{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03058623619371283, 'fraction_numerical': 0.028037383177570093, 'mean_word_length': 4.718446601941747, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison and validation of SRTM and ASTER GDEM for a subtropical landscape in Southeastern China

This paper evaluates the quality characteristics of existing versions of 3-arc-second SRTM and 1-arc-second GDEM over Anji County, Zhejiang, China using reference elevations from a high-quality 1:10 k topographic map. Results show that SRTM has higher accuracy (RMSE =12.44 m) than GDEM (RMSE=14.20 m for Version 1, 12.76 m for Version 2); however, unsatisfactory void filling and an overall 1/2 pixel shift exits in SRTM version 4.1. Although spurious elevations over omitted water bodies still persist, GDEM Version 2 demonstrated significant improvement over Version 1. Accuracies of both SRTM and GDEM decrease on steeper slopes. Aspect also influences both the magnitude and the sign of errors. DEM accuracy in non-forested areas is considerably higher than that in forested areas. SRTM version 4.1 and GDEM version 2 possessed actual spatial resolutions of 90 m, despite both of them failed to match their nominal accuracies. SRTM Version 4.1 could be the first choice, while ASTER GDEM Version 2 would be a good alternative for areas where extensive voids exist in SRTM.