Abstract
Global building and settlement datasets increasingly support population mapping, exposure assessment, urban monitoring, and other analyses of the built environment, yet comparative evidence remains fragmented across products, geographic regions, reference datasets, spatial scales, and evaluation methods. We benchmark seven global or near-global products, including Overture Maps, Global Building Atlas, 3D-GloBFP, Google Open Buildings 2.5D Temporal (OBT), Microsoft TEMPO, GHSL, and WSF Tracker, against harmonized reference footprints across 135 study areas. The evaluation combines complementary measures of detection, geometric agreement, and aggregate quantity accuracy, together with stratified analyses of settlement characteristics and diagnostic experiments on error size and temporal alignment. Overture achieved the highest median city-level vector F1 (0.786). Raster rankings were resolution-dependent: OBT achieved the highest median F1 at 10m (0.642), whereas WSF Tracker led at 100m (0.862). However, WSF Tracker substantially overestimated built-up area, emphasizing that when using raster products, it is important for the user to understand whether the raster identifies only buildings or includes additional impervious surfaces. Raster accuracy increased consistently with building density (Spearman \r{ho} = 0.58-0.75), while small candidate buildings were disproportionately associated with false positives in the vector products. Temporally aligning WSF Tracker with reference imagery increased mean F1 by 0.060 (median +0.037), indicating that the reported accuracies are conservative in rapidly growing areas. The study establishes a reproducible benchmark for comparing heterogeneous global urban and settlement layer datasets across geographic and settlement contexts.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.28154
