the surface.

The Scan
The Scan Designated
Designated tool
tool validates
validates the
the soundings
soundings designated
designated byby the
the surveyor
surveyor against
against
the bathymetric grid to ensure their significance (according to NOAA
the bathymetric grid to ensure their significance (according to NOAA HSSD HSSD specifica-
specifica-
tions)
tions) [13]. Discrepancies are
[13]. Discrepancies are automatically
automatically highlighted
highlighted for
for the
the reviewer
reviewer (see
(see Figure
Figure 11).
11).

Figure 11. Example of Scan Designated output. The designated sounding appears less than 1 m off
Figure 11. Example of Scan Designated output. The designated sounding appears less than 1 m off
the seafloor when viewed in both sounding view (in the left pane) and grid data (in the right pane).
the seafloor when viewed in both sounding view (in the left pane) and grid data (in the right pane).

3.1.2. Significant
3.1.2. Features Validation
Significant Features Validation
The Scan
The Scan Features
Featurestooltoolchecks
checksthe therequired
required S-57
S-57attribution (e.g.,
attribution [13])[13])
(e.g., for features that
for features
will will
that be passed through
be passed throughthe charting
the chartingpipeline afterafter
pipeline the hydrographic
the hydrographic datadata
review (an (an
review ex-
ample output
example output report
reportis shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 12).12).
TheThe
tooltool
provides several
provides options
several optionsto tailor the
to tailor
result
the to specific
result needs.
to specific needs.For For
example,
example, it isitpossible to switch
is possible between
to switch betweena field profile
a field andand
profile an
office
an profile
office based
profile basedonon thethestage
stageofofthe
thereview
reviewpipeline
pipelineatatwhich
whichthethetool
tool is
is executed.
executed. Other
useful options
optionsarearethetheversion
version ofof
thethe specification
specification to beto applied
be applied
and and additional
additional checks,checks,
such
Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW
such
as theasimage
the image file naming
file naming convention,
convention, or theorformat
the format of specific
of specific attributes
attributes (e.g.,(e.g., the date
the date and11
andidentification
the the identification
of theofsurvey).
the survey).

Figure12.
Figure 12.Feature
FeatureScan
Scanproduces
producesaaPDFPDFreport
reportthat
thatindicates
indicateswhich
whichchecks
checkswere
wereperformed
performedand
andthe
the
resultsof
results ofthe
thechecks.
checks.At
Atthe
theend
end of
of the
the report,
report,aasummary
summaryindicates
indicateshow
howmany
manywarnings
warningsand
anderrors
errors
wereidentified,
were identified,grouped
groupedbybytype.
type.

TheCheck
The CheckVVALSOU
ALSOU tool toolevaluates
evaluatesallall features
features against
against thethe corresponding
corresponding gridgrid nodes
nodes to
to ensure
ensure thatthat
thethe value
value of the
of the sounding
sounding (VALSOU)
(VALSOU) andand position
position matches
matches what
what is present
is present in
in the
the bathymetric
bathymetric grid.grid.
ThisThis
tooltool not only
not only ensures
ensures parity
parity between
between feature
feature depthdepth
and theandgrid,
the
grid,
but it but
willitalso
willensure
also ensure that
that the the depth
depth enteredentered
is the is the shoal
most most shoal
depthdepth
amongamong the grid
the nine nine
grid nodes
nodes of theoffeature
the feature (see Figure
(see Figure 13). 13).
 results of the checks. At the end of the report, a summary indicates how many warnings and errors
were identified, grouped by type.

The Check VALSOU tool evaluates all features against the corresponding grid nodes
to ensure that the value of the sounding (VALSOU) and position matches what is present
Geomatics 2022, 2 in the bathymetric grid. This tool not only ensures parity between feature depth and the 348
grid, but it will also ensure that the depth entered is the most shoal depth among the nine
grid nodes of the feature (see Figure 13).

