GPS World

Author: Eric Gakstatter

  • Three Big Ones in Five: Geospatial-style

    Three Cool Things in Geospatial

    Corning Glass

     

    After watching this video (5:33 in length), you may feel like buying stock in Corning Glass!

     

    How important are graphic displays to the geospatial professional? I’d say vital. I’m not sure about all the consumer glass stuff they show in the video, but it does show where glass technology is heading. I was at a municipal transportation advisory meeting last night and I can imagine a dual-purpose whiteboard/mointor in a city planner’s conference room where one could display the City GIS for detailed discussions instead of the dated, static maps taped up on the wall. The only question is cost. Given the cost reduction of large, high-resolution monitors in the past two years, Corning’s vision, at least for geospatial apps, may not be that far off.

     

    Augmented Reality

    Hmmm…do you see a trend here? Tablet computers, glass displays, augmented reality software.

    It’s pretty clear where things are heading. You can already see this on mobile phones today.

    A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that I bought a Samsung Galaxy S (Epic 4G) phone. It’s screen is large enough (4″ display) that you can use it like a tablet computer. The touch screen display is such that I use it like you saw in the Corning video using Swype or similar technology.

    This week, Juniper Research concluded from their research that Augmented Reality will be a $1.5 billion business by 2015. They cited the availability of software development tools, device manufacturers decision to pre-load augmented reality apps on mobile devices, and trends in mobile device advertising as key drivers of augmented reality.

    I have not found a better one-minute video than the one below that exemplifies the beauty of augmented reality. It’s truly an example of technology integration as GPS and digital compass data are used to correctly position the mobile device.

     

    iPad 2

    Although it hasn’t panned out to be the geospatial tool it could have been, the iPad has given the tablet industry some mojo. It’s pure speculation on my part, but I think it’s safe to say that more tablets have been introduced in the past year than in the previous five years, thanks to the iPad.

    What does the the iPad 2 offer?

    33% thinner, 15% or so lighter, faster processor, front and rear cameras. Nice features, but it’s more of an update than an upgrade. Still no support for Bluetooth SPP (Serial Port Profile), so you still can’t interface it to external GPS receivers.

    iPad 2

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • LightSquared Saga, and Recent Solar Activity

    This week I’m following up on my article from a couple of weeks ago about the potential effects of LightSquared’s plans. As a user of high-precision GPS receivers (particularly GPS L1 sub-meter, but also dual-frequency), you should be particularly concerned about this issue. I’ll tell you why. Also, I have a note on recent the solar activity.

    LightSquared

    The reasons you should be concerned about LightSquared’s plans are two-fold:

    1. Consumer GPS receivers and professional-grade GPS receivers designed for higher performance (mapping, surveying, etc.) aren’t necessarily designed the same way. High-performance GPS receivers use a wider bandwidth radio design.

    For example, the GPS L1 frequency is 1575.42 MHz. Many high-performance GPS receivers use a wide bandwidth radio that scans +/- 20 MHz from 1575.42 MHz. That equates to a range of 1555 MHz to 1595 MHz. LightSquared’s frequency spectrum is 1525 MHz to 1559 MHz. Clearly, there’s overlap, which is another word for interference. On top of that, LightSquared plans on a broadcast strength of 1,500 watts from a tower located down the street. The GPS broadcast signal strength is about 30 watts from a satellite located some 19,000 kilometers away in outer space. Who’s going to win that battle?

    I’m not an aerospace engineer or an RF (radiofrequency) engineer, but I don’t think it takes one to see the potential impact of LightSquared’s service on high-performance GPS receivers. At the very least, it warrants an in-depth technical study.

     

    2. Neither the policymakers nor LightSquared know about or understand the user community of high-performance GPS receivers comprised of hundreds of thousands of high-end GPS receivers. They think the GPS user community is comprised of auto navigation and mobile-phone users. They don’t understand that we are the infrastructure people. We use GPS in a way that they don’t understand, but is so critical to our infrastructure. It’s not their fault, but you can’t assume they know, so it’s up to us to inform them. You have to speak up.

    Here’s a perfect example. Click on the following link to view a report presented by LightSquared last week in Taipei, Taiwan, at a 3GPP conference.

    “Final Report on Overload Characteristics of GPS Receivers in Proximity to LightSquared’s L-band Terrestrial Base Stations (BTS) and User Equipment (UE)”

    The best part about this report is the following statement from the Executive Summary:

    “Although results have been provided to date of a limited number of devices (6), LightSquared proposes to close the study at this stage as a more comprehensive study, covering a wider variety of GPS receivers than those involved in cellular applications, has now been initiated under the auspices of the FCC [2].  This study will be conducted by a cross-industry group led by LightSquared and USGPSIC, the reports of the study having complete public visibility.”

     

    Granted, I understand the Taipei conference was focused on the impact of LightSquared’s plan on mobile phones using GPS, but if this is the extent of their testing, it’s alarming. Furthermore, it’s relatively easy to acquire and operate an inexpensive consumer GPS receiver. Can you picture LightSquared attempting to test a sub-meter GPS L1 receiver or a RTK setup? GPS, GLONASS, SBAS, DGPS, real-time, post-processing, and the myriad of receivers on the market need to be tested. Although it’s likely not possible to test all equipment on the market, it’s not prudent to leave anything to chance. If, one year from now, you wake up and find out your $10,000 RTK receiver doesn’t work like it used to, it will be too late to do much about it. It takes very little time to voice your concern now to your elected officials so the appropriate attention is given to high-precision users.

    The good news is that Trimble Navigation is involved, along with the Federal Aviation Administration, with the U.S. GPS Industry Council and will be working closely with LightSquared in a Technical Working Group to better understand the impact that LightSquared’s system would have on GPS. Trimble and the FAA aren’t the only parties involved in the working group, but they are the parties that understand the needs of the high-precision user.

    The Technical Working Group’s first report is due March 15, 2011. Time is short, so don’t delay.

    Use these guidelines to take action. It is a call to action from Dr. Joe Paiva, veteran of surveying since the 1980s with whom many of you are familiar.

     

    Solar Activity

    As you’ve probably heard, we’re entering the next solar cycle, which is due to peak in May 2013.
    I want to periodically touch on this subject as the solar activity is going to increase over the next few years, and if the solar activity (geomagnetic storms, not sunspots) is severe enough, it will have an effect on GPS accuracy and tracking. Regardless of what you’ve heard in the mainstream media in recent months, the last event serious enough to affect GPS operations was in December 2006. That’s not to say that things aren’t heating up.
    But the recent activity does highlight the fact that “the Sun has become, somewhat suddenly, more eruptive,” according to Joe Kunches, of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. “We’ve been fortunate so far, in that the terrestrial effects — and impacts to GPS — have been very minimal. The most obvious sign of this has been the brilliant auroras up north.”
    “The video shows a large prominence eruption — billions of tons of plasma being strewn off the Sun. Some of it is drawn by gravity and rains back to the surface — the rest of it escapes. It’s the blown-away plasma that forms the coronal mass ejections that, when properly pointed, go by the Earth and cause problems for GPS,” said Kunches.
    Click on the following image to view a 15-second video of a solar flare that occured on February 24, 2011.
    Credit: NASA/GSFC/SDO

    From NASA:

    When a rather large-sized (M 3.6 class) flare occurred near the edge of the Sun, it blew out a gorgeous, waving mass of erupting plasma that swirled and twisted over a 90-minute period (Feb. 24, 2011). This event was captured in extreme ultraviolet light by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft . Some of the material blew out into space and other portions fell back to the surface. Because SDO images are super-HD, we can zoom in on the action and still see exquisite details. And using a cadence of a frame taken every 24 seconds, the sense of motion is, by all appearances, seamless. Sit back and enjoy the jaw-droppi
    ng solar show.

     

    March 17, 2011 Webinar: A Closer Look at L5: The Future of High-Precision GNSS

    Last year, the first GPS IIF satellite was launched. It became the first GPS satellite to broadcast the new L5 civilian signal/frequency. At 1176 MHz, it is further separated from L1 and L2 and located in the protected Aeronautical Radionavigation Services band, so there is no possibility of commercial interference like we see today with the LightSquared controversy. The availability of GPS L5 will usher in a new era of inexpensive, accurate GNSS receivers and will be the future of high-precision GNSS receivers, and quite possibly single-frequency receivers. I will also discuss the international support of L5 from other GNSS in development such as Galileo, Compass, QZSS, as well as SBAS (WAAS/EGNOS/MSAS).

    I’ll be presenting some interesting new material in the webinar such as graphics illustrating how many satellites (GPS and others) are projected to be broadcasting L1 and L5 just four years from now. It will be well worth 60 minutes of your time.

     

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

     

  • Three Reasons Why Social Media Works: New Zealand Earthquake Is a Perfect Example

    Location-based social media, whether it be Twitter or Ushahidi or Gowalla or Foursquare, works. The earthquake in New Zealand earlier this week is a perfect example of how it works and why location-based social media will become an integral part of our lives.

    There are many variations of location-based services (LBS). The one most folks pay attention to are the social networking type of apps:

    “Send me a text message when Bill is within a half mile of me.”

    “Have Starbucks send me a text message, a coupon, and its location when I’m within 2 km of a store.”

     

    Then there’s the family finder type of LBS apps:

    “Send me a text message when my child arrives at school.”

    “Send me a text message when my child ventures outside of my preset boundary.”

     

    Location-based social media is a bit different than both of the above. You can think of the LBS social media as giving everyone with the proper equipment (a smartphone) the opportunity to be a news correspondent. The “correspondent” can be “reporting” hard news (timely events) or feature stories (human interest). Mostly, the reports are covered in 140 characters or so (thanks Twitter).

    The power of location-based social media is that on-site news can be published in near real-time, much faster than a news bureau sending a news correspondent to the scene.

    Consider the New Zealand earthquake earlier this week.

    Esri has developed an incident response map tool for collecting and displaying social media content for events like the earthquake.

    The New Zealand Incident Map shown below (click on it for an interactive map) was a joint effort of a local government entity (Environment Canterbury) and the local Esri distributor (Eagle Technology Group).

    Earthquake in Canterbury/Christchurch, New Zealand

     

    As you can see on the map, it includes content from Ushahidi, Youtube, Twitter, and Flickr.

    If you haven’t heard about Ushahidi, you should know that it is a non-profit technology company voted by MIT’s Technology Review as one of the 50 Most Innovative Companies for 2011. According to its website, Ushahidi’s “roots are in the collaboration of Kenyan citizen journalists during a time of crisis. The original website was used to map incidents of violence and peace efforts throughout the country based on reports submitted via the web and mobile phones. This website had 45,000 users in Kenya, and was the catalyst for us realizing there was a need for a platform based on it, which could be used by others around the world.”

