The conference will be open with keynote speeches by Chris Cappelli (Esri Inc.) on “The Age of the Location Platform: How Mapping and GIS are Transforming the Work Environment” and Prof. Georg Gartner (TU Wien, Vienna University of Applied Sciences), president of the International Cartographic Association, on “The Future of the Map – the Map of the Future.”
“The agenda for the INTERGEO conference in Stuttgart is packed with exciting topics that are the focus of ongoing political debate on the digital world and will play a key role in shaping the way we work in future,” reads a statement by INTERGEO. “With keynote speeches and plenary talks delivered in English and simultaneous interpreting provided for one strand of the conference on the second day, it is clear that INTERGEO is also becoming increasingly significant on an international scale.”
The major topic of discussion at 2014’s INTERGEO remains a key part of the conference this year — INSPIRE examines geo-issues from a European perspective, providing practical examples and focusing on further development of the European directive. Other central themes include geodata as a basis for construction management and land development, a major concern for future development at regional and local level, as well as issues relating to property markets and valuation. These subjects are all crucial when it comes to discussing the “smart cities” and “smart villages” of the future, according to INTERGEO.
Another highlight of INTERGEO in Stuttgart this year will be the panel discussion on the second day on “Geospatial Information – A Key Element for Emerging Markets.” The high-profile panel of speakers include Bengt Kjellson (UN-GGIM Europe), Ola Rollen (Hexagon), Steve Berglund (Trimble) and Chris Cappelli (Esri Inc.).
A further key topic at the conference that is set to have a profound effect on the working world is geoinformation and mobility. DDGI and DVW will be addressing this together and discussing practical examples in two event strands.
The contributions on big data will focus on the rapid development of data capture, processing and presentation as well as the direct integration of data into business processes. Geoinformation as an element of networked processes is a subject of major international significance, as evidenced by the conference’s high-profile speakers. “In terms of digitization, the conference will be key to paving the path to Geospatial 4.0 and the networking of digital geodata,” said Prof. Karl-Friedrich Thöne, president of the event’s host, DVW, adding, “INTERGEO is the ideal forum for creating processes that could eventually benefit the entire value-added chain.”
As important as data may be in the digital world, it is also crucial to have the right visualization concepts in place. This will be demonstrated through presentations on the German Cartographers’ Day, which will form part of INTERGEO this year.
Pictometry International Corp. has secured an order from the Los Angeles Region – Imagery Acquisition Consortium (LARIAC) to provide digital terrain datasets through LiDAR capture of the 4,000+ square mile area that makes up Los Angeles County. Pictometry is a subsidiary of EagleView Technology, a provider of aerial imagery, data analytics and GIS solutions.
The LiDAR project will allow consortium members access to the digital data and imagery for use in 3D modeling, floodplain and watershed mapping, disaster management, land-use planning, transportation planning, volumetric studies, solar modeling, vegetation analysis, sustainability planning, and more.
Slated to begin later this year, the project will capture and deliver LiDAR in accordance with USGS Quality Level 2 specifications. At two points per square meter, this will equate to more than 21 billion individual measurements of elevation across the county.
Pictometry will also provide the consortium with a number of derivative digital terrain datasets, including a digital terrain model, digital elevation model, digital surface model as well as one and two foot contours of the project areas. “We are looking forward to the LiDAR capture which will be the final phase of the LARIAC4 imagery and mapping project,” said Mark Greninger, geographic information officer, County of Los Angeles. “The digital datasets when combined with Pictometry aerial imagery and our geographic data will provide powerful intelligence and information for all the members of LARIAC.”
“The elevation data will provide the county and consortium members a core of authoritative, high quality data that will be critical for mapping, analysis and support of the county’s mission,” explained Greninger. “These datasets will be included in our enterprise GIS system, available both internally and externally to allow for more cost-efficient operations.”
Robert Locke, Pictometry president of Government Solutions, said that the project represents a natural progression in the long-term business relationship that the company has with the consortium. “We are pleased that the County of Los Angeles recognizes Pictometry’s expertise and ability to provide LiDAR and digital models,” Locke said. “While known as the leader in aerial image capture, Pictometry is also extremely qualified and experienced in LiDAR capture and delivery.”
Pictometry completed most of the LARIAC4 mapping and image acquisition project during 2014, with the remainder to be completed in 2015.
Together with free live technical support provided by practicing professional land surveyors via phone, email, message board and text messaging, JAVAD GNSS is pleased to announce the release of another innovative product, RAMS, Remote Assistance and Monitoring Services for J-Field software. J-Field is the field controller software developed for the TRIUMPH-LS GNSS receiver and the VICTOR-LS field controller. RAMS is currently available to all users of J-Field, JAVAD’s powerhouse software for survey data collection, stakeout, and computations.
With the J-Field enabled receiver/controller connected to the Internet (via internal GSM SIM card, Wi-Fi hotspot or Ethernet), users can make their receiver/controller accessible to JAVAD’s customer support team from anywhere in the world with three button presses. “It’s like having the support person looking over the user’s shoulder,” said Shawn Billings, a surveyor from Texas.