Figure 13. The Check VALSOU algorithm checks the grid node closest in position (cyan dot) to each
Figure 13. The Check VALSOU algorithm checks the grid node closest in position (cyan dot) to each
significant feature and the eight grid nodes surrounding it (orange dots). The minimum depth value
significant feature
of one of these nodes and
mustthe eight
match thegrid
depthnodes surrounding
reported it (orange
in the attribution dots). Thefeature.
of the significant minimum depth value
of one of these nodes must match the depth reported in the attribution of the significant feature.
3.2. CA Tools
3.2. CA Tools provides automated procedures to:
CA Tools
• CA Tools
Identify chartprovides automated
discrepancies procedures
for a bathymetric grid to:
or a set of survey soundings.
•• Select a significant
Identify set of soundings
chart discrepancies from
for a bathymetricgrid
a bathymetric grid.or a set of survey soundings.
• The firstastep
Select of the Chart
significant setAdequacy algorithm
of soundings from is toa build a triangulated
bathymetric grid.irregular net-
work (TIN) from existing chart soundings and features; then it matches the dense set of
surveyThe first step
soundings of the
within Chart Adequacy
thetriangles of the TIN.algorithm
At this point,istheto algorithm
build a triangulated
may apply irregular
network (TIN)
two different from
testing existing
methods: thechart soundings
Shoalest Depth methodand features; thenTriangle
and the Tilted it matches the dense set of
method.
survey soundings
The Shoalest within
Depth testing the triangles
method implements of athe TIN. At this
longstanding point,
Office the algorithm
of Coast Survey’s may apply
best practice
two different (called Triangle
testing Rule) for the
methods: the comparison
Shoalest Depthof sounding
method setsand
(see the
Figure 14, pane
Tilted Triangle method.
Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 12
The Shoalest Depth testing method implements a longstanding Office of Coast Survey’s best
practice (called Triangle Rule) for the comparison of sounding sets (see Figure 14, pane A).
In practice, any survey sounding shoaler than any of the three vertices of its containing
A). In practice, any survey sounding shoaler than any of the three vertices of its containing
triangle
triangle isismarked
marked as aaspotential
a potential problem.
problem. To overcome
To overcome thelimitations
the inherent inherent of limitations
the of the
Triangle Rule,thethe
Triangle Rule, tilted-triangle
tilted-triangle test described
test described in [6]14,
in [6] (Figure (Figure
pane B)14,
haspane
been B)
madehas been made
available
available asasthe
the Triangle
Triangle RuleRule testing
testing methodmethod (see15).
(see Figure Figure
Due 15).
to theDue to the of
complexity complexity of
nautical charts,
nautical charts,the
thealgorithm alsoalso
algorithm enforces additional
enforces sounding-in
additional specific-feature
sounding-in tests
specific-feature tests [6].
[6]. The
The algorithm
algorithm also
also computes the
computes the magnitude
magnitudeofof the discrepancy
the against
discrepancy the chart
against and and adds it
the chart
adds it as an S-57 attribute, allowing the identified soundings to be sorted. In this manner,
as an S-57 attribute, allowing the identified soundings to be sorted. In this manner, the most
the most significant discrepancies (and potential dangers to navigation) are identified im-
significant
mediately. discrepancies (and potential dangers to navigation) are identified immediately.

Figure 14.
Figure 14.Example
Example of the application
of the of the of
application Shoalest Depth testing
the Shoalest Depthmethod (i.e.,
testing the traditional
method flattraditional flat
(i.e., the
triangle test) (A) and the Tilted Triangle testing method (B). The 5.1-m survey soundings (in dark
triangle test)
yellow) are only(A) and by
flagged thetheTilted
Tilted Triangle testing
Triangle testing method
method when(B). The 5.1-m
compared survey
to the chart soundings (in dark
soundings
yellow) are
(in purple). only flagged by the Tilted Triangle testing method when compared to the chart soundings
(in purple).
 Figure 14. Example of the application of the Shoalest Depth testing method (i.e., the traditional flat
Geomatics 2022, 2 triangle test) (A) and the Tilted Triangle testing method (B). The 5.1-m survey soundings (in dark
349
yellow) are only flagged by the Tilted Triangle testing method when compared to the chart soundings
(in purple).

Figure 15. Chart Adequacy output using different testing methods. Chart soundings are shown in
black and the survey soundings in blue. Both soundings are in meters; when shown, the sub-index
represents decimeters. (A) shows the output from the Shoalest Depth method, only showing shoal
soundings on the deep side of the contours. Thus, this method is useful in the identification of
dangers to navigation. (B) shows the results using the Tilted Triangle method. There are more flagged
soundings, in this case depicting the overall shoaling trend. Thus, this method is useful in change
detection and assessing chart adequacy.