    Youtube is an efficient way to share video footage over the web.

    Twitter is, according to its website, “a real-time information network that connects you to the latest information about what you find interesting. Simply find the public streams you find most compelling and follow the conversations. At the heart of Twitter are small bursts of information called Tweets. Each Tweet is 140 characters in length.” I call Twitter “the text message to everyone,” at least everyone who has chosen to receive your Tweets.

    Flickr is an efficient way to share photos over the web.

    By compiling data in near real-time from these four technologies, as well as the basemap information (OpenStreetMap or some other source), an amazing amount of useful information can be shared. Think about it — even with a little known technology such as this, click on some of the several hundred content entries and one can instantly see the value. The content search name for each provider has a default name. For example, the search term used to pull content for the New Zealand earthquake from Youtube is “christchurch earthquake”.

    Some example Ushahidi content obtained by clicking on Ushahidi symbols on the map:

    ———————-

    Shops collapsed on corner of Lichfield and High Street, possibly trapped people.

    On the corner of Lichfield & High streets, a block of shops collapsed — rescue svs believe 4-5 people are trapped in the rubble.

    Date Published: 2011-02-21 21:53:00

    Category: Building damage – red

    ———————

    Fitzgerald Bridge by Kilmore Terrace impassable.

    Route around is not usable.

    Date Published: 2011-02-23 13:55:00

    Category: Road damage

    ———————

    BNZ ATM Riccarton Mall

    Working ATM as at 10:49 p.m., 22 Feb – Division St, Riccarton

    Date Published: 2011-02-22 22:47:00

    Category: ATM/Money centre

    ——————–

    Such citizen reporting is enabled by three technologies; smartphones, social media apps, and GIS (including app software and basemaps). The first two are relatively new technologies and are being adopted at a very fast pace, so I would expect that crises like the recent flooding, political unrest, earthquakes, and other large-scale crises will never be reported the same in the future. Smartphones have empowered people with the ability to share an unprecedented amount of information.

    This Just In

    Following is another current event where information is being shared via citizen reporting. Note the date on the posts. This is as near real-time as you’ll get:

    Unrest in the Middle East

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Confessions of a Public GIS Manager: Does IT Outsourcing Really Save Money?

    In following up on my example of a simple GIS app for entering and displaying lat/lon coordinates from a spreadsheet (or text file), the discussion went from cloud to client and then back to cloud. The reason may surprise you. Recall that I was looking for the best solution for a reader who was looking for a simple GIS app to display gobs lat/lon coordinates.

    My first inclination was to use an online app (cloud) such as arcgis.com or Google Earth in order to stay away from the users needing to install and maintain software on their local desktop computers. No go. The functionality just wasn’t there. All along, my backup plan was to use a client app like ArcGIS Explorer. Well, after messing around a little and consulting with an online discussion group, that’s the route I went. I wrote about it last week.

    Subsequently, a GIS manager from a public department (state level), wrote about his experience with client-based apps and his challenges with IT outsourcing. It really make one reconsider the cost effectiveness and efficiency of IT outsourcing. His perspective makes interesting reading:

     

    We didn’t go the ArcGIS Explorer route primarily because of the current war (GIS vs. IT) which scientific computing is losing badly at this point in time. Our State and many others are neck deep in smelly muck created by business computing’s IT consolidation and outsourcing.  I just got back from a meeting where I heard another round of horror stories from VA.

    For more than five years, our WAN-based users at regional offices throughout the state have ran GIS via Citrix with customized ArcGIS desktop apps written entirely in-house by our staff in VB and .Net.  We elected that strategy because at that time it was really the only serious option to allow access to the large amounts of data we had in our geospatial archive here at our headquarters. It was also attractive because back then we controlled our infrastructure and our LAN and were highly influential in WAN decisions because we had a very advanced computing environment here.

    Then came IT consolidation and the predictable downgrading of advanced Agency’s capacity so we’d be able to open really big word processing documents on our desktops. By that, I mean scientific computing like GIS, Remote Sensing, etc. apps were not considered seriously in that process even though we need to operate much closer to DoD or NGA-like computing capacity compared to the average accountant. After multiple attempts to modernize our Citrix and SAN, resources were turned down and we decided we’d better switch to a new approach.

    Because we’re charged serious bucks every time we put in a service call to have ArcGIS Explorer installed on an existing or new PC, we elected to go as thin client as possible. Everyone has a browser and we don’t have to pay to have that installed.  We initially developed some betas using ESRI’s JavaScript solution but browser differences (both different versions of the same browser and Microsoft vs. Firefox on individual PCs just inside our unit) caused many applications development problems so we abandoned development with that API.

    That’s when we elected to do a very serious Flex vs. SilverLight comparison and the rest is history. The new beta has a rainfall widget we’re particularly proud of. It grew out of our active mining program staff having to respond to horrific flash flooding typical in spring and summer in our state. This new app will allow staff to go to the permitted sites to check stability of sediment control structures where the most rainfall (… based on Nexrad) was projected to have fallen for the first time this spring.

    In April this year we’ll find out if our jobs are going to be outsourced or whether our state will modernize internally. The refusal to allow Citrix and SAN improvements is a harbinger of the way that will go I believe. We have been presented with 4 SAGs in the last decade. I wonder what the total count will after the first decade of outsourcing?

    Many potential problems exist for geospatial programs because of IT consolidation and the more recent potential of outsourcing GIS. IT consol first. My unit does a great many very large (… and long) computing jobs. We routiinely move data from one projection or datum to another. When you deal with thousands of raster tiles, a reprojection project can take weeks to accomplish successfully. We also do spatial analysis projects that take even longer. We recently used Landsat scenes and higher resolution commercial satellite data plus aerials from multiple dates to do change analysis. That job took more than a month on beastly PCs we’ve built up specifically for these very tough jobs.

    [[Our]] ICI is an old DoD concept I pulled back into use. We built these platforms after about a year of total frustration having our big jobs crashed from IT pushes of OS upgrades happening in the middle of producing badly needed new deliverables, network disconnects dropping out our license checkout connectivity to a remote license manager on the WAN, etc. I’ve already mentioned the failure to consider geospatial in upgrading infrastructure and improving bandwidth.

    Even keeping your servers local can be a big battle in the war.  We have an older county size LiDAR dataset (pre-.las) processed and delivered as a point cloud. We have new LiDAR from the same county and we’re trying to do a comparison of the two datasets. Depending on what USGS quadrangles are selected it typically takes 30 to 40 minutes to load up four 1:24K quad size tiles of the older point cloud data via our LAN at fast Ethernet speed. Move that to a WAN situation and we need to start it loading in the evening so it’s ready by the following morning (but that won’t work because of the auto-shutdown software on all the desktops that executes every evening a 7PM). And then there’s the joke about the virus checking software pushed out to every desktop, configured all the same for everybody and auto executed and the twenty-one staff that mapped over five terrabytes of GIS datasets on the SAN and their very fast new computers (sarcasm) being brought to the approximate speed of molasses running up hill because the virus checking code never stopped trying to check all five TBs on each of the twenty-one PCs.  It wasn’t much of a joke when the whole Agency’s networking speed dropped to a crawl! Need I say more about one-size-fits-all IT mentality shooting off their own feet!

    Negative aspects of outsourcing geospatial jobs are obvious. No contractor is going to know the individual program requirements like in-house staff and that’s a challenge even for us. Good example … the rainfall widget on the new beta app I pointed you to wasn’t requested by our mining folks until we approached them with the idea that we might be able to do something like that. Would there have been that kind of insights by a big corporate consulting firm like IBM or HP? I think not.

    On the good side of IT consolidation, if geospatial folks are pulled together into a core group I think that gives folks the chance to work on a broader spectrum of tasks not limited by the bounds of what one state government Agency desires, but rather the state as a whole. That could be a good thing. Also, it gives Agencies with a GIS effort, consisting of one or two folks, access to experts they’d not be able to otherwise tap into (GIS DBAs, geospatial applications development gurus, etc.) and that definitely would be a very good thing. Of course that hasn’t happened here. On the good side, with outsourcing GIS jobs, I’m clueless as to how that could ever benefit anyone except the recipient of the contract. The horrible stories from colleagues give me night terrors.  PC refresh cycles of 5 years, horrendously expensive SAN storage rates, etc. You name it, &
    nbsp;the customer is hosed by it.

    There really is a business vs. scientific computing all-out war going on all around us and as I said initially, too many scientific computing types have their heads down doing the exciting stuff while the fight rages on, without them even knowing about it. If you can wake them up to the reality that business computing “experts” may very well be building a scientific computingless future in which they’ll have no place (or job), it would be greatly appreciated.

     

    I’ll be writing more about this. It’s a serious issue and it’s not going away, especially with the geospatial industry continuing to put up strong growth numbers.

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Quick & Dirty: Importing Coordinates into a Simple (and Free) Mapping Program

    It’s easy to jump ahead and talk about the exciting things happening today and on the horizon in the geospatial industry. Rich 3D visualizations, complex databases, sophisticated analysis, high-tech data collection equipment, etc. But what about the thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people who could benefit from just being able to take the first step of importing basic information and coordinates into a mapping program.

    Last week, a reader sent me a small dataset of simple lat/lon coordinates in Excel and asked me the best way to import them into some sort of mapping software. My first inclination was to use ArcGIS.com or Google Earth, or something online to avoid having to download, install and maintain software on local computers. But alas, that was not to be. After a quick post to the ArcGIS Resource Center Forum, I quickly found out that ArcGIS.com was not going to work.

    “Nelson” responded to my post with the following:

     

    Hey Eric,
    Unfortunately, there is no direct way to add layers, csv files, etc., to ArcGIS.com; however, Esri has noted on a couple of occasions that they are exploring the possibility of this functionality.

     

    Hmmm….I briefly considered Google Earth, but my experience has not been great with Earth or Earth Pro. It’s ok, but still a little cheesy for my tasted.

    When I suggested that my back-up plan was to investigate ArcGIS Explorer, Nelson responded:

     

     

    ArcExplorer is definately the route you should take.

    There are a number of advantages to it:

    1) The points can be imported very easily using the GUI.

    2) If they ever do decide to shift to a GIS, the layers in ArcExplorer can be shared using Layer Packages or KML files.

    3) The Google Earth interface is not as user friendly as ArcExplorer and you also have the ability to change to a number of Basemaps on the fly — ArcGIS Online (Imagery, Topographic, Streets) Bing and OpenStreetMap with 2D/3D rendering.

