Content uploaded by Levente Juhász
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Levente Juhász on Aug 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
UC Santa Barbara
Spatial Data Science Symposium 2023 Short Paper Proceedings
Title
ChatGPT as a mapping assistant: A novel method to enrich maps with generative AI and
content derived from street-level photographs
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64h832hd
Authors
Juhász, Levente
Mooney, Peter
Hochmair, Hartwig H.
et al.
Publication Date
2023-09-05
DOI
10.25436/E2ZW27
Peer reviewed
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library
University of California
ChatGPT as a mapping assistant: A novel
method to enrich maps with generative AI and
content derived from street-level photographs
Levente Juh´asz1[0000−0003−3393−4021] , Peter Mooney2[0000−0002−2389−3783] ,
Hartwig H. Hochmair3[0000−0002−7064−8238], and Boyuan Guan1
1GIS Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
{ljuhasz,bguan}@fiu.edu
2Department of Computer Science, Maynooth University, Co. Kildare, Ireland
peter.mooney@mu.ie
3Geomatics Sciences, University of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33144, USA
hhhochmair@ufl.edu
Abstract. This paper explores the concept of leveraging generative AI
as a mapping assistant for enhancing the efficiency of collaborative map-
ping. We present the results of an experiment that combines multiple
sources of volunteered geographic information (VGI) and large language
models (LLMs). Three analysts described the content of crowdsourced
Mapillary street-level photographs taken along roads in a small test area
in Miami, Florida. GPT-3.5-turbo was instructed to suggest the most
appropriate tagging for each road in OpenStreetMap (OSM). The study
also explores the utilization of BLIP-2, a state-of-the-art multimodal
pre-training method as an artificial analyst of street-level photographs
in addition to human analysts. Results demonstrate two ways to effec-
tively increase the accuracy of mapping suggestions without modifying
the underlying AI models: by (1) providing a more detailed description
of source photographs, and (2) combining prompt engineering with ad-
ditional context (e.g. location and objects detected along a road). The
first approach increases the accuracy of the suggestion by up to 29%,
and the second one by up to 20%.
Keywords: ChatGPT ·OpenStreetMap ·Mapillary ·LLM ·volun-
teered geographic information ·mapping
DOI: 10.25436/E2ZW27
1 Introduction
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is a type of AI that can produce various
types of content, including text, images, audio, code, and simulations. It has
gained enormous attention since the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022.
ChatGPT is an example of a Large Language Model (LLM), which is a form of
generative AI that produces human-like language. Since the launch of ChatGPT,
2 L. Juh´asz et al.
researchers, including the geographic information science (GIScience) commu-
nity, have been trying to understand the potential role of AI for research, teach-
ing, and applications. ChatGPT can be used extensively for Natural Language
Processing (NLP) tasks such as text generation, language translation, writing
software code, and generating answers to a plethora of questions, engendering
both positive and adverse impacts [2]. The emergence of generative AI has in-
troduced transformative opportunities for spatial data science. In this paper, we
explore the potential of generative AI to assist human cartographers and GIS
professionals in increasing the quality of maps, using OSM as a test case (Figure
1).
Fig. 1. OpenStreetMap roads and Mapillary images in the study area near Downtown
Miami
GeoAI has been part of the GIScience discourse in recent years. For exam-
ple, Janowicz et al. [7] elaborated on whether it was possible to develop an
artificial GIS analyst that passes a domain specific Turing test. Although these
questions are still largely unanswered, utilizing LLMs and foundational models
in geospatial contexts contributes to this direction. Despite the challenges due
to the different nature of LLM training methodologies and human learning of
spatial concepts [15], these tools and methods are being explored, for example
to generate maps [18]. Our study fits into this direction by using an LLM (Chat-
GPT) and a multimodal pre-training method (BLIP-2) to connect visual and
SDSS 2023 3
language information in the context of mapping. We explore the larger question
of whether generative AI is a useful tool in the context of creating and enriching
map databases and more specifically investigate the following research questions:
1. Is generative AI capable of turning natural language text descriptions into
the correct attribute tagging of road features in digital maps?
2. For this problem, can the accuracy of suggestions be improved through
prompt engineering [17]?
3. To what extent can the work of human analysts be substituted with gener-
ative AI approaches within these types of mapping processes?