To summarize, the Chart Adequacy tool implements a method of sounding comparison

that has two distinct applications: hydrographic survey review (as a quick identification
of dangers to navigation) and chart review (as a method of validating a prospective chart
sounding selection prior to its application).
The Sounding Selection tool creates a sounding selection from a bathymetric grid. Once
created, the sounding selection can also be used to compare the survey data to the chart
using the described Chart Adequacy tool. In fact, the initial motivation to create such a
tool was to provide a mechanism to evaluate chart adequacy directly from a bathymetric
grid. Two sounding selection algorithms are currently available: Moving Window and Point
Additive. The Moving Windows algorithm is quite simple: the bathymetric grid is divided
in square areas based on the size of a user-defined search radius (Figure 16, pane A); then
the shallowest depth is selected within each area (Figure 16, pane B). The Point Additive
algorithm iteratively selects the shallowest point in a bathymetric grid and then removes
all cells within the radius of the selected sounding (Figure 17). The iteration continues until
there are no remaining data points.
 Additive. The Moving Windows algorithm is quite simple: the bathymetric grid is
in square areas based on the size of a user-defined search radius (Figure 16, pane
the shallowest depth is selected within each area (Figure 16, pane B). The Point
algorithm iteratively selects the shallowest point in a bathymetric grid and then
Geomatics 2022, 2 all cells within the radius of the selected sounding (Figure 17). The iteration
350 c
until there are no remaining data points.

Figure 16. The Moving Window method used in the Sounding Selection tool. First, the area is divided
into square window (A). The shallowest sounding is then chosen for each area (B). The black values are
depth values, in meters, from the evaluated grid; when shown, the sub-index represents decimeters.
Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14

Figure 16. The Moving Window method used in the Sounding Selection tool. First, the area is divided
Geomatics 2022, 2 into square window (A). The shallowest sounding is then chosen for each area (B). The black351
values
are depth values, in meters, from the evaluated grid; when shown, the sub-index represents deci-
meters.

Figure17.
Figure 17. The
The Point
Point Additive
Additive method
method used
usedininthe
theSounding
SoundingSelection
Selectiontool.
tool.First, thethe
First, shallowest
shallowestsound-
ing is selected, and the radius of soundings are removed (A). The next shallowest sounding
sounding is selected, and the radius of soundings are removed (A). The next shallowest sounding is then
chosen, radius removes neighboring soundings (B), and the process continues until
is then chosen, radius removes neighboring soundings (B), and the process continues until all all soundings
are accounted
soundings for. The area
are accounted of removed
for. The neighboring
area of removed soundings
neighboring can overlap,
soundings as in (C).
can overlap, as inThe
(C).black
The black values are depth values, in meters, from the evaluated grid; when shown, the sub-index
represents decimeters.
 Geomatics 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 15