    Lastly, if you yourself are an ArcGIS user, it will probably make your life a little bit easier to work with a format that is well organized and familiar to you.

    Cheers,

    P.S. At the Federal User Conference, Esri announced there is going to be tons more functionality built in to ArcExplorer over the course of the year.

     

    At that point, I committed to trying ArcGIS Explorer. Please note that I’m the last person to open a manual for this kind of software. I really think it should be straight-forward enough to figure it out in a few minutes. The only reference I used was the online ArcGIS Explorer Desktop FAQ and I accessed the Help file once. Of course, I used the ArcGIS Explorer Forum, which is very good.

    Here is a screenshot of the data I had to work with. it was 62 records long, a subset of the actual dataset.

     

    I spent the most time making sure the coordinates were formatted correctly. The original spreadsheet had N/S/E/W to indicators instead of positive and negative. For example, instead of -17 04.201, it was formatted as 17 04.201s, with the “s” denoting south latitude. For your reference, north latitude is positive values, south latitude is negative, east longitude is positive, and west longitude is negative. This had to change. With only 62 records, I could do it by hand in a couple of minutes. If I had to change 600 or 6,000 records, I would have used a more automated method.

    The other item I needed to figure out were the attributes. None were provided in the spreadsheet, so I inserted a description number and a title for each point.

    Once the spreadsheet was formatted correctly, the rest was very quick and straight-forward. After installing ArcGIS Explorer, this is what you see when you run the program.

     

    If any of you had used ArcExplorer in years past like I did, this is totally different, and refreshing.

    I saved the Excel spreadsheet as a CSV file (Comma-delimited text file).

    To import into ArcGIS Explorer, simply select Add Content/Text Files.

     

    Once you select the CSV file, it reminds me of importing a CSV file into Excel in that you have to define what each spreadsheet column means, although ArcGIS Explorer does recognize some of the fields automatically. For example, if the top of a column is labeled lat, latitude, y, y-coord, y-coordinate, ArcGIS Explorer automatically assumes the data in the column contains latitude data. The same goes for the longitude and elevation fields. For a good description of importing text files, click here.

    First text import screen:

     

    Second text import screen:

     

    After clicking on Finish, the data is imported and displayed in ArcGIS Explorer.

     

    The background imagery is automatically displayed and there are a number of display and analysis options.

    To query a particular feature, simply click on it. A window is displayed as follows:

    The pop-up window could display a number of things such as hyperlinks, photos, videos, etc.

    Once your data is imported, other map data can be added to customize the final to your liking.

    Finally, there is a 3D view that I tried, but it didn’t work for me. I suspect it had to do with my laptop video card or video memory, but I would like to have seen it work. That would have been cool to see, especially if a rough terrain surface was visible.

    Alas, there is an online version of ArcGIS Explorer I didn’t try. There was some discussion about it at the 2011 Esri Federal User Conference (FedUC) a couple of weeks ago. Click here to see what’s coming in future updates of ArcGIS Explorer Online.

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    <
    span style=”font-size: 11px; color: rgb(82, 82, 82); line-height: 16px; font-family: Arial;”>Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Webinar Follow-up Q&A: SBAS, DGPS or Post-Processing? Which Should You Use?

    Last week, I conducted a webinar along with Dr. Michael Whitehead titled “SBAS, DGPS or Post-processing? Which Should You Use?” It was one of the best webinars I’ve conducted to date. More than 600 people registered. We barely squeezed it into 65 minutes and could have kept going for the better part of two to three hours, given the subject matter to cover and the number of questions we received before and during the webinar. Thank you for attending, if you did. If you weren’t able to you, can download it by registering here. After registering, you’ll be provided a link to download it.

    I knew that only having 65 minutes would be a serious issue for the webinar because the discussion could take many worthwhile tangents. And it was. But alas, we stuck to the presentation agenda, stayed on schedule, and were able to address several audience questions.

    We had a lot of questions before and during the webinar. As customary, I’d like to address some of those as well as present the poll results here. First, the poll questions and results with accompanying pie charts to illustrate the results.

     

    Poll #1: For those of you who use post-processing, what are the reasons you use it?

    Total votes: 117

    Gakstatter comment: This is an interesting spread with no clear dominating reason. Based on data I’ve seen and data we collected, I’m not convinced that post-processing is more accurate. If it is, is it worth the extra 10%, 20%, or ??% accuracy? I understand the votes for more reliable corrections. There’s something to say for reverse processing (forwards and backwards).

     

    Poll #2: For those of you using post-processing, from where do you access GPS base station data?

    Total votes: 129

     

    Gakstatter comment: These answers don’t surprise me. National and regional CORS have become very prolific in the past 10 years.

     

    Poll #3: For those of you who use real-time DGPS/SBAS, what is the reason you use it?

     

    Total votes: 110

    Gakstatter comment: These answers surprised me a little. I thought more people would vote for “less complicated.” Does that percentage of users really need corrected coordinates in the field? Why? E-mail me a quick answer if you have a chance.

    Poll #4: For those of you using real-time DGPS/SBAS, from where do you access DGPS/SBAS corrections?

    Total votes: 129

    Gakstatter comment: This answer doesn’t surprise me at all. I suspect RTK networks will increase due to their continued proliferation and different levels of accuracy offered.

    Poll #5: When I purchase GPS/GNSS equipment in the future, I will likely select equipment that utilizes the following correction method (select all that apply):

    Total votes: 144

    Gakstatter comment: This was the only multi-answer poll. People could select more than one answer. These answers were surprisingly close. That surprised me. It didn’t surprise me that SBAS was the leader. It surprised me that post-processing is still as predominant as it is. If you have a chance, e-mail me a quick explanation as to why you will use post-processing in the future.

    Before diving into some audience questions, I’d like to clarify the slide illustrating the post-processing plot shown below.

    During the webinar, we were discussing PPP (precise-point positioning) when this slide was displayed. This data was not corrected via PPP, but rather post-processing the pseudorange data, which is the equivalent of L1 SBAS and L1 DGPS. The point was to show how SBAS/DGPS accuracy compares to post-processing. In the real world, you won’t post-process 24 hours of data. Some of you will post-process only a few minutes of data per session in cases where you need to turn off the receiver and travel between points. In other cases, users will keep the receiver tracking between points, allowing reverse processing to work more effectively.

    On to the Questions

     

    Question #1: Will there ever be a way in which the position of a rover can become fixed by using two fixed base stations?

    Gakstatter comment: SBAS does this already. SBAS’s consist of a number of base stations within the coverage area (e.g., WAAS has 38). Data from many base stations is used to compute the correction information sent to an SBAS-enabled GPS receiver.

    I’m assuming your reasoning is to improve position integrity.

    Another method of accomplishing this is by post-processing against more than one base station or switching between DGPS beacon stations. If they differ significantly, then you might want to compare against a third base station.
    Question #2: At what point in time will the strength of the GPS signal be increased? To what strength will this occur? 500 times more powerful? What improvements in signal reception will be experienced? Indoor my house reception?
    Gakstatter comment: The GPS broadcast strength is increased with new GPS satellite model. For example, the current Block IIF satellite broadcasts the new L5 signal about four times stronger than L2C. While no one can be sure yet as to how much this will improve indoor positioning, there will be some marginal improvement in conditions where GPS doesn’t operate very well today. Also helping will be the improved code and error-correcting techniques that should make operating in difficult conditions a bit better, especially where there are a mixture of satellites with strong and weak signals.
    Also, it raises the issue of a viable L5 single frequency receiver, which should outperform the L1 C/A single frequency receivers of today.
    Question #3: NAD83, WGS84, ITRF differences, how to make the best choice?
    &nbsp
    ;
    Gakstatter Comment: I don’t think there is an incorrect choice, except maybe that NAD83 is a 2D system and will eventually give way to a 3D system, but that won’t happen in the U.S. for many years.
    Otherwise, it’s a question of matching disparate data sets. Probably the #1 question I hear from users is “why doesn’t my GPS data line up with my basemap?” The answer is almost always a difference in datums. Many papers have been written on this. Click here for a good PowerPoint presentation created by Dave Doyle of the National Geodetic Survey.
    Question #4: Are there any open source post-processing software programs available?
    Gakstatter Comment: Mike suggested looking here….http://gpspp.sakura.ne.jp/rtklib/rtklib.htm
    Question #5: If a person uses real-time correction satellites, is there a need to post-process?
    Gakstatter Comment: It’s rare that someone would do both, but not out of the question. For example, one might rely primarily on real-time corrections and record raw data for post-processing in case there is a problem receiving the real-time corrections. The opposite is true, too. One might rely primarily on post-processing and use real-time corrections as a back-up in case there is a problem with post-processing.
    Caveat emptor: There are probably datum differences between the sources of real-time and post-processing corrections. This needs to be reconciled when combining data that has used the two sources.
    Question #6: Is it possible to post-process data without using a DGPS?
    Gakstatter Comment: Yes, all that is required for post-processing is the ability to record raw observation data.
    Question #7: Are there geographic areas in the U.S. that are not covered by NGS CORS stations?
    Gakstatter Comment: No, not for pseudorange (L1) differential corrections. The distance to the base station will vary depending on where you are located and thus may affect your accuracy to some degree, but the density of CORS in the U.S. is such that you will never be more than a couple of hundred kilometers from a base station and likely much closer.
    A side note: Back in the mid-1990s, I remember experimenting with post-processing software we were developing. At that time, I tried post-processing data collected in Oregon with a base station located in Atlanta, Georgia. This was a 2,500 km baseline. It produced a result, albeit not one I would necessarily trust. The only limitation is that the two units must track common GPS satellites. With that length of baseline, it’s possible that only half of the satellites tracked may be in common.
    Question #8: What is the ideal distance range from a CORS station to your site to use post-processing?
    Gakstatter Comment: Ideally, as close as possible. The further you are from a base station, the more potential error will be introduced due to atmospheric differences between the two locations. As stated above, the density of CORS (at least in the U.S. and many parts of the world) are such that the nearest base station is quite near and likely no more than a couple of hundred kilometers away.
    Question #9: What is the trade-off between short observation time (couple of minutes) to position accuracy when using post-processing?
    Gakstatter Comment: Ok, remember we are talking about pseudorange corrections (as opposed to carrier phase). Given that the receiver has been tracking satellites for a period of time (let’s say two minutes), the observation times only need to be a few seconds for each feature to be mapped.
    For example, if you are mapping utility poles and don’t turn off the receiver between poles, you only need a few seconds (5-10 seconds) of data for each pole and average it for the final coordinate. Think about if you’re mapping a road centerline. You’ll likely record data while moving, so each second you are recording a new position.
    Question #10: What about the vertical correction? I see in the slide an antenna carried in a backpack. Is the antenna placed at ground level for point? Is there a constant correction required?
    Gakstatter Comment: Vertical accuracy is typically worse than horizontal accuracy by a factor of 1.5-2.0 due to the inferior satellite geometry, especially in areas of hilly terrain and/or trees/buildings where the horizon is blocked. Good geometry for vertical positioning requires tracking a number of GPS satellites that are low on the horizon.
    Question #11: What is the future of DGPS? I heard Coast Guard beacons were going away?
    Gakstatter Comment: The beacon stations operated by the U.S. Coast Guard are not in jeopardy and never have been. Neither have the marine beacons in the other 40+ countries that broadcast GPS corrections. However, the U.S. Department of Transportation operates 29 inland stations in the U.S. which have faced budget challenges the past few years. In April 2008, the U.S. DOT issued a policy decision to continue operating the 29 inland sites. Construction of seven sites remains that would allow the Nationwide DGPS to reach Initial Operating Capability (IOC), which would provide coverage to 99% of the continental U.S. No budget has been approved for the construction of those seven sites.