While the TRIUMPH-LS is connected to RAMS, the user and support person share control of the receiver, giving the support person the ability to make changes to settings on the receiver or train the user remotely. “It has changed the way support is conducted, making us more efficient at determining issues and more effective in training users,” said Billings. The connection is password-protected to ensure that only those intended have remote access to the receiver.
Beyond technical support, RAMS server access is available to the user community as well. This offers the ability for project managers to remotely supervise crew efforts in the field. Because operational control of the TRIUMPH-LS/VICTOR-LS is shared between the server user and the field user, the server user (project manager) could perform the more complex operations of land surveying, such as COGO calculations and localizations, as necessary, and then allow the field user (crew member) to continue the more routine tasks of data collection.
Should the task be simpler to accomplish with office software, RAMS allows file transfer directly from the LS to the server user’s own computer and vice versa, thus enabling the project manager to easily export points, linework (dwg, dxf, shape), vectors, photos and other project-related data from the LS to his desktop. From there, he can manipulate the data in his desktop application and then copy files, with newly computed coordinates or linework, back to the LS for the crew to work with in the field. In this way, RAMS uniquely supports the obligation surveyors have to exert responsible charge over their field crews.
The full receiver control, the access to receiver files, the robust RTK features of the TRIUMPH-LS and the fully customizable collection settings in J-Field make site monitoring possible as well.
RAMS server can be accessed with almost any device with an Internet browser and Internet access. “I’ve used RAMS server to assist customers from my desktop computer, laptop, android tablet and even my cell phone,” Billings added. “Using JAVAD’s RAMS server requires no installation of software on the remote device, only an Internet connection and web browser.”
For those wanting to operate RAMS on their own server, the RAMS Server application is available from JAVAD GNSS. An Android version of RAMS Server is also available, allowing users to connect an Android device directly to the TRIUMPH-LS without the need for an Internet connection. RAMS for Android creates a local network between the Android device and the LS and allows a field user to see and manipulate J-Field with the Android device should it be necessary to work with the LS beyond the reach or view of the user.
For more information on RAMS, J-Field, TRIUMPH-LS, VICTOR-LS and other JAVAD GNSS solutions, visit www.javad.com, email [email protected] or call 408-770-1770.
Editor’s Note: This month, we introduce a column by David B. Zilkoski, one of our two new Survey Scene editors. Zilkoski has worked in the fields of geodesy and surveying for more than 40 years, including serving as director of the National Geodetic Survey. See his full bio at the end of this article. He is joined by coeditor David Doyle, who contributed the May column.
The Three Types of Heights Involved in Computing GNSS-Derived Orthometric Heights
By David B. Zilkoski
David B. Zilkoski
This column is the first in a series of newsletters discussing issues associated with establishing orthometric heights using GNSS. The purpose of my columns is not to promote a particular procedure or process, but to provide the reader with information and analysis tools to consider when using GNSS to estimate orthometric heights.
This information is not new. During the past two decades, I have written several articles and papers on estimating GNSS-derived orthometric heights and presented numerous seminars describing guidelines on how to estimate GNSS-derived heights. However, due to the automation of technology and “blackbox” processes, many users are accepting results without performing the proper analysis to ensure that their results are reasonable and correct. These processes and procedures are not difficult to perform, but they can be very beneficial to obtaining an understanding of the accuracy of your results and ensuring your results are correct.
To understand how to estimate GNSS-derived orthometric heights at centimeter-level accuracy, you must have a basic understanding of the types of heights involved, how these heights are defined and related and how accurately these heights can be determined. In other words, you need to obtain a basic understanding of ellipsoid, geoid and orthometric heights and how they are related and their estimated accuracies.
To adequately address these topics, a series of Survey Scene newsletters will be separated into several sections. Some of this material will be a review (and probably boring) for those of you that have been performing GNSS-derived orthometric height surveys but, hopefully, you will gain a little benefit from the review. For those of you just starting out, I hope this will whet your appetite to obtain a better understanding of heights.
The following is a brief outline of what the columns will address:
Description of the three types of heights involved in computing GNSS-derived orthometric heights. That is, the definition of ellipsoid, geoid and orthometric heights, and how they are related. The user should understand what potential issues can arise due to how each height was defined, modeled and published. For example, in the United States, what errors exist in the published NAVD88 heights due to the leveling network design and remaining systematic errors in the leveling data? Constraining a North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) published height that’s less accurate than your GNSS-derived orthometric height may allow your results to be consistent with the surrounding published heights, but could be distorting the rest of your results. In the end, you may need to do that, but you should know how your decision has influenced the rest of your results. I was the NAVD 88 project manager, so I know where all the problems are hidden. I am just kidding about knowing where all the problems are hidden, but there are issues associated with performing a nationwide network adjustment. NGS’ latest scientific geoid models can be useful in identifying potential issues in NAVD88.