Geomatics 2022, 2 values are depth values, in meters, from the evaluated grid; when shown, the sub-index represents
352
decimeters.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
Appliedto
Applied toaalarge
largenumber
numberof ofhydrographic
hydrographicsurveys surveysin inrecent
recentyears,
years,the theautomated
automated
proceduresin
procedures inHydrOffice
HydrOfficeQC QCTools
Toolsand andCA CATools
Toolshave havebeen
beenshown
shownto toimprove
improveboth boththe the
quality and timeliness of the review process [6,26]. An increased
quality and timeliness of the review process [6,26]. An increased confidence in the final confidence in the final
dataproduced
data producedwas wasalso
alsoobserved,
observed,especially
especiallyamongamongpersonnel
personnelinintraining
training[6]. [6].As
Assuch,
such,thethe
combined effect of applying these procedures is a novel holistic
combined effect of applying these procedures is a novel holistic approach to hydrographic approach to hydrographic
datareview.
data review.
Bothtools
Both toolsfocus
focuson onseveral
severalchallenges
challenges present
present ininthethe ping-to-public
ping-to-public workflow,
workflow, adopt-
adopting
ing a divide et impera (divide and conquer) approach and tackling
a divide et impera (divide and conquer) approach and tackling the most time critical and the most time critical
and error-prone
error-prone stepssteps
[6]. [6]. By design,
By design, thesethese tools
tools areare intended
intended totobebecomplementary
complementarytotoan an
existing hydrographic processing pipeline, providing valuable,
existing hydrographic processing pipeline, providing valuable, and sometimes critical, and sometimes critical,
supplementationof
supplementation ofoperator
operatorassessment
assessmentwith withautomated
automatedscanningscanningover overlarge
largedatasets.
datasets.
Although tailored
Although tailored to to NOAA’s
NOAA’sprocessing
processing and and validation
validation chain,
chain, the the automated
automated pro- pro-
ceduresare
cedures aregenerically
genericallyapplicable
applicableto toother
otherhydrographic
hydrographicoffices. offices. TheThe modular
modular structure,
structure,
inheritedfrom
inherited fromthetheHydrOffice
HydrOfficearchitecture,
architecture,allows
allowsfor forthe
thecustomization
customizationof ofthe
thealgorithms
algorithms
to different survey specifications. Furthermore, given that the
to different survey specifications. Furthermore, given that the code is neatly separated code is neatly separated
from
from the graphical user interface, the creation of stand-alone
the graphical user interface, the creation of stand-alone scripts is simple, both for localscripts is simple, bothandfor
local and cloud-based
cloud-based execution.execution.
For similarFor similarthe
reasons, reasons, the code implementation
code implementation of the spec-
of the specifications
ifications
can be easilycanupdated
be easilyasupdated as the evolve.
the directives directives evolve.
Thesetools
These toolsprovide
providesolutions
solutionsfor forcases
caseswhere
wheresoftware
softwaremanufacturers
manufacturersare areunable,
unable,or or
unwilling,totosupport
unwilling, supportthe thelevel
level
of of customization
customization required
required by the
by the hydrographic
hydrographic office.
office. At theAt
same time,time,
the same thesethese
toolstools
unambiguously
unambiguously provide algorithmic
provide interpretation
algorithmic interpretation and evaluation
and evalu-
of survey specifications. With a strong foundation of version-controlled
ation of survey specifications. With a strong foundation of version-controlled algorithms, algorithms, these
tools
theserepresent a solidabase
tools represent solidfor expanding
base automation
for expanding in the future.
automation in the future.
The
The feedback
feedback from the users userswithin
withinNOAA NOAAisispositive,
positive, with
with thethe project
project receiving
receiving en-
enthusiastic reviewsfrom
thusiastic reviews fromusers,
users,ininterms
termsof of both
both frequency
frequency of use (Figure (Figure 18) 18) and
andgeneral
general
evaluation
evaluation (Figure
(Figure 19)19) [6]. Furthermore,
Furthermore,recentlyrecentlyobserved
observedimprovements
improvementsininthe the Office
Office of
of Coast Survey’s data quality and timeliness has been partially
Coast Survey’s data quality and timeliness has been partially attributed to the field imple- attributed to the field
implementation
mentation of these of these
tools tools [3]. Given
[3]. Given the similarities
the similarities of reviewof review
proceduresprocedures
amongamong hydro-
hydrographic offices, the described approach has generated
graphic offices, the described approach has generated interest in the ocean mapping interest in the ocean mapping com-
community.
munity. ThisThis is mainly
is mainly because
because the extent
the extent of theofalgorithmic
the algorithmic interpretation
interpretation of agency
of agency spec-
specifications represents
ifications represents the the foundation
foundation for for
the the adoption
adoption of automated
of automated workflows
workflows [16].[16].

Figure18.
Figure 18. Customer
Customer satisfaction
satisfaction survey on QC Tools: frequency
frequency of
of use.
use. Of
Ofthe
the39
39survey
surveyrespond-
respon-
ents, more than 75% use QC Tools “often” or “almost every single working day” (more
dents, more than 75% use QC Tools “often” or “almost every single working day” (more detailsdetailsare
are
available in [6]
available in [6]).).
Geomatics 2022,22, FOR PEER REVIEW
Geomatics2022, 353
16

Figure 19.
Figure 19. Customer
Customer satisfaction
satisfaction survey
survey on
on QC
QC Tools:
Tools: general
general evaluation.
evaluation. A
A percentage
percentage larger
larger than
than
86% of
86% of the
the survey
survey respondents
respondents provide
provide aa general
general evaluation
evaluation of
of the
the application
application as
as “good”
“good” or
or “very
“very
good” (more
good” (more details
details in [6]).
in [6]).