     

    Question #12: Can you briefly explain the difference between DGPS & RTK?
    Gakstatter comment: Here are a couple of good websites that explain each of these techniques. Essentially, DGPS is a real-time GPS positioning technique accurate to about 30 centimeters at the very best. RTK is a real-time GPS positioning technique accurate to about 1 centimeter.
    Question #13: How much time do you need to get the position from the base station for real-time DGPS?
    Gakstatter comment: Assuming both receivers are already tracking satellites, your receivers will begin using the base-station corrections as soon as the data link is made between the two.
    Question #14: Can you comment on advantages (if any) of using corrections from a network RTK service for DGPS corrections. Any advantages on eliminating base separation?
    Gakstatter comment: I’ve heard that DGPS corrections are optimized within an RTK Network. However, I need to research this a bit further to better understand the true advantages, if any.
    Whitehead Comment: A virtual base station (VBS) solution could be formed using the network. Thus differential GPS could exhibit the same advantages using such a network that RTK does (cancellation of atmosphere errors). The software would have to support this.
    Note though that if close to one of the Reference Stations in the network, it is probably best to just use the nearest Reference station as this will best cancel the atmosphere errors. When in the middle the network, the VBS solution would use surrounding reference stations to provide a good approximation of atmospheric errors and then output a correction that looked like it originated from a reference station (virtual station ) near to the users receiver.
    Question #15: What is up with PRN 135? Still on station?
    Gakstatter comment: Communication has be re-established with WAAS PRN 135 and is being tested by its owner, Intelsat, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). See a detailed article by clicking here. The latest information I heard is that it’s currently at 93°W longitude undergoing testing. If the testing is successful, it will be re-located back to 133°W longitude and brought back into WAAS service. A timeline has not been published, but I’m guessing within the next 30-60 days.
    Question #16: We used to hear that your point accuracy degraded as the distance from the base station increased. One reason we used to post process. Is this still a factor?
    Gakstatter Comment: Due to advancements in GPS technology, it’s not as much of an issue as it used to be. I think this is illustrated in the results we achieved in our 24 hr test data.
    Ten years ago, it would be hard to find a GPS L1 receiver that would receive DGPS corrections from a beacon station 184km away and still achieve sub-meter horizontal accuracy at the 95% confidence level.
    I’m not saying the distance is negligible. There still the issue of tropospheric, ionospheric and satellite orbit errors as you move farther away from the base station. But, it’s certainly less of a factor than it was before.
    Whitehead Comment:
    Question #17: If we use WAAS correction, does it really help to try to use a post-processing type of software afterward? So far we just use WAAS correction.
    Gakstatter Comment: One of the reasons we collected data using several sources of real-time corrections and also showed the results of post-processing was to illustrate the differences between the two.
    If you follow proper procedures, there’s no reason to think that accuracy obtained using WAAS will differ significantly from accuracy obtained using post-processing. This is assuming that you’re using a single-frequency GPS receiver and post-processing using pseudorange corrections and not carrier-phase processing. Some receivers like the Trimble GeoXH are actually dual-frequency receivers and so data from it will likely surpass the accuracy of WAAS if you’re using its dual-frequency antenna and equivalent post-processing software.
    By proper WAAS procedures, I mean letting it track for five minutes upon initial start-up to allow it to download a current ionospheric map.
    Question #18: Does SBAS use 1 receiver and no base station? Expensive?
    Gakstatter Comment: SBAS uses 1 receiver and a lot of base stations. You just don’t have to pay for the SBAS base stations (or to use them.) The signal, like GPS, is provided free of charge.
    SBAS consists of a network of base stations (WAAS has 38) and communications satellites that broadcast corrections to users on the ground (or aviation users in the air).
    Question #19: How far north in Alberta is WAAS coverage available and useful?
    Gakstatter Comment: The primary concern would be visibility of the WAAS GEO satellite that broadcasts the correction data. Following is a map that illustrates the coverage. The contour lines are degrees above the horizon for which the two WAAS GEO satellites are visible.
    Solid line = PRN 138, Dashed line = PRN 133
    Question #20: Do you have any comments about CDGPS in Canada/US?
    Gakstatter comment: Sadly, the CDGPS service is being decommissioned March 31. You can read about it here. 
    Question #21: I am hearing from my state specialists (NRCS) regarding the LightSquared issue. We are advising working through the PNT ExComm and our cooperating partners.
    Gakstatter comment: This is a potentially serious issue for GPS users. Click here for the latest news as of February 1.
    Question #22: Where do you find the DGPS beacon station list and what is available to you?
    Gakstatter comment: I’m not sure if this is 100% complete, but it’s the most complete list I’ve seen. Click here.
    Question #23: Are most mapping-grade GPS receivers (for example Trimble GeoXh) equipped off the shelf to receive beacon signals?
    Gakstatter comment: Some receivers are equipped off-the-shelf, others are not (such as the GeoXH) and require additional hardware.
    Question #24: In which areas is it possible to use corrections from OmniSTAR?
    Gakstatter comment: Click here to view worldwide maps of OmniSTAR coverage.
    Question #25: Was the Garmin set to WAAS?
    Gakstatter comment: Yes, during the 24-hour data collection session, the Garmin unit was receiving WAAS 100% of the time as far as we could tell. The purpose of the 24-hour test period was to able to randomly sample data during that period to arrive at the accuracy statistics we presented. I randomly sampled the dataset several time
    s (averaging 10 seconds worth of positions 200 times) and the results were consistent with what we presented.
    Question #26: How does post processing account for ionosphere or troposphere errors if receiver is geographically far away from the base station? If not, does DGPS and WAAS provide better accuracy and integrity?
    Whitehead comment: Post Processing using a CORS station would take the nearest station and do differential GPS which cancels common errors in ionosphere and troposphere (ionosphere and troposphere are both temporally and spatially correlated) so if the CORS station is close, there will be good cancellation. If the receiver is far, the algorithms could use a troposphere model to account for the differential troposphere (as was done in the Presentation for BeaconT) and this would probably cancel troposphere so that remaining errors were sub-decimeter level. Differential Ionosphere errors could also be easily modeled with good results. It is likely that the performance could be made to easily surpass SBAS.
    DGPS would suffer from the same effects as does post processing, and maybe even more so since a model of differential atmosphere errors is rarely used. SBAS will likely provide better accuracy in situations where you are far from a base station.
    Question #27: What is Beacon T?
    Gakstatter Comment: While collecting data to present at the webinar, Mike noticed there was a bias in the beacon measurements. The beacon station is located ~184km away at about 7,000 ft elevation while the test site was at about 1,000 ft elevation. Initially, Mike wasn’t modeling the troposphere difference between the base and rover.
    To model the troposphere, Mike said he used a troposphere model to figure out troposphere in both locations, and then subtract the two. Although the models are not necessarily that accurate in an absolute sense, the differential tropo between the two locations is fairly accurate using the models. This differential tropo allows the receiver to correct the tropo in the base station differential to make it appear as if it originated in the rover location. Mike said he could’ve done the same for the ionosphere, but he didn’t since that is it usually less of a factor. After using the modified tropo model (Beacon T), the height bias was around 1/2 meter, which could be attributable the ionosphere. The horizontal bias is small, as you can see in the results.
    Using this troposphere model resulted in a significant improvement over the original solution.
    Question #28: Why is VBS better than WAAS?
    Gakstatter Comment: It surprised me too. The receiver used was the same that was used for beacon and WAAS. I contacted OmniSTAR for their opinion.
    John Pointon of OmniSTAR responds: “There have been incremental improvements in the VBS service over the years, mostly improvements in modeling and processing. We have added two or three extra reference stations but that hasn’t been the most critical improvement, just helped in some specific areas. These, combined with the relatively benign solar environment, result in VBS accuracy which, although not equivalent to our dual-frequency and multi-system solutions, is consistently better than either Beacon or WAAS.”
    Whitehead Comment: In the past, we’ve seen similar performance from both OmniStar VBS and WAAS.  Different atmosphere conditions and different locations can affect the performance of both. We’ve seen situations where WAAS is better.  It is probably fair to say that OmniStar is more focused on accuracy, whereas WAAS is focused on integrity.  It may be wise to do a comparison in the particular area where you operate.  Note, however, that in the US, OmniStar is referenced to NAD83 whereas WAAS is references to ITRF so positions reports between the two can differ by several meters.
    Question #29: When I look at your scatter plot, I have to ask if short-term point averaging is really effective at achieving more accurate positions?
    Gakstatter Comment: I think it’s well accepted that you are wasting time by occupying a point for 180 seconds. That said, there’s something to be said for letting the receiver track satellites for a period of time (1-2 minutes) before storing 5-10 seconds of data. Of course, if the receiver is already tracking satellites, then it’s not necessary to wait. The idea is to let the measurements settle down and take advantage of carrier-phase smoothing if the receiver uses that technique.

    Question #30: Could you go into PPP a bit more? How does it work?

    Gakstatter Comment: We opened a can of worms by discussing PPP. It’s an entirely different subject that I will cover in a future article. In the meantime, you can read Dr. Richard Langley’s article on PPP here.

    Question #31: How do you test the accuracy of SBAS collected data?

    Gakstatter Comment: In the U.S., it’s easy. Find a local survey mark using the National Geodetic Survey website. Printout the ITRF coordinates of the survey mark. If they aren’t on the datasheet, you can convert from NAD83/CORS96 to ITRF using the HTDP program. Compare the coordinates output by your GPS receiver to the coordinates of the survey mark.
    If you’re located outside of the U.S., look for a similar government agency in your country that maintains a record of survey marks. It’s vital that you are comparing coordinates referenced to the same datums.

