# Comparison of Land Cover Categorical Data Stored in OSM and Authoritative Topographic Data
## 4 Results
### Regional CCI Diversity and Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 4 presents a cartographic visualization of regional \(\mathrm{CCI_{7}}\). The highest IQR indicates that the spread of the \(\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\) values declines when the region's area expands, with the highest value in Piaseczno (\(\mathrm{CCI_{R4}}\)-IQR = 0.045; \(\mathrm{CCI_{R5}}\)-IQR 0.035) and the lowest in Sokolski (\(\mathrm{CCI_{R4}}\)-IQR = 0.020; \(\mathrm{CCI_{R5}}\)-IQR 0.017). In the remaining counties, the IQR amounted to about 0.025 (see Table 6). In Sanocki, Slupski and Outwocki counties, the standard deviation \(\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\) takes values lower than the mean \(\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\) in more than 50% of the grid cells (\(\mu>\sigma\)), indicating the predominance of high agreement between BDOT10k and OSM data. In each county, regardless of the spatial extent of the region, the variance does not change, and the standard deviation decreases slightly, as does the achieved maximum value of \(\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Statistics** & \(\mathrm{CCI_{R4}}\)1  \\ \hline Mean & 0.0327 & 0.0272 & 0.0281 & 0.0263 \\ Median & 0.0241 & 0.0201 & 0.0208 & 0.0193 \\ Minimum & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ Maximum & 0.4971 & 0.5289 & 0.5299 & 0.5389 \\ Q1 & 0.0123 & 0.0104 & 0.0108 & 0.01 \\ Q3 & 0.0410 & 0.0340 & 0.0352 & 0.0327 \\ Variance (\(\sigma^{2}\)) & 0.0012 & 0.0008 & 0.0008 & 0.0008 \\ Std. Dev. (\(\sigma\)) & 0.0343 & 0.0287 & 0.0289 & 0.0278 \\ Coefficient of variation (cv) & 104.9797 & 105.3271 & 102.7925 & 105.6453 \\ Interquartile range (IQR) & 0.0287 & 0.0236 & 0.0244 & 0.0227 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Regional CCI descriptive statistics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Class**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Description**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Interval Size**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Percentage of the Counties Area (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & \(\mathrm{\mathbf{CGI_{R4}}}\) & \(\mathrm{\mathbf{CGI_{R5}}}\) & \(\mathrm{\mathbf{CGI_{R6}}}\) & \(\mathrm{\mathbf{CGI_{R7}}}\) \\ \hline
1 & maximum compliance & \(-0.50\)\(\sigma\) \(<\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\) & 31.9 & 31.5 & 32.3 & 32.1 \\
2 & moderate compliance & \(-0.5\)\(\sigma\) \(<\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\)\(\leq\) 0.5 \(\sigma\) & 50.9 & 51.3 & 50.1 & 51.2 \\
3 & semi-compliance & 0.5 \(\sigma\) \(\leq\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\)\(\leq\) 1.5 \(\sigma\) & 11.1 & 10.9 & 11.0 & 10.4 \\
4 & moderate noncompliance & 1.5 \(\sigma\)\(\leq\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\)\(\leq\) 2.5 \(\sigma\) & 6.1 & 3.6 & 3.9 & 6.3 \\
5 & maximum noncompliance & \(\mathrm{CCI_{Rn}}\)\(>\) 2.5 \(\sigma\) & - & 2.7 & 2.7 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The percentage of a county’s area belonging to regional CCI class of compliance. Figure 4: Regional CCl\({}_{7}\) in analyzed counties: (**a**) Piaseczno, (**b**) Sokólski, (**c**) Sanocki, (**d**) Shupski, (**e**) Ostrowski, (**f**) Otwocki, (**g**) Miedzyrzecki. Figure 5 presents a cartographic visualization of CCI\({}_{\rm Rn}\) in two counties: Piaseczno, with the highest spread of CCI, and Sokolski with the lowest.