Furthermore, our approach focuses on the fusion of freely available volun-
teered geographic information (VGI) [5] data sources (OSM, Mapillary) and
off-the-shelf AI tools to present a potentially low-cost and uniformly available
solution. OSM is a collaborative project that aims to create a freely accessible
worldwide map database (https://openstreetmap.org), while Mapillary crowd-
sources street-level photographs (https://mapillary.com) that power mapping
and other applications, such as object detection, semantic segmentation and
other computer vision algorithms to extract semantic information from imagery
[3]. While the use of VGI has not yet been explored in the context of genera-
tive AI, previous studies demonstrated the practicability of combining multiple
sources of VGI to improve the mapping process [13]. More specifically, Mapillary
street-level images are routinely used to enhance OSM [8,10].
2 Study setup
2.1 Data sources and preparation
In OSM, geographic features are annotated with key-value pairs to assign the
correct feature category to them, a process called tagging [14]. For example,
roads are assigned a "highway"=<value> tag where <value> indicates a specific
road category, such as "residential" for a residential street.
OSM data is not homogeneous, and individual users may perceive roads dif-
ferently and therefore assign different "highway" values to the same type of road.
A list of "highway" tag values was established to better describe the meaning
of each road category in OSM. Furthermore, the difference between some road
categories, for example, primary and ’secondary, is more of an administrative
nature rather than visual appearance. For example, a 2-lane road in rural ar-
eas could be considered primary, whereas a more heavily trafficked road in an
urban environment might be categorized secondary. To consider semantic road
categories rather than individual "highway" values as one of the evaluation
methods, "highway" tag values representing similar roads in our dataset were
grouped into four categories (Table 1).
Figure 2 shows the methodology to obtain OSM roads of interest with the cor-
responding Mapillary street-level images. First, all OSM roads with a "highway"=*
4 L. Juh´asz et al.
Table 1. Grouping distinct "highway" tag values into semantically similar categories.
Category name OSM "highway" # of roads
Major, access controlled road motorway|trunk 0
Main road primary|secondary|tertiary 81
Regular road residential|unclassified|service 4
Not for motorized traffic pedestrian|footway|cycleway 9
tags were extracted within the study area. Then, short sections (<50m), inac-
cessible roads, sidewalks along roadways and roads without street-level photo
coverage were excluded. Retained OSM roads were matched with corresponding
Mapillary photographs, so that each road segment would have at least one repre-
sentative Mapillary image. Lastly, a list of objects detected in the corresponding
image was also extracted from the Mapillary API. These inputs were further
used as described in Section 2.3.
Fig. 2. Workflow for preparing input from Mapillary
2.2 Resources
AI tools and models We utilize GPT-3.5-turbo, which is an advanced lan-
guage model developed by OpenAI. It is an upgraded version of GPT-3, designed
to offer improved performance and capabilities, and retains the large-scale ar-
chitecture of its predecessor, enabling it to generate coherent and contextually
relevant text [16]. GPT-3.5-turbo serves as a powerful tool for natural language
processing, content generation, and other language-related applications. In our
study it is used to suggest OSM tagging based on pre-constructed prompts using
the content of street-level images. The model was accessed through the OpenAI
API.
SDSS 2023 5
BLIP-2 [11] is a state-of-the-art, scalable multimodal pre-training method,
designed to equip LLMs with the capability to understand images while keeping
their parameters entirely frozen. This approach is built upon leveraging frozen
pre-trained unimodal models and a proposed Querying Transformer (Q-Former),
sequentially pre-trained for vision-language representation learning and vision-
to-language generative learning. Despite operating with fewer trainable parame-
ters, BLIP-2 has achieved exceptional performance in a variety of vision-language
tasks and has shown potential for zero-shot image-to-text generation [11]. The
methodology proposed in BLIP-2 contributes towards the development of an ad-
vanced multimodal conversational AI agent. We leverage BLIP-2’s capability to
generate image captions as well as to perform visual question-answering (Q&A).
A freely available sample implementation of BLIP-2 was used to conduct this
experiment (https://replicate.com/andreasjansson/blip-2).