     

    Question #32: Will there be any disadvantage if we use a EGNOS corrections in Kuwait, if we receive EGNOS?

    Whitehead Comment: Kuwait is outside the EGNOS coverage zone, so satellites to the south may not even have Clock and Orbit correctors available, which means the Receiver could not compute a correction for these satellites.  Unless the receiver can mix differentially cor
    rected ranges with non-differentially corrected ranges, it would likely drop the satellites in the south that had no corrections. This would then reduce PDOP and thus accuracy. Mixing differentially corrected ranges with non-differentially corrected ranges may give worse accuracy than no corrections at all since the SBAS system may have clock or other biases relative to GPS.
    By the way, I wish the SBAS providers would get together and share data so that they each could provide world-wide orbits and clocks. Then it would matter less if you were outside the coverage area.
    Gakstatter Comment: I’ve heard that EGNOS is planning an expansion to the south and east, so Kuwai may eventually be within the EGNOS coverage footprint. Also, you’ll want to monitor the progress of India’s GAGAN system, which is a similar SBAS. It’s possible you might fall within the GAGAN extrapolated footprint for non-aviation users.
    We covered most of the questions posed by the audience. If we didn’t address yours or didn’t provide a complete enough answer for you, please e-mail me and I’ll do my best to answer you.
    As I mentioned above, we had quite a few questions about PPP. It’s a technology that’s worthy of further coverage and discussion. Look for a future article on it.
    Thanks, and see you next time.
    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

     

  • Where the 3D Scanning Action Is, and Keeping It Simple

    I’m preparing for some conference presentations I’ll be giving in a couple of weeks. One of the subjects I’m covering is spatial data transformation, or traditionally known as ETL (Extract/Transform/Load) tools. I’ve written many times before that in the geospatial industry, data is the fuel. We, as users, have access to some amazingly powerful GIS software tools.

    Clearly, the geospatial enabler is data. Without it, it’s like having a fishing pole without a pond; a tool without a purpose.

    If you look at emerging geospatial technologies, where’s the data coming from? Yes, crowd-sourcing, GPS/GNSS, and imagery are, and will continue to be, volume sources of geospatial data.

    From an infrastructure perspective (civil engineering), 3D laser scanning is a particularly interesting source of high-volume geospatial data. Ground-based and airborne 3D scanners create insanely huge volumes of data. Although an emerging technology, these scanners (LiDAR technology) have been around for many years.

    I recall using this technology on projects 8 or 9 years ago to scan accident scenes and infrastructure such as bridges. The scanning time was amazingly efficient. In some cases, the scanning data collection sessions were done in a couple of hours. During that period, literally millions of data points were collected. For the first time, the ratio between labor expended on data collection and labor expended on data processing was extremely skewed towards data processing, and that was the headache.

    While scanning time was very short, data processing time to produce a deliverable was brutal, literally taking weeks. Granted, that was 8 or 9 years ago. Advanced software tools have made data processing more efficient today, but dealing with huge volumes of data is still a challenge. Some people say that scanning may eventually replace traditional surveying equipment that shoot and record one coordinate at a time. A land surveyor, on a really strong day, may be able to shoot and record upwards of a 1,000 coordinates. With a scanner, that same person could shoot and record millions of points in a day.

    Data, Data, Data
    Ground-based and airborne LiDAR technology are clearly on the uprise. Last year, while most conferences were struggling to maintain the 2009 levels, even failing, the SPAR 2010 3D imaging conference was up 23%, according to their reports. The International LiDAR Mapping Forum conference also reported record attendance figures. Although the conferences are still in niche-mode (less than 1,000 attendees), the growth is steady.
    If you step back a bit and look at the big picture, the game is in data processing. Yes, equipment manufacturers will crank better and cheaper scanners, but turning those 3D point clouds into useful products is where the action is.
    You can see this with SAFE Software’s recently announced FME 2011 product. While historically focused on GIS and CAD interoperability, SAFE obviously sees the upside in the point cloud business as a major part of FME 2011 is focused on dealing with the massive amounts of data created from 3D laser scanning.
    Keeping it Simple
    Changing gears…
    With all this geospatial technology advancing faster than a rabbit on a motorcycle, it’s hard to slow down and look at the simple uses of GIS that still offer a lot of value. As much as most of us are pushing hard to implement more and more spatial data technology, it’s just as important that we introduce people to GIS, even a very simple version of it.
    This week, a reader asked me about the best way to display a map from a bunch of lat/lon coordinates (little or no attributes) in a spreadsheet. No complex attribute tables, no strange map projection, just a spreadsheet of lat/lon coordinates.
    This challenge gave me reason to revisit Esri’s freely available ArcExplorer software. It wasn’t my first choice, but it’s where I‘ll likely end up. I haven’t touched ArcExplorer (I know that’s not the name of the current software, read on) for quite some time (as in a couple of years or more). I use ArcGIS, AutoCAD and a half-dozen other spatial data software tools.
    When presented with the challenge, my first inclination was to push her towards arcgis.com in order to steer her away from having to download, install and maintain desktop software. No go. After a quick post to a support group, I’m told there’s not an easy way to add this data to an arcgis.com map. My other thought was Google Earth. Naah.
    I subscribed to Google Earth Pro for a year and it really is sort of cheesy, to me. Maybe it’s because my view is distorted from my experience with GIS software in the past, but it seems to me that Google Earth is still primarily eye-candy, and what I really wanted was an easy-to-use, light-weight GIS. However, I do hope that they continue pushing that technology forward.
    All along, I thinking my ultimate back-up plan would be to recommend ArcExplorer. I went to download it and remembered it’s now upgraded to ArcGIS Explorer. I remember reading and posting that news awhile back, but hadn’t taken the time to download and preview it. It’s a much different animal than ArcExplorer, and I like what I see so far. I haven’t tried to import any data yet, but from the menu selection, I can see it will accept the simple ones such as shapefiles, raster imagery, ASCII, and GPS exchange files. Most simple data sets can be converted to one of these formats using freely available software tools.
    ArcGIS Explorer Opening Screen
    This will be an interesting experiment, and one I will update you on, likely next week, as I try it with a sample data set from the reader.
    I really like the opportunity to introduce someone to GIS, even at just a simple level because I believe will open their eyes to other possibilities in the future. It empowers them to think more GIS-centric.

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Remember How Slow Dial-up Was? That’s Where GPS Is Today

    It’s not often that I share content between the two newsletters I write (Geospatial Weekly and Survey Scene), but this week is one of them. Europe’s version of GPS (named Galileo) will have a profound effect on the geospatial industry in the future. In the past, I’ve written about how cheap accurate positioning is going to get. Europe’s Galileo is a big step in that direction and an important factor in making it happen faster than GPS alone.

    Being able to collect accurate geospatial data, whether it’s a utility pole, a wetland monitoring well, or a catch basin, will be infinitely easier, cheaper, more efficient and more accurate than it is today. Therefore, with accurate data becoming much more available and accessible, what do you think will happen to geospatial applications?

    To answer that question, I’ll use an analogy that we can all relate to.

    Remember in the early ’90s when the average person accessed the Internet via a dial-up connection? You were lucky to get a connection speed of 56 kbps, and more likely it was 28.8 kbps or 14.4 kbps. At that speed, there is only a limited amount of activity one could do on the web. Geospatial professionals and geospatial users are particularly heavy users of Internet bandwidth. GIS vector data, imagery, and maps in general create sizable files. Can you imagine the typical geospatial professional trying to accomplish their daily tasks using a 56 kbps dial-up connection to the Internet?

    Think about how much economic benefit the world has gained with the introduction and proliferation of broadband (cable, DSL, high-speed wireless, etc.) Internet connectivity. Not only are we more efficient with broadband connectivity, we are more enabled. Take one example, cloud computing. That emerging technology is totally reliant on broadband Internet connectivity. If only dial-up existed, cloud computing wouldn’t exist.

    To put GPS/GNSS (Galileo, GLONASS, etc.) in perspective, we are still in the “dial-up” phase. Even though GPS/GNSS is a multi-billion worldwide industry today, imagine what it will be when it enters into the “broadband” phase. Try to imagine the tremendous number of applications that will be enabled when GPS/GNSS is orders of magnitude less expensive and more accurate than it is today. Then, think about how much of the GPS/GNSS industry has a geospatial component to it.

    The following is lifted from my Survey Scene newsletter we published this week. It describes the path to cheap accuracy and how Galileo will help us get there faster.

     

    2011: The Year for Galileo

    January 18, 2011

    By Eric Gakstatter

    Back in December 2006, I wrote about the momentum of Galileo (Europe’s planned satellite navigation system) in an article discussing GNSS trends. Galileo been discussed off and on for well over a decade and was a hot topic for a number of years. In fact, back around 2001, the U.S. really didn’t want the European Union to embark on the project. While there was not a clear policy against Galileo, certainly the sentiment was questioning the creation of another satellite navigation system when GPS already exists that’s free for everyone to use. Ok, it probably wasn’t that simple, but you get my point. No bueno from the U.S. at that time.

    The following is an EU slide that illustrates why the EU wants to develop its own satellite navigation system similar to GPS:

     

    Source: European Commission – Montpellier, France – October 2010

    Then, in 2004, the U.S. government abruptly changed its tune. It really doesn’t matter why and I’m not sure I’d believe the answer if I was given one, but President George HW Bush instituted a new policy that encouraged international cooperation. The U.S. SPACE-BASED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION, AND TIMING POLICY issued in 2004 stated, among other things, that the United States shall:

    “Seek to ensure that foreign space-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems are interoperable with the civil services of the Global Positioning System and its augmentations in order to benefit civil, commercial, and scientific users worldwide. At a minimum, seek to ensure that foreign systems are compatible with the Global Positioning System and its augmentations and address mutual security concerns with foreign providers to prevent hostile use of space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services;”

    Also in 2004, the U.S. and European Union signed the landmark GPS-Galileo Agreement that established a basis of cooperation. This was great news for the GNSS user community. More satellites and more signals usually equates to better performance.

    The next policy update after 2004 was last year (2010) and it was simply titled “NATIONAL SPACE POLICY“. The sentiment regarding international cooperation was the same, if not leaning more towards cooperation:

    “Engage with foreign GNSS providers to encourage compatibility and interoperability, promote transparency in civil service provision, and enable market access for U.S. industry;”

    After the 2004 GPS-Galileo policy was published, the question from the civil user community was, “When are we going to have satellites in orbit broadcasting signals we can use?”