AA known limitation
limitationshared
sharedacross
acrossthe
thecurrent implementations
current implementations of both QC QC
of both Tools and
Tools
CA Tools
and is that
CA Tools visualizing
is that theirtheir
visualizing output requires
output an external
requires GIS application
an external that sup-
GIS application that
ports open
supports openhydrographic
hydrographic formats,
formats, such
suchasasBAG
BAGandandS-57.
S-57.Although
Although most hydrographic
most hydrographic
software
software packages
packages cancan read
read these
these formats,
formats, there
there are
are intrinsic
intrinsic limitations
limitations regarding
regarding how
how
data
data reviewers
reviewerscan caninteract
interactwith
withthe output.
the output. AA possible solution
possible to such
solution an issue
to such maymay
an issue be the
be
creation of a of
the creation plugin to interface
a plugin the algorithm
to interface withwith
the algorithm an open GIS software,
an open suchsuch
GIS software, as QGIS [38].
as QGIS
Such a solution
[38]. Such will be
a solution explored
will as part
be explored asof future
part development
of future efforts.
development efforts.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization,

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology,
methodology, and
and software,
software, all
all authors; formal analysis,
G.M.;
G.M.; validation,
validation, investigation,
investigation, and
andresources,
resources,T.F.,
T.F.,M.W.,
M.W.,and
andJ.W.; writing—original
J.W.; writing—original draft prepara-
draft prepa-
tion, G.M.;
ration, writing—review
G.M.; writing—review andand
editing, T.F.,T.F.,
editing, M.W., and J.W.
M.W., and All
J.W.authors have read
All authors haveand
readagreed to the
and agreed
published versionversion
to the published of the manuscript.
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was
Funding: was partially
partially funded
funded by
by the
the NOAA,
NOAA, grant
grant numbers
numbers NA10NOS4000073,
NA10NOS4000073,
NA15NOS4000200,
NA15NOS4000200, and
and NA20NOS4000196.
NA20NOS4000196.
Data Availability
Data Availability Statement:
Statement: The source
source code—with
code—with example
example scripts
scripts and
and data samples—is
samples—is publicly
publicly
available at: https://github.com/hydroffice
available https://github.com/hydroffice (accessed onon
(accessed 8 August
8 August2022). Future
2022). updates
Future on the
updates de-
on the
scribed initiative
described can
initiative bebe
can retrieved at:at:
retrieved https://www.hydroffice.org
https://www.hydroffice.org (accessed on on
(accessed 8 August 2022).
8 August 2022).
Acknowledgments: Many
Acknowledgments: Many keen
keen hydrographic
hydrographic analysts
analysts and
and researchers
researchers from
from all
all around
around the
the world
world
indirectly contributed to this work by providing feedback and endless sources of
indirectly contributed to this work by providing feedback and endless sources of inspiration. Ininspiration. In
particular,the
particular, theauthors
authorswould
wouldlike
liketo
tothank
thankthe
theNOAA
NOAACoastCoastSurvey
Surveyand
andthetheUNH
UNHCCOM/JHC
CCOM/JHC for for
actively supporting their
actively theirideas
ideasfor
forinnovation.
innovation.Finally, wewe
Finally, also acknowledge
also acknowledge the the
Coast Survey’s
Coast Hy-
Survey’s
drographic Systems
Hydrographic Systems and
andTechnology
TechnologyBranch
Branchfor
forthe
thecontinuous
continuoushelphelpin
in the
the integration within thethe
Pydro software
Pydro softwaredistribution.
distribution.
Conflictsof
Conflicts ofInterest:
Interest:The
Theauthors
authorsdeclare
declareno
noconflict
conflictof
ofinterest.
interest.