Analysts Three analysts were tasked to describe the visual content of street-
level images (captioning), and to answer a few questions regarding the image
content (visual Q&A). Two (human) analysts were undergraduate students at
Florida International University with previous GIS coursework. BLIP-2 was used
to perform the same task as human analysts, and its responses were recorded as
the third (artificial) analyst. Analysts were deliberately not given any guidelines
as to how to describe images so that their answers would not be biased by prior
knowledge about OSM and mapping. Table 2 lists questions and tasks performed
by analysts.
Table 2. Questions and tasks performed by analysts.
Variable Question/task Example response
"caption" Describe what you see in the photo in your
own words.
A city road in an urban area
along an elevated railway.
There is a wide sidewalk on
both sides and trees on the
left.
"users" Who are the primary users of the road that
is located in the middle of the photograph?
Cars, pedestrians or bicyclists?
Cars
"lanes" How many traffic lanes are there on the
road that is in the middle of the photo-
graph?
3
"surface" What is the material of the surface of the
road that is in the center of the photograph
Asphalt
"oneway" Is the road that is in the center of the pho-
tograph one-way?
No
"lit" Are there any street lights in the photo-
graph?
Yes
6 L. Juh´asz et al.
The answers of analysts differ in level of detail. For example, BLIP-2’s and
Analyst #2’s captions were significantly shorter on average (9 and 11 words, re-
spectively) than Analyst #1’s (37 words). BLIP-2’s responses were also found to
be more generic (e.g. "a city street with tall buildings in the background")
than human analysts’. This allows us to explore the effect of providing increasing
detail on tag suggestion accuracy.
2.3 Methodology for suggesting OSM tags
Figure 3 shows the methodology for suggesting tags for an OSM road. For each
retained road in the area, the corresponding Mapillary images were shown to an-
alysts described in Section 2.2. Analysts created an image caption and answered
simple questions as described in Table 2. These responses in combination with
additional context were used to build prompts for an LLM to suggest OSM tags.
To explore what influences the accuracy of suggested tags, a series of prompts
were developed that differ in the level of detail that is presented to the LLM.
All prompts start with the following message that provides context and in-
structs the model about the expected output format.
Based on the following context that was derived from a street-level pho-
tograph showing the street, recommend the most suitable tagging for an
OpenStreetMap highway feature. Omit the ’oneway’ and ’lit’ tags if the
answer to the corresponding questions is no or N/A. Format your sug-
gested key-value pairs as a JSON. Your response should only contain this
JSON.
The remainder of individual prompts is organized into four scenarios con-
structed from the responses of analysts and additional context. Example re-
sponses from analysts and additional context are highlighted in bold.
The Baseline scenario uses only responses from analysts, and contains the
following text in addition to the common message above:
The content of the photograph was described as follows: A city road
in an urban area along an elevated railway. There is a wide
sidewalk on both sides and trees on the left. The road is mainly
used by: cars. The surface of the road is: asphalt.
When asked how many traffic lanes there are on the road, one would
answer: 3.
When asked if this street is a one-way road, one would answer: No.
When asked if there are any street lights in the photograph, one would
answer: Yes.
The Locational context (LC) enhanced scenario provides ChatGPT with
additional locational context that describes where the roads in questions are lo-
cated. In addition to the baseline message, it contains the following:
The photograph was taken near Downtown Miami, Florida.
SDSS 2023 7
The Object detection (OD) enhanced scenario uses a list of detected
objects in addition to the baseline:
When guessing the correct category, consider that the following list of
objects (separated by semicolon) are present in the photograph: Tempo-
rary barrier; Traffic light - horizontal; Traffic light - pedestrian;
Signage
Finally, Object detection and locational context (OD + LC) are com-
bined into a new scenario that supplies both additional contexts for the language
model.
Fig. 3. Workflow of using ChatGPT to suggest OSM "highway" tags
The last step in the process is to supply the prompts described above to
GPT-3.5-turbo (ChatGPT for simplicity). The model responds with a JSON
document containing the suggested OSM tagging for the roadway, e.g. ("highway"
="primary", "lanes"= 3), which can be compared to the original OSM tags
of the same roadway.
The final dataset contains 94 OSM highway features and their original tags.
For four scenarios and three analysts described above, ChatGPT recommen-
dations based on the corresponding prompts were also recorded for the same
roadway, resulting in a total of 12 tagging suggestions. These suggestions are
then compared to the original OSM tags to assess the accuracy of a particular
scenario and analyst.