    The answer to that question wasn’t easy, and took longer to answer than anyone predicted, including myself.

    Now, we have the answer.

    Unlike GPS and GLONASS, Galileo is a civilian
    project, not a military-funded one. I’m not saying GPS and GLONASS were easy to fund, but the core application was defined (military use), and the funding required to develop and maintain GPS and GLONASS is drawn from the military budget. Furthermore, the European Union is comprised of 27 member countries. The political dynamics are, obviously, very complex.

    The Galileo funding modeling initially was to be a public-private partnership (PPP). Part of it would be funded with public money and part of it would be funded by a consortium of companies. But, that wasn’t so easy. How much funding would each contribute? What’s the return on investment? How would it generate revenue? Would there be a tax receiver sales? Would there be a user charge?

    We’re not talking about small sum of money. We’re talking about several billion Euros just to get it off the ground.Think about it, how much money has the U.S. military spent to develop GPS? $30-$35 billion for development, deployment and long-term maintenance. Granted, Galileo will cost a lot less than that, but it’s still a healthy sum that no company would be willing to gamble without a solid return-on-investment (ROI) argument.

    Eventually, the PPP (Private-Public Partnership) funding model was abandoned and in late 2007, and as described in a January 2008 GPS World article:

    “European officials responsible for the EU budget said they had found funds for Galileo, proposing to draw unused money originally earmarked for natural resources programs this year and next. The move would provide some €2.4 billion ($3.3 billion) for Galileo — the budgetary shortfall left with the dissolution of the public/private partnerships — over the course of the next six years. The following month, European parliamentarians agreed with the plan, but felt it didn’t go far enough. They boosted proposed funding for Galileo, increasing the money set aside for the program in 2008 to €739 million ($1.06 billion), up from the much more modest €151 million under the transport officials’ original proposal for next year.

    Not all were sold on public funding for Galileo. But in November, European officials said they had ironed out their differences. At the 11th hour came heated debate about how Galileo funding and contracts would be awarded among member states and their respective aerospace companies. Eventually, a final accord was reached. Europe anticipates spending €3.7 billion on Galileo through 2013.”

    (Updated figures: €2.1 billion for IOV and €3.4 billion for FOC)

    That was three years ago. The EU folks have been working hard since then, but talk is cheap and people stopped talking about Galileo with the exception of a few information spikes here and there. There was nothing else to say until now.

     

    2011 is the Year for Galileo

    Galileo will likely meet a major milestone this summer, launching their first two satellites for in-orbit validation. But unlike the two Galileo test satellites already in orbit (GIOVE-A and GIOVE-B), these satellites will be part of the planned 30-satellite operating constellation.

    For you Galileo naysayers, the EU is past the point of no return. Eighteen satellites are contracted. There is no reversing the process. And, if I were to place a bet, it’s very unlikely to stall at 18. That would be sort of like building a structure, but not finishing the interior.

    Although I haven’t seen a detailed launch schedule or control segment plan, the latest Galileo public document I’ve read (European Commission – Montpellier, October 2010) presents the following timeline:

    2011/2012 – In-Orbit validation: Four IOV satellites and ground segment (based on European Commission presentation from October 2010).

    2014/2015 – Initial Operating Capability for early services — 18 satellites (based on European Commission presentation from October 2010).

    2019/2020 – Full Operating Capability — 30 satellites (based on mid-term review released January 18, 2011)

     

    2014 Will Be the Year of Cheap GNSS Accuracy

    I believe the magic year for GNSS will be 2014. That’s when GNSS receivers are going to be very interesting.

    Why?

    It’s no secret that I think the new L5 signal is a game-changer. Last summer I wrote an article titled “What’s Going to Happen When High-Accuracy GPS is Cheap?”  It’s all about L5.

    L1/L5 dual-frequency receivers are going to be cheap, and accurate. Today, dual-frequency (L1/L2) receivers are thousands of dollars. L1/L5 receivers will be a fraction of that cost because open signal specifications will lead to increased competition.

    As I mentioned in the article last summer, the GPS Directorate is planned to have 24 satellites broadcasting L5 by 2019. The beauty of Galileo is that it can cut that time in half and make it happen by 2014, only three years from now. Here’s how.

    Since Galileo supports L1 and L5 similar to GPS, you only need 12 x GPS satellites broadcasting L5 and 12 x Galileo satellites broadcasting L5 to have something close to 24 satellites broadcasting L5.

    The BIG question is if the U.S. and EU will coordinate orbit slots so the 12 x GPS and 12 x Galileo satellites are in a somewhat optimal 24-slot constellation instead of an uncoordinated configuration. The civil economic benefit from taking advantage of L5 as soon as possible would be substantial. Just this week, the EU issued a reportstating that 6-7% of the GDP of EU countries is dependent on satellite navigation. Better accuracy enabled by L1/L5 will spur a mind-boggling number of new applications that will further broaden the GNSS user base and economic impact. It would also stimulate GNSS receiver development from a much broader range of GNSS receiver designers than we see today.

    With a combined GPS/Galileo constellation, not only will accuracy become cheaper, but availability will increase significantly. The new GPS 24+ 3 configuration is certainly a big help for high precision users with respect to availability. Can you imagine how much precise positioning availability will improve when 18 Galileo satellites (not to mention 30) are added to the mix? Last summer, the EU-U.S. Cooperation on Satellite Navigation Working Group C published a report entitled “Combined Performance for Open GPS/Galileo Receivers.” The report succinctly draws the following conclusion, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

    “The studies demonstrate and quantify the improvements that can be expected when using GPS and Galileo open services in combination under different environmental conditions. In all studied cases, the combination of GPS and Galileo led to noteworthy performance improvements as compared to single system performance. The most significant improvement is for partially obscured environments, where buildings, trees or terrain block portions of the sky. The increased number of satellites available provides robust performance even as some signals are blocked, which is reflected in a significant increase of positioning accuracy and availability.”

    Following are some data from the report that back up the conclusions on availability.

    Availability with a 15° elevation mask

    GPS only – 99.10%

    Galileo only – 100%

    GPS/Galileo – 100%

    Availability with a 30° degree elevation mask

    GPS only – 57.28%

    Galileo only – 75.02%

    GPS/Galileo – 98.93%

    Granted, you should take these numbers with a grain of salt. These are based on positioning with four satellites in view. The reality is that for high precision users, we need data from at least six satellites for robust positioning. But, I think the scale of improvement when going to GPS/Galileo constellation is obvious and will scale similarly when considering six satellite positioning.

    For all the reasons above, I’m putting my stamp on 2011 as being The Year of Galileo. Look forward to further coverage on Galileo in the coming months.

    ———————————————–

    Upcoming Jan. 26 Webinar: SBAS, DGPS or Post-processing? Which Should You Use?

    Speakers:

    Eric Gakstatter, Editor, Geospatial Solutions and Survey Scene newsletter &

    Dr. Mike Whitehead, VP of Technology at Hemisphere GPS

    Event Date: 01/26/2011 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, 5 PM GMT

    Tens of thousands of users around the world utilize GPS/GNSS receivers for mapping, surveying and navigating. Since autonomous GPS/GNSS typically does not provide the needed accuracy, users must rely on a source of GPS/GNSS corrections. There are three sources of GPS/GNSS corrections available to users who desire reliable GPS/GNSS accuracy in the sub-meter to three meter range: SBAS, DGPS and post-processing. Dr. Michael Whitehead, Chief Scientist at Hemisphere GPS, will join me in presenting a background on the three technologies as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each. I’ve known Mike for a number of years. He was an early innovator in the development of SBAS technology at Satloc as well as SBAS and DGPS receiver technology at Hemisphere GPS. He is one of the leading GNSS engineers in the world. I’m particularly excited about this event and promise a lively discussion that’s full of useful information, data and concepts that anyone using or considering using GPS/GNSS for mapping, surveying or navigating will find useful.

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • 2011: The Year for Galileo

    Back in December 2006, I wrote about the momentum of Galileo (Europe’s planned satellite navigation system) in an article discussing GNSS trends. Galileo has been discussed off and on for well over a decade and was a hot topic for a number of years. In fact, back around 2001, the U.S. really didn’t want the European Union to embark on the project. While there was not a clear policy against Galileo, certainly the sentiment was questioning the creation of another satellite navigation system when GPS already exists that’s free for everyone to use. Ok, it probably wasn’t that simple, but you get my point. No bueno from the U.S. at that time.

    The following is an EU slide that illustrates why the EU wants to develop its own satellite navigation system similar to GPS:

    Source: European Commission – Montpellier, France – October 2010

     

    Then, in 2004, the U.S. government abruptly changed its tune. It really doesn’t matter why and I’m not sure I’d believe the answer if I was given one, but President George HW Bush instituted a new policy that encouraged international cooperation. The U.S. SPACE-BASED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION, AND TIMING POLICY issued in 2004 stated, among other things, that the United States shall:

    “Seek to ensure that foreign space-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems are interoperable with the civil services of the Global Positioning System and its augmentations in order to benefit civil, commercial, and scientific users worldwide. At a minimum, seek to ensure that foreign systems are compatible with the Global Positioning System and its augmentations and address mutual security concerns with foreign providers to prevent hostile use of space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services;”

    Also in 2004, the U.S. and European Union signed the landmark GPS-Galileo Agreement that established a basis of cooperation. This was great news for the GNSS user community. More satellites and more signals usually equates to better performance.

    The next policy update after 2004 was last year (2010) and it was simply titled “NATIONAL SPACE POLICY“. The sentiment regarding international cooperation was the same, if not leaning more towards cooperation:

    “Engage with foreign GNSS providers to encourage compatibility and interoperability, promote transparency in civil service provision, and enable market access for U.S. industry;”

    After the 2004 GPS-Galileo policy was published, the question from the civil user community was, “When are we going to have satellites in orbit broadcasting signals we can use?”

    The answer to that question wasn’t easy, and took longer to answer than anyone predicted, including myself.

    Now, we have the answer.

    Unlike GPS and GLONASS, Galileo is a civilian project, not a military-funded one. I’m not saying GPS and GLONASS were easy to fund, but the core application was defined (military use), and the funding required to develop and maintain GPS and GLONASS is drawn from the military budget. Furthermore, the European Union is comprised of 27 member countries. The political dynamics are, obviously, very complex.

    The Galileo funding modeling initially was to be a public-private partnership (PPP). Part of it would be funded with public money and part of it would be funded by a consortium of companies. But, that wasn’t so easy. How much funding would each contribute? What’s the return on investment? How would it generate revenue? Would there be a tax receiver sales? Would there be a user charge?