References
References
1.
1. Le
Le Deunf,
Deunf, J.;
J.; Debese,
Debese, N.;
N.; Schmitt,
Schmitt, T.;
T.; Billot,
Billot, R.
R. A
A Review
Review ofof Data
Data Cleaning
Cleaning Approaches
Approaches in in aa Hydrographic
Hydrographic Framework
Framework with with aa
Focus
Focus on
on Bathymetric
Bathymetric Multibeam
Multibeam Echosounder Datasets. Geosciences
Echosounder Datasets. 2020, 10,
Geosciences 2020, 10, 254. [CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10070254.
2.
2. Wlodarczyk-Sielicka,
Wlodarczyk-Sielicka,M.; M.;Blaszczak-Bak,
Blaszczak-Bak,W. W.Processing
ProcessingofofBathymetric
BathymetricData:
Data:The
TheFusion
Fusion of
of New
New Reduction
Reduction Methods
Methods for for Spatial
Spatial
Big Data. Sensors
Big Data. 2020, 20,
Sensors 2020, 20, 6207.
6207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.3390/s20216207.
3.
3. Evans,
Evans, B.
B. What
What are
are our Shared Challenges. In Proceedings of the NOAA NOAA Field
Field Procedures
Procedures Workshop,
Workshop, Virginia Beach, VA, USA,
24–26 January 2017.
24–26 January 2017.
4.
4. Calder,
Calder, B.
B. Multi-algorithm
Multi-algorithm swath
swath consistency
consistency detection
detection for
for multibeam
multibeam echosounder data. Int.
echosounder data. Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 2007, 8.
Rev. 2007, 8. Available
Available
online:
online: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/view/20778
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/view/20778 (accessed (accessed
on 8on 8 August
August 2022).2022).
5.
5. Deunf,
Deunf, J.L.;
J.L.; Khannoussi,
Khannoussi, A.; Lecornu,
Lecornu, L.; Meyer,
Meyer, P.;
P.;Puentes,
Puentes,J.J.Automatic
AutomaticDataDataQuality
QualityAssessment
Assessment of of Hydrographic
Hydrographic Surveys
Surveys
Taking
Taking Into
Into Account
Account Experts’
Experts’ Preferences.
Preferences. In In Proceedings
Proceedings of of the
the OCEANS
OCEANS 2021: 2021: San
San Diego–Porto,
Diego–Porto, Porto,
Porto, Portugal,
Portugal, 20–23
20–23
September
September 2021;
2021; pp.
pp. 1–10.
1–10. [CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.23919/OCEANS44145.2021.9705772.
Geomatics 2022, 2 354