8 L. Juh´asz et al.
3 Results
3.1 Accuracy of suggesting road categories
Table 3 lists the correctness of ChatGPT suggested road categories based on
two different methods. First, we consider historical "highway" values of an OSM
road. A suggestion was considered correct if the current or any previous versions
of the corresponding OSM highway value matched the suggested tag of Chat-
GPT. This step takes into account differences in how individual mappers may
perceive road features (e.g. primary vs. secondary). The second method is based
on semantic road categories listed in Table 1. Considering groups of roads as
opposed to individual "highway" values mitigates the fact that OSM tagging
often follows administrative roles that are difficult to infer from photographs.
Table 3 reports the accuracy of individual analysts across the four scenarios as
well as the average correctness for analysts (values on bottom) and scenarios
(values in different rows).
Table 3. Accuracy score of OSM tags suggested by ChatGPT. (LC = Locational
context, OD = Object detection, OD + LC = Object Detection + Locational context)
Based on historical "highway" values
Scenario BLIP-2 Analyst #1 Analyst #2 Avg. correct [%] % change
Baseline 23.4 37.2 31.9 30.8 -
LC 24.5 46.8 34.0 35.1 +4.3
OD 27.7 47.9 39.4 38.3 +7.5
OD + LC 30.9 47.9 50.0 42.9 +12.1
Avg. correct [%] 26.6 45.0 38.8
Based on semantic road categories
Scenario BLIP-2 Analyst #1 Analyst #2 Avg. correct [%] % change
Baseline 25.5 54.3 41.5 40.4 -
LC 35.1 64.9 45.7 48.6 +8.2
OD 29.8 63.8 60.6 51.4 +11.0
OD + LC 43.6 66.0 70.2 59.9 +19.5
Avg. correct [%] 33.5 62.3 54.5
BLIP-2 achieved the lowest accuracy among the three analysts, followed by
Analysts #2 and #1 respectively. This resembles the level of detail analysts
described photographs with, which suggests that in general, providing more de-
tailed image captions may lead to more accurate tag suggestions by ChatGPT.
On average, this method increased the accuracy by up to 28.8% between BLIP-2
(lowest detail) and Analyst #2 (highest detail).
This is further supported by the average accuracy achieved in different sce-
narios. The baseline scenario, which used prompts purely based on the visual
description of street-level photographs, achieved a suggestion accuracy of 30-40%
on average from the three analysts. Providing additional context in different sce-
narios increased this accuracy. Additional location context, i.e. specifying that
SDSS 2023 9
the roads are located near Downtown Miami (LC scenario) increased sugges-
tion accuracy by 4.3-8.2% on average, depending on the evaluation method. This
can potentially be explained by regional differences in OSM tagging practices
which are usually determined by local communities. In this scenario, it is pos-
sible that the AI model considered these regional differences when suggesting
"highway" tags. Providing a list of objects detected in the source photographs
(OD scenario) increased the average suggestion accuracy by 7.5 - 11.0% com-
pared to the baseline scenario. A potential explanation for this is that objects
found on and near roads provide important details that help refine the category
of roads. Finally, combining additional locational and object detection contexts
(OD + LC scenario) with the description of photographs by analysts increases
suggestion accuracy by 12.1 - 19.5% on average. It is important to mention that
these improvements are observed across all analysts.
3.2 Additional tag suggestions
In addition to the main "highway" category, information about additional char-
acteristics of roads can also be recorded in OSM. To assess such a scenario, we
analyze the "lit" tag, which indicates the presence of lighting on a particu-
lar road segment. The "lit" tag is set to "yes" if there are lights installed
along the roadway. One question explicitly asked analysts whether street lights
are visible on street-level photographs. In addition, street lights are a potential
object category in Mapillary detections. For the following analysis, we consider
the Object Detection enhanced scenario. The original dataset contains 24
roadways with "lit"="yes".
Table 4 shows that ChatGPT correctly suggested the presence of "lit" tag
between 63% (BLIP-2) and 92% (Analyst #2) of the existing cases. ChatGPT
suggested the use of the "lit" tag for an additional 44 - 61 features that are
potentially missing from OSM. Among these features, 59 have been suggested
based on prompts from at least two analysts, and 36 have been suggested based
on all three analysts.