    We’re not talking about small sum of money. We’re talking about several billion Euros just to get it off the ground.Think about it, how much money has the U.S. military spent to develop GPS? $30-$35 billion for development, deployment and long-term maintenance. Granted, Galileo will cost a lot less than that, but it’s still a healthy sum that no company would be willing to gamble without a solid return-on-investment (ROI) argument.

    Eventually, the PPP (Private-Public Partnership) funding model was abandoned and in late 2007, and as described in a January 2008 GPS World article:

    “European officials responsible for the EU budget said they had found funds for Galileo, proposing to draw unused money originally earmarked for natural resources programs this year and next. The move would provide some €2.4 billion ($3.3 billion) for Galileo — the budgetary shortfall left with the dissolution of the public/private partnerships — over the course of the next six years. The following month, European parliamentarians agreed with the plan, but felt it didn’t go far enough. They boosted proposed funding for Galileo, increasing the money set aside for the program in 2008 to €739 million ($1.06 billion), up from the much more modest €151 million under the transport officials’ original proposal for next year.

    Not all were sold on public funding for Galileo. But in November, European officials said they had ironed out their differences. At the 11th hour came heated debate about how Galileo funding and contracts would be awarded among member states and their respective aerospace companies. Eventually, a final accord was reached. Europe anticipates spending €3.7 billion on Galileo through 2013.”

    (Updated figures: €2.1 billion for IOV and €3.4 billion for FOC)

    That was three years ago. The EU folks have been working hard since then, but talk is cheap and people stopped talking about Galileo with the exception of a few information spikes here and there. There was nothing else to say until now.

    2011 is the Year for Galileo

    Galileo will likely meet a major milestone this summer, launching their first two satellites for in-orbit validation. But unlike the two Galileo test satellites already in orbit (GIOVE-A and GIOVE-B), these satellites will be part of the planned 30-satellite operating constellation.

    For you Galileo naysayers, the EU is past the point of no return. Eighteen satellites are contracted. There is no reversing the process. And, if I were to place a bet, it’s very unlikely to stall at 18. That would be sort of like building a structure, but not finishing the interior.

    Although I haven’t seen a detailed launch schedule or control segment plan, the latest Galileo public document I’ve read (European Commission – Montpellier, October 2010) presents the following timeline:

    2011/2012 – In-Orbit validation: Four IOV satellites and ground segment (based on European Commission presentation from October 2010).

    2014/2015 – Initial Operating Capability for early services — 18 satellites (based on European Commission presentation from October 2010).

    2019/2020 – Full Operating Capability — 30 satellites
    (based on mid-term review released January 18, 2011)

    2014 Will Be the Year of Cheap GNSS Accuracy

    I believe the magic year for GNSS will be 2014. That’s when GNSS receivers are going to be very interesting.

    Why?

    It’s no secret that I think the new L5 signal is a game-changer. Last summer I wrote an article titled “What’s Going to Happen When High-Accuracy GPS is Cheap?”  It’s all about L5.

    L1/L5 dual-frequency receivers are going to be cheap, and accurate. Today, dual-frequency (L1/L2) receivers are thousands of dollars. L1/L5 receivers will be a fraction of that cost because open signal specifications will lead to increased competition.

    As I mentioned in the article last summer, the GPS Directorate is planned to have 24 satellites broadcasting L5 by 2019. The beauty of Galileo is that it can cut that time in half and make it happen by 2014, only three years from now. Here’s how.

    Since Galileo supports L1 and L5 similar to GPS, you only need 12 x GPS satellites broadcasting L5 and 12 x Galileo satellites broadcasting L5 to have something close to 24 satellites broadcasting L5.

    The BIG question is if the U.S. and EU will coordinate orbit slots so the 12 x GPS and 12 x Galileo satellites are in a somewhat optimal 24-slot constellation instead of an uncoordinated configuration. The civil economic benefit from taking advantage of L5 as soon as possible would be substantial. Just this week, the EU issued a report stating that 6-7% of the GDP of EU countries is dependent on satellite navigation. Better accuracy enabled by L1/L5 will spur a mind-boggling number of new applications that will further broaden the GNSS user base and economic impact. It would also stimulate GNSS receiver development from a much broader range of GNSS receiver designers than we see today.

    With a combined GPS/Galileo constellation, not only will accuracy become cheaper, but availability will increase significantly. The new GPS 24+ 3 configuration is certainly a big help for high precision users with respect to availability. Can you imagine how much precise positioning availability will improve when 18 Galileo satellites (not to mention 30) are added to the mix? Last summer, the EU-U.S. Cooperation on Satellite Navigation Working Group C published a report entitled “Combined Performance for Open GPS/Galileo Receivers.” The report succinctly draws the following conclusion, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

    “The studies demonstrate and quantify the improvements that can be expected when using GPS and Galileo open services in combination under different environmental conditions. In all studied cases, the combination of GPS and Galileo led to noteworthy performance improvements as compared to single system performance. The most significant improvement is for partially obscured environments, where buildings, trees or terrain block portions of the sky. The increased number of satellites available provides robust performance even as some signals are blocked, which is reflected in a significant increase of positioning accuracy and availability.”

    Following are some data from the report that back up the conclusions on availability.

    Availability with a 15° elevation mask

    GPS only – 99.10%

    Galileo only – 100%

    GPS/Galileo – 100%

    Availability with a 30° degree elevation mask

    GPS only – 57.28%

    Galileo only – 75.02%

    GPS/Galileo – 98.93%

    Granted, you should take these numbers with a grain of salt. These are based on positioning with four satellites in view. The reality is that for high precision users, we need data from at least six satellites for robust positioning. But, I think the scale of improvement when going to GPS/Galileo constellation is obvious and will scale similarly when considering six satellite positioning.

    For all the reasons above, I’m putting my stamp on 2011 as being The Year of Galileo. Look forward to further coverage on Galileo in the coming months.

    Upcoming Jan. 26 Webinar: SBAS, DGPS or Post-processing? Which Should You Use?

    Speakers:

    Eric Gakstatter, Editor, Geospatial Solutions and Survey Scene newsletter &

    Dr. Mike Whitehead, VP of Technology at Hemisphere GPS

    Event Date: 01/26/2011 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, 5 PM GMT

    Tens of thousands of users around the world utilize GPS/GNSS receivers for mapping, surveying and navigating. Since autonomous GPS/GNSS typically does not provide the needed accuracy, users must rely on a source of GPS/GNSS corrections. There are three sources of GPS/GNSS corrections available to users who desire reliable GPS/GNSS accuracy in the sub-meter to three meter range: SBAS, DGPS and post-processing. Dr. Michael Whitehead, Chief Scientist at Hemisphere GPS, will join me in presenting a background on the three technologies as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each. I’ve known Mike for a number of years. He was an early innovator in the development of SBAS technology at Satloc as well as SBAS and DGPS receiver technology at Hemisphere GPS. He is one of the leading GNSS engineers in the world. I’m particularly excited about this event and promise a lively discussion that’s full of useful information, data and concepts that anyone using or considering using GPS/GNSS for mapping, surveying or navigating will find useful.

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

     

  • Geospatial 2011: Ten Big Ones in Five

    Ok, a little later than other folks out there, but I’m in Belgium and the beer is good.

    Here’s my Ten Big Ones in the geospatial industry for 2011.

     

    Ten Big Ones

     

    1. Open Street Mapping (OpenStreetMap.org)

    Yes, this is real and its gaining traction. This is a Wikipedia-like effort to create a digital map of the world, for anyone to use free of charge. You can be contributor, or you can be a user, or you can be both. Think about it, the latest OpenStreetMap blog is talking about mapping public toilets. Strange, but frighteningly useful.

     

    2. Crowd-sourced data

    Highly related to OpenStreetMap.org but not dependent on said .org, crowd-sourced data has the potential to go viral. It’s going to take one funky app or news story to get people hooked on crowd-sourced data. Of course, that’s a fad, but it has daily usefulness too such as citizen reporting (eg. graffiti, broken sidewalks, downed trees/powerlines, etc). Moving slower will be land surveyors, engineers, land planners who buy into Esri’s Community Base Map initiative that Jack Dangermond promoted at last year’s Esri International User Conference Plenary.

    Mobile Devices, Content, and Other Top GIS Trends

    More on Crowd Sourcing

     

    3. LBS apps

    Watch where the venture capital money is being invested. Like me, you may not like the Wall Street mentality, but you can rest assured that like vultures, they follow the money. And they are putting their money into LBS ventures, such as Foursquare, Gowalla, and Telenav.

    Neither Facebook nor Twitter started as LBS apps, but both went there.

    Got an Android phone? If so, you’ve got a free street navigation tool, Google Maps Navigation.

    Social networking LBS apps are projected to be a multi-billion dollar industry in just a few years.

    What is an LBS App?

     

    4. Location Privacy (think LBS apps)

    LBS apps are highly dependent on knowing where you are.

    GPS is being designed into most mobile phones.

    It’s great to know where you are, but do you want someone else knowing where you are? Your friends? Maybe. An advertiser? Maybe. A stalker? Not.

    This issue is heating up and will got hot in 2011.

    Privacy Push Will Impact Geolocation Sector, Attorney Says

    Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS) Urges FCC to Use Extreme Caution

     

    5. Augmented Reality

    The newest breed of LBS apps has a huge potential. In my opinion, it’s just a matter of time before this technology winds it way into many parts of our lives. In transportation apps alone, it will make our lives a lot more safe.

    It’s hard to contain myself when writing about this technology, so I’ll stop here. You will hear about it and you will experience it, this year and beyond.

    Augmented Reality

    Wikipedia entry

     

    6. Tablet computers

    Did you watch news coverage of last week’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas?

    Do you know what they featured?

    Tablet computers.

    ‘Nuf said.

    CBS News coverage at CES

    2011 will be another great year for tablet computers.

     

    7. Galileo

    This is going to sneak up on people in 2011. Galileo (Europe’s version of GPS) will launch its first two satellites in 2011. They are highly compatible with GPS.

    Unlike GPS which launches one satellite at a time, multiple Galileo satellites can be launched at one time. They will launch two-at-a-time to get the first four into orbit.

    The European Commission says they are on schedule to have 18 satellites in orbit by 2014 (more like 2015, though).

    Either way, this is a game-changer.

    It will make L5 a reality sooner than GPS-alone.

    “What’s Going to Happen When High-Accuracy GPS is Cheap?”

    GLONASS? What’s GLONASS?

     

    8. Smart Phones

    Guess what the other hot topic was at the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas last week?