6. Masetti, G.; Faulkes, T.; Kastrisios, C. Hydrographic Survey Validation and Chart Adequacy Assessment Using Automated
Solutions. In Proceedings of the US Hydro 2019, Biloxi, MS, USA, 19–21 March 2019. [CrossRef]
7. Hughes Clarke, J.E.; Mayer, L.A.; Wells, D.E. Shallow-water imaging multibeam sonars: A new tool for investigating seafloor
processes in the coastal zone and on the continental shelf. Mar. Geophys. Res. 1996, 18, 607–629. [CrossRef]
8. Ladner, R.W.; Elmore, P.; Perkins, A.L.; Bourgeois, B.; Avera, W. Automated cleaning and uncertainty attribution of archival
bathymetry based on a priori knowledge. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2017, 38, 291–301. [CrossRef]
9. Eeg, J. On the identification of spikes in soundings. Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 1995, 72, 33–41.
10. Debese, N.; Bisquay, H. Automatic detection of punctual errors in multibeam data using a robust estimator. Int. Hydrogr. Rev.
1999, 76, 49–63.
11. Hughes Clarke, J.E. The Impact of Acoustic Imaging Geometry on the Fidelity of Seabed Bathymetric Models. Geosciences 2018,
8, 109. [CrossRef]
12. Bottelier, P.; Briese, C.; Hennis, N.; Lindenbergh, R.; Pfeifer, N. Distinguishing features from outliers in automatic Kriging-based
filtering of MBES data: A comparative study. In Geostatistics for Environmental Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2005; pp. 403–414. [CrossRef]
13. NOAA. Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2022.
14. Jakobsson, M.; Calder, B.; Mayer, L. On the effect of random errors in gridded bathymetric compilations. J. Geophys. Res. Solid
Earth 2002, 107, ETG 14-1–ETG 14-11. [CrossRef]
15. Masetti, G.; Faulkes, T.; Kastrisios, C. Automated Identification of Discrepancies between Nautical Charts and Survey Soundings.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 392. [CrossRef]
16. Wilson, M.; Masetti, G.; Calder, B.R. Automated Tools to Improve the Ping-to-Chart Workflow. Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 2017, 17, 21–30.
17. IHO. S-57: Transfer Standard for Digital Hydrographic Data; International Hydrographic Organization: Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2000.
18. Calder, B.; Byrne, S.; Lamey, B.; Brennan, R.T.; Case, J.D.; Fabre, D.; Gallagher, B.; Ladner, R.W.; Moggert, F.; Paton, M. The open
navigation surface project. Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 2005, 6, 9–18.
19. Quick, L.; Foster, B.; Hart, K. CARIS: Managing bathymetric metadata from “Ping” to Chart. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2009,
Biloxi, MS, USA, 26–29 October 2009; pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
20. Younkin, E. Kluster: Distributed Multibeam Processing System in the Pangeo Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2021:
San Diego–Porto, Porto, Portugal, 20–23 September 2021; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
21. van Rossum, G. The Python Language Reference: Release 3.6.4; 12th Media Services: Suwanee, GA, USA, 2018; p. 168.
22. Calder, B.; Mayer, L. Robust Automatic Multi-beam Bathymetric Processing. In Proceedings of the US Hydro 2001, Norfolk, VA,
USA, 22–24 May 2001.
23. Hou, T.; Huff, L.C.; Mayer, L.A. Automatic detection of outliers in multibeam echo sounding data. In Proceedings of the US
Hydro 2001, Norfolk, VA, USA, 22–24 May 2001.
24. Mayer, L.A. Frontiers in Seafloor Mapping and Visualization. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2006, 27, 7–17. [CrossRef]
25. Mayer, L.A.; Paton, M.; Gee, L.; Gardner, S.V.; Ware, C. Interactive 3-D visualization: A tool for seafloor navigation, exploration
and engineering. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, Conference Proceedings (Cat.
No.00CH37158). Providence, RI, USA, 11–14 September 2000; Volume 912, pp. 913–919. [CrossRef]
26. Gonsalves, M. Survey Wellness. In Proceedings of the NOAA Coast Survey Field Procedures Workshop, Virginia Beach, VA, USA,
27–20 January 2015.
27. Briggs, K.B.; Lyons, A.P.; Pouliquen, E.; Mayer, L.A.; Richardson, M.D. Seafloor Roughness, Sediment Grain Size, and Temporal
Stability; Naval Research Lab: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
28. Hare, R.; Eakins, B.; Amante, C. Modelling bathymetric uncertainty. Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 2011, 9, 31–42.
29. Armstrong, A.A.; Huff, L.C.; Glang, G.F. New technology for shallow water hydrographic surveys. Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 1998,
2, 27–41.
30. Dyer, N.; Kastrisios, C.; De Floriani, L. Label-based generalization of bathymetry data for hydrographic sounding selection.
Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2022, 49, 338–353. [CrossRef]
31. Zoraster, S.; Bayer, S. Automated cartographic sounding selection. Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 1992, 1, 103–116.
32. Sui, H.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, A. A System for Fast Cartographic Sounding Selection. Mar. Geod. 2005, 28, 159–165. [CrossRef]
33. Riley, J.; Gallagher, B.; Noll, G. Hydrographic Data Integration with PYDRO. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on High Resolution Survey in Shallow Water, Portsmouth, NH, USA, 24–27 September 2001.
34. IHO. S-44: Standards for Hydrographic Surveys; International Hydrographic Organization: Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2020.
35. Hughes Clarke, J.E. Multibeam Echosounders. In Submarine Geomorphology; Micallef, A., Krastel, S., Savini, A., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 25–41.
36. Lurton, X.; Augustin, J.-M. A measurement quality factor for swath bathymetry sounders. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2010, 35, 852–862.
[CrossRef]
37. Warmerdam, F. The Geospatial Data Abstraction Library. In Open Source Approaches in Spatial Data Handling; Hall, G.B., Leahy,
M.G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 87–104.
38. QGIS.org. QGIS Geographic Information System. Available online: http://www.qgis.org/ (accessed on 14 August 2022).