Table 4. ChatGPT suggestions of the "lit" tag.
BLIP-2 Analyst #1 Analyst #2
Correctly tagged 15 (63%) 20 (83%) 22 (92%)
Additional 58 61 44
3.3 Limitations of the results
One limitation of this study is that we conducted the experiment on a small,
geographically limited sample size. The implications of these are well studied in
the GIScience literature, such as the uneven coverage of street-level photographs
10 L. Juh´asz et al.
[9] and the heterogeneity of OSM tagging [4], which could limit the adaptability
of our method to different areas. The other group of limitations is largely related
to open problems in Computer Science, such as the so-called “hallucinations” of
generative AI, which results in content that is false or factually incorrect [1], as
well as the non-deterministic nature of ChatGPT’s answers [19].
4 Summary and discussion
The study employs ChatGPT as a mapping assistant to propose OSM road
tags based on textual descriptions of street-level photos. It leverages freely avail-
able geospatial data (OSM, Mapillary) and off-the-shelf models (GPT-3.5-turbo,
BLIP-2) to enhance collaborative mapping. ChatGPT accurately suggests OSM
"highway" values from text in 39-45% cases, rising to 55-62% for semantic road
categories. Substituting human analysts with BLIP-2 yielded less accurate re-
sults (27-34%), potentially due to short captions. The study explores prompt
engineering and context addition for improved accuracy. Providing road loca-
tion raised accuracy by 4-8%, object lists boosted it by 8-11%, and combining
both enhanced it by 12-20%. The study also found that increasing the level of
detail with which a road scene is described in a prompt increases the accuracy of
the suggested highway tags. However, it is expected that there are limitations of
this method in terms of the accuracy that can be theoretically achieved. Future
research will expand OSM sample size and incorporate refined traffic-related
data (e.g. speed limits, turn restrictions).
Although experiments like this are useful initial steps, we urge the GIScience
community to go beyond simply applying AI in geographic contexts and focus
on synergistic research that advances both the spatial sciences and AI research
(see, e.g. [12,6]). There are multiple potential extension of this work along this
idea that go beyond the case study presented in this paper. For example, the
exploration of a multimodal conversational AI agent for spatial data science is
a promising research direction. In theory, incorporating a spatial understand-
ing component in a multimodal AI system allows it to comprehend and analyze
geospatial data. This could result in a method for the AI to interpret and in-
teract with geospatial data, similar to how BLIP-2 enables language models to
understand images. Future research should focus on exploring the potential of
this integration and on deepening our understanding of the theoretical and prac-
tical aspects of this fusion. This, in turn will advance the field of research and lay
the groundwork for future innovations in comprehensive multimodal AI systems
for geospatial science.
Data availability The dataset supporting findings presented in this paper is
freely available at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M9RSG.
Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank Mei Hamaguchi and Flora
Beleznay for providing image captions and visual Q&A.
SDSS 2023 11
References
1. Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z.,
Yu, T., Chung, W., Do, Q.V., Xu, Y., Fung, P.: A Multitask, Multilingual, Mul-
timodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity
(Feb 2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.04023
2. Dwivedi, Y.K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E.L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A.K.,
Baabdullah, A.M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Al-
bashrawi, M.A., Al-Busaidi, A.S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I.,
Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., Carter, L., Chowdhury, S., Crick, T., Cunningham, S.W.,
Davies, G.H., Davison, R.M., D´e, R., Dennehy, D., Duan, Y., Dubey, R., Dwivedi,
R., Edwards, J.S., Flavi´an, C., Gauld, R., Grover, V., Hu, M.C., Janssen, M.,
Jones, P., Junglas, I., Khorana, S., Kraus, S., Larsen, K.R., Latreille, P., Laumer,
S., Malik, F.T., Mardani, A., Mariani, M., Mithas, S., Mogaji, E., Nord, J.H.,
O’Connor, S., Okumus, F., Pagani, M., Pandey, N., Papagiannidis, S., Pappas,
I.O., Pathak, N., Pries-Heje, J., Raman, R., Rana, N.P., Rehm, S.V., Ribeiro-
Navarrete, S., Richter, A., Rowe, F., Sarker, S., Stahl, B.C., Tiwari, M.K., van
der Aalst, W., Venkatesh, V., Viglia, G., Wade, M., Walton, P., Wirtz, J., Wright,
R.: “so what if chatgpt wrote it?” multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities,
challenges and implications of generative conversational ai for research, practice
and policy. International Journal of Information Management 71, 102642 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
3. Ertler, C., Mislej, J., Ollmann, T., Porzi, L., Neuhold, G., Kuang, Y.: The Map-
illary Traffic Sign Dataset for Detection and Classification on a Global Scale. In:
Vedaldi, A., Bischof, H., Brox, T., Frahm, J.M. (eds.) Computer Vision – ECCV
2020. pp. 68–84. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Pub-
lishing, Cham, Switzerland (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58592-1 5
4. Girres, J.F., Touya, G.: Quality assessment of the French OpenStreetMap dataset.
Transactions in GIS 14(4), 435–459 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9671.2010.01203.x
5. Goodchild, M.F.: Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. Geo-
Journal 69(4), 211–221 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y
6. Janowicz, K.: Philosophical foundations of geoai: Exploring sustain-
ability, diversity, and bias in geoai and spatial data science (2023).
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.06508
7. Janowicz, K., Gao, S., McKenzie, G., Hu, Y., Bhaduri, B.: Geoai: spatially explicit
artificial intelligence techniques for geographic knowledge discovery and beyond.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 34(4), 625–636 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2019.1684500
8. Juh´asz, L., Hochmair, H.H.: Cross-linkage between Mapillary Street Level Photos
and OSM Edits. In: Sarjakoski, T., Santos, M.Y., Sarjakoski, T. (eds.) Geospa-
tial Data in a Changing World: Selected papers of the 19th AGILE Conference
on Geographic Information Science, vol. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and
Cartography, pp. 141–156. Springer, Berlin (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-33783-8 9
9. Juh´asz, L., Hochmair, H.H.: User Contribution Patterns and Completeness Eval-
uation of Mapillary, a Crowdsourced Street Level Photo Service. Transactions in
GIS 20(6), 925–947 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12190
10. Juh´asz, L., Hochmair, H.H.: How do volunteer mappers use crowdsourced Mapil-
lary street level images to enrich OpenStreetMap? In: Bregt, A., Sarjakoski, T.,
12 L. Juh´asz et al.
Lammeren, R.v., Rip, F. (eds.) Societal Geo-Innovation : short papers, posters
and poster abstracts of the 20th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information
Science. Wageningen, The Netherlands (2017)
11. Li, J., Li, D., Savarese, S., Hoi, S.: BLIP-2: Bootstrapping Language-Image Pre-
training with Frozen Image Encoders and Large Language Models (May 2023).
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.12597
12. Li, J., Li, D., Xiong, C., Hoi, S.: BLIP: Bootstrapping Language-Image Pre-
training for Unified Vision-Language Understanding and Generation (Feb 2022).
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.12086
13. Liu, L., Olteanu-Raimond, A.M., Jolivet, L., Bris, A.l., See, L.: A data
fusion-based framework to integrate multi-source vgi in an authoritative land
use database. International Journal of Digital Earth 14(4), 480–509 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2020.1842524
14. Mooney, P., Corcoran, P.: The Annotation Process in OpenStreetMap.
Transactions in GIS 16(4), 561–579 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9671.2012.01306.x
15. Mooney, P., Cui, W., Guan, B., Juh´asz, L.: Towards Understanding the Spatial
Literacy of ChatGPT – Taking a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Exam
(2023). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5P38P, earthArXiv
16. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C.L., Mishkin, P., Zhang,
C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller,
L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., Lowe, R.: Train-
ing language models to follow instructions with human feedback (Mar 2022).
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.02155
17. Reynolds, L., McDonell, K.: Prompt Programming for Large Language Mod-
els: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2021
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–7. CHI EA
’21, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (May 2021).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451760
18. Tao, R., Xu, J.: Mapping with chatgpt. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-
Information 12(7), 284 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12070284
19. Wang, S., Scells, H., Koopman, B., Zuccon, G.: Can ChatGPT Write a
Good Boolean Query for Systematic Review Literature Search? (Feb 2023).
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.03495