    Yep, smartphones.

    Check out CNET’s Jessica Dolcourt’s comment when asked, “What trends will we see in smartphone hardware and software in the next two to five years?”

    “We’re going to see quad-core processors and 3D. Gaming will really take off with much better processing speeds and hardware acceleration. Battery technology will also have to improve to handle the much richer multimedia. In terms of hardware, NFC (near-field communication) chips will proliferate as one way that smartphones will largely replace physical wallets.”

    I agree. Wallets are going to be so 2010. Good riddance. I didn’t like you in my back pocket anyway.

    Putting on my professional geospatial hat, smartphones will change the way we collect data, period.

    In 2010, Gartner reported that smartphone sales were up 96% in Q3 2010 compared to Q3 2009; 417 million smartphones were sold in Q3 2010 alone!

    And that was before Microsoft introduced the Windows Phone 7.

     

    9. GPS-enabled Digital Cameras

    Ricoh seems to be taking the lead and others are following. As a geospatial professional, it’s clear that you value georeferenced digital photos. It’s one of the most highly searched terms on our website.

    Digital camera sensors are moving towards becoming ubiquitous. It’s going to become just another feature like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, etc.

    GeoSpatial Experts Bundles Three New GPS Cameras with Photo-Mapping Software

     

    10. Cloud Computing

    Didn’t we used to do this, but it was called something else? I think so.

    Nonetheless, it’s got traction again. Think not? Read this.

    Dude, We’re Working in the Cloud

    It won’t replace all client apps, but for non-sensitive content, it’s a no-brainer. It’s a big money-saver for enterprise organizations.

    Microsoft is going to take a hit. Note to self: Sell MSFT stock.

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • To Post-Process or Not to Post-Process, that Is the Question

    If you’ve been around GPS mapping for any length of time, I’m sure you’ve heard of post-processing, and you may have even experienced it yourself. If you used GPS for mapping in the ’90s, you almost certainly post-processed your data. In fact, sometimes you had to pay for access to GPS base-station data for post-processing. That’s hard to imagine given the widespread, worldwide availability of GPS base-station data on the web today.

    SBAS (WAAS/EGNOS/MSAS) didn’t exist, and for real-time corrections and DGPS (beacon) coverage was spotty at best, but real-time commercial DGPS services like OmniSTAR, Landstar, and Satloc were around.

    One thing is for sure, no matter what, you have to have some source of corrections to collect GPS data for GIS mapping. It’s commonly referred to as differential GPS correction. Essentially, your GPS receiver needs to reference another GPS receiver (base station) that’s set up on a known position.

    Grafnav Post-processing software

     

    There are two primary methods in which to apply a correction to your GPS data: post-processing differential correction and real-time DGPS.

    Post-processing

    When you’re collecting GPS data that’s going to be post-processed, you need a GPS receiver (and software) that’s going to be able to record satellite observation data. Otherwise, data is collected as one normally would in the field, whether it’s utility poles, manhole covers, road centerlines or polygons of any sort.

    The accuracy of the GPS data while you’re in the field is autonomous GPS, so it could be several meters or even ten meters or more. You can’t use this type of method for navigating to a point with any sort of accuracy better than a few meters.

    After you’re finished collecting your GPS data for the day, you go back to the office and download your data to your computer. Post-processing requires special software. That software will allow you to search the Internet for the closest GPS base station(s) to use as a source of GPS corrections. In previous years, it was a laborious task to search for GPS base-station data that was recorded the same time as you were in the field (remember UTC vs. local time?). That’s not the case any longer as advanced post-processing software has made this a more automated process. The software will search for the closest base station and automatically select the appropriate files to download.

    It takes specialized software and training to utilize post-processing effectively.

    Real-time DGPS

    This is a method of receiving GPS corrections while you’re in the field. The GPS corrections are applied in real-time so your positioning is accurate. This is  useful when you want to navigate to a particular point very accurately. In the 1990s, there were a number of DGPS services, mostly commercial. One would pay a monthly or annual subscription fee to receive the DGPS corrections. During that time, the U.S. Coast Guard started developing a system by which it will install GPS base stations near the major U.S. waterways (coastlines and major rivers). It set up large towers that would broadcast the corrections via 300 kHz radio. Most importantly, it broadcast the corrections free of charge. One only needed a “beacon receiver” to receive the corrections. The system didn’t cover the entire U.S., but it opened the eyes as to what was possible in terms of a regionwide, or nationwide, DGPS network of base stations.

    The U.S. Coast Guard concept is still used today in more than 40 countries for DGPS marine navigation. The same GPS correction signal is also used by many people using GPS for mapping.

    Around the same time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began developing a system to improve GPS integrity and accuracy. They called it WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System). It was the first SBAS in the world and, upon being declared operational in 2003, is in use by thousands of people for GPS mapping. SBAS is a regional system. WAAS only covers North America (U.S., Canada, and Mexico). It has spawned a number of similar and compatible systems such as EGNOS in Western Europe and MSAS in Asia with GAGAN under development in India.

    There are several advantages and disadvantages to both post-processing and real-time DGPS for GPS mapping. The primary advantage of post-processing is that you don’t have to worry about a wireless data connection in the field. The primary advantage of real-time DGPS is that you get much better accuracy in the field. There are many other factors you should consider when deciding which method to use.

    In fact, I think it’s an interesting enough topic that I’m conducting a webinar later this month that will address both of these methods. I’ve invited Dr. Michael Whitehead to join me. He’s the head technology guy at Hemisphere GPS and has worked extensively developing high performance GPS receivers. He was also the chief architect at Satloc back in the late ’90s.

     

    Webinar: SBAS, DGPS or Post-processing? Which Should You Use?

    Speakers:

    Eric Gakstatter, Editor, Geospatial Solutions and Survey Scene newsletter &

    Dr. Mike Whitehead, VP of Technology at Hemisphere GPS

    Event Date: 01/26/2011 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, 5 PM GMT

    Tens of thousands of users around the world utilize GPS/GNSS receivers for mapping, surveying and navigating. Since autonomous GPS/GNSS typically does not provide the needed accuracy, users must rely on a source of GPS/GNSS corrections. There are three sources of GPS/GNSS corrections available to users who desire reliable GPS/GNSS accuracy in the sub-meter to three meter range: SBAS, DGPS and post-processing. Dr. Michael Whitehead, Chief Scientist at Hemisphere GPS, will join me in presenting a background on the three technologies as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each. I’ve known Mike for a number of years. He was an early innovator in the development of SBAS technology at Satloc as well as SBAS and DGPS receiver technology at Hemisphere GPS. He is one of the leading GNSS engineers in the world. I’m particularly excited about this event and promise a lively discussion that’s full of useful information, data and concepts that anyone using or considering using GPS/GNSS for mapping, surveying or navigating will find useful.

     

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Will We Be a Billion Times More Geospatially Intelligent in Thirty Years?

    I recently read an article in the December 6, 2010, issue of Time magazine. Futurist Ray Kurzweil was asked the following question:

    “Is it a mistake to use the events of the recent past as a method of predicting the future?”

    His answer has me reconsidering my thoughts about the future of geospatial technology.

    Essentially, his idea is that we tend to think linearly when thinking about the growth of technology, or geospatial technology in our case. In his example, if you take 30 steps forward, you will end up at 30. Extending that logic, if we take one step each year for 30 years, we will end up 30 steps more advanced than we are today, in the year 2040.

    Not true, says Kurweil.

    He says the reality is that technology is moving forward exponentially, rather than linearly.

    What’s the difference? Take a look at this chart from Wikipedia:

     

    Red = Linear Growth, Blue = Cubic Growth, Green = Exponential Growth (Source: Wikipedia)

     

    Exponential growth means that geospatial technology will not be 30 steps ahead in 30 years, but rather a billion steps ahead in 30 years! That number is inconceivable to most people, including myself. Referencing the graphic above, at step 9, exponential growth begins to skyrocket after perculating slowly for the first 6 steps.

    Recall the question that may have been posed to you as a child.

    “Would you take $1,000,000 or a salary that started at one penny per day and doubled every day for 30 days?”

    Believe it or not, your salary for the day on Day 30 of the latter scheme would be $5,368,709.12. It’s a mind-numbing figure.

    Now, apply similar logic to the growth of geospatial technology over the next 30 years. Booya!

     

    Sensor Integration

    The development and integration of microelectronic sensors is going to be huge in the next few years, not to mention the next 30 years.

    Just today, Freescale introduced a microelectronic chip that is essentially a digital compass. It was designed to be integrated into mobile devices (smartphones, GPS navigators, etc.) to enable navigating in places where GPS doesn’t work well, or at all.

    We are only at the beginning of a huge wave of microelectronic sensors to come. Reference the Time magazine article again. Ray Kurzweil predicts that computers will be come small enough that we will be able to embed them in our bodies to enable us to be healthier and smarter. There’s a tremendous opportunity to improve our health. But to some of you, actually most of you (including me), the thought of having a computer, or more than one, embedded in my body is a very uncomfortable thought.

    I can think of a bazillion different microelectronic sensors that have been developed, are being developed, or will be developed. Temperature, moisture/humidity, motion/acceleration, white blood cell count, light, color, distance, etc. The list is endless. However, a common theme among all the sensors I can think of is the geospatial component. Location is an important reference for every sensor. That’s undeniable.

     

    Transportation

    Thinking in terms of transportation, it’s easy to see the future. In fact, the technology already exists today to make automobile and aviation transportation significantly more safe.

    I tell my kids that cars of the future will have laser rangefinders, GPS receivers, accelerometers, and fogline sensors built in. It will be impossible to cause an accident by falling asleep at the wheel or because you’re intoxicated or otherwise distracted. Laser rangefinders can monitor the distance from all surrounding vehicles and other obstacles. Another sensor will monitor the fog line (the white stripe along the shoulder of the road) and the lane stripes. Yes, you will still be driving and in control of the vehicle, but you will have technology helping you stay safe. Traffic accidents will decrease tremendously. The 6 o’clock news will have to find something else to talk about besides the five-car pile-up on the Interstate highway. There is nothing more clear to me than the benefits of sensors and geospatial technology in the transportation world.

    Last summer I saw a presentation from General Motors on the Chevrolet Volt. Think about it — Volt owners will be able to check their tire pressure from their mobile phone.

     

    I could write for a year on the subject of sensors and geospatial technology (and I will). It’s going to be thrilling to watch the technology progress. Forget about thinking of geospatial technology being a billion times more advanced than it is today. Just try to think of it being a million times more advanced than it is today. That’s enough to keep your mind busy while you’re taking a shower, for years to come.

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric