LandXML and LandInfra: A Technical Comparison for 3D Cadastre Data Modelling in New South Wales, Australia

The development of a 3D digital cadastre is a key objective of Australia’s Cadastre 2034 strategy for modernising land information infrastructure. Jurisdictions across Australia are progressively transitioning from conventional 2D cadastral systems towards 3D cadastral models to better represent complex land and property rights, particularly in dense urban environments. In New South Wales (NSW), LandXML is currently the standard for digital cadastral lodgement. However, its limitations in supporting 3D spatial data representation have prompted investigation of alternative standards such as LandInfra and its InfraGML encoding. The aim of this study is to investigate how LandInfra handles existing cadastral information in New South Wales, Australia. In particular, this study is a technical and structural comparison of LandXML and InfraGML, examining data modelling workflows and geometric encoding. A hybrid research methodology integrating Design Science Research (DSR) and Case Study Research (CSR) was applied. Two representative cadastral plans—a standard deposited plan and a strata plan—were digitised using LISCAD 2025 v25.9.23.1 and AutoCAD Civil 3D 2026 V1 and subsequently modelled in both LandXML and InfraGML formats. Validation was conducted using KITModelViewer and schema validators, with comparative analysis of development cycle, modelling structure, usability, and workflow. This study demonstrates that InfraGML offers semantic richness and structural flexibility compared to LandXML within the scope of the examined case studies, although its practical adoption is constrained by limited commercial software support and may present adoption challenges for practitioners. The findings of this research suggest that LandInfra offers considerable potential for advancing the future development of 3D cadastre in Australia. In this context, InfraGML is positioned as a promising data standard for ongoing investigation and future research, rather than an immediate substitute for LandXML. Within the scope of this study, a fully operational 3D cadastral implementation is neither developed nor validated within existing legal or institutional frameworks, and complex 3D scenarios are not addressed. Future research should explore integration with CAD platforms, legislative implications of 3D survey features, complex volumetric cases, and formal 3D topological validation, and alternative modelling approaches, such as using Nested Parcels method and InfraJSON encoding.