Basic procedures for detecting published NAD 83 (2011) ellipsoid height outliers and how repeatability does not mean accuracy. Why you can’t assume that the published ellipsoid heights between two closely spaced stations is accurate to the published formal errors.
A description of the differences between a scientific gravimetric geoid model and a hybrid geoid model, and why it is important to use both geoid models in your analysis. The latest NGS hybrid geoid model, Geoid12B, is made consistent with the published NAVD 88 heights. This means you will be consistent with NAVD 88 when using GEOID12B to estimate GNSS-derived orthometric heights. However, this doesn’t guarantee that your GNSS-derived orthometric heights are accurate. NGS’s new beta experimental geoid height model xGEOID14B is not distorted to fit the published NAVD 88 heights, so it is useful for identifying valid NAVD 88 benchmarks.
Basic procedures for validating NAVD 88 height constraints used to estimate GNSS-derived orthometric heights. How to ensure your monuments haven’t moved since their last survey, and how good are your leveling-derived orthometric height constraints? Based on all available information and data, basic procedures to determine how good the final set of GNSS-derived orthometric heights really are. NGS 59 guidelines outline basic rules and procedures that need to be adhered to for computing accurate NAVD 88 GNSS-derived orthometric heights.
A description of NGS’ proposed 2022 Vertical Reference Frame and why it will be a good replacement for NAVD 88.
Background
Since 1983, NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey (NGS) has performed control survey projects in the United States using GPS satellites. NGS used these early GPS surveys projects to develop guidelines and procedures to estimate GPS-derived orthometric heights. These publications are known as NGS 58 and NGS 59.
Over the past three decades, GNSS surveying techniques have proven to be so efficient and accurate that they are now routinely used in place of classical line-of-sight surveying methods for establishing vertical control networks at the 2-cm level. Understandably, interest has been growing in using GNSS techniques to replace all leveling requirements. During the next decade, scientists will continue to develop better models and tools to facilitate GNSS-derived orthometric heights replacing classical line-of-sight surveying for many applications. In the meantime, it is important to have a clear understanding of the basic concepts of establishing GNSS-derived orthometric heights, otherwise water (or something worse) may not flow “down hill.”
Let’s start with a review of the three types of heights used when estimating GNSS-derived orthometric heights and how they are related.
Types of Heights and Their Relationship
Orthometric heights (H) are referenced to an equipotential reference surface, e.g., the geoid. The orthometric height of a point on the Earth’s surface is the distance from the geoidal reference surface to the point, measured along the plumb line normal to the geoid. These are the heights most surveyors have worked with in the past and are often called mean sea-level heights.
Ellipsoid heights (h) are referenced to a reference ellipsoid. The ellipsoid height of a point is the distance from the reference ellipsoid to the point, measured along the line that is normal to the ellipsoid. Years ago, the term ellipsoid height may have been a new concept to many traditional surveyors, but prevalent today because ellipsoid heights are readily derived from GNSS measurements.
At the same point on the surface of the Earth, the difference between an ellipsoid height and an orthometric height is defined as the geoid height (N). It should be noted that h=H+N is an approximate equation because H is measured along the plumb line normal to the geoid, where h is measured along a line normal to the ellipsoid (see Figure 1). For all practical survey projects, this small difference can be ignored.
Figure 1. Relationship of ellipsoid, geoid and orthometric heights.(Figure from POB article by David Zilkoski, The GPS Observer column, Feb. 28, 2001)
Several error sources that affect the accuracy of orthometric, ellipsoid and geoid height values are generally common to nearby points. Because these error sources are in common, the uncertainty of height differences between nearby points is significantly smaller than the uncertainty of the absolute heights of each point. This is the key to establishing accurate orthometric heights using GNSS.
Orthometric height differences (dH) can then be obtained from ellipsoid height differences (dh) by subtracting the geoid height differences (dN):
dH = dh – dN
Each of these heights and height differences have systematic errors that are accounted for by following appropriate procedures during data acquisition, by applying corrections based on environmental conditions and models, and/or estimating parameters using adjustment techniques. There will always be remaining errors that are not accounted for, and you must perform the appropriate procedures to detect, reduce or eliminate these errors in the final set of GNSS-derived orthometric heights.
Relative Accuracy Estimates
Adhering to NGS guidelines (NGS 58), ellipsoid height differences (dh) over short baselines (less than 10 km) can now be determined with 2 sigma uncertainties that are typically better than +/ 2 cm. The requirement that each baseline must be repeated and agree to within 2 cm of each other, and they must be repeated on two separate days, during different times of the day, should provide a final GNSS-derived ellipsoid height better than 2 cm at the 2-sigma level. The requirement that spacing between local network stations cannot exceed 10 km helps to keep the relative error in geoid height small.
Adding in the small error for the uncertainty of the geoid height difference and controlling the remaining systematic differences between the three height systems will produce a GNSS-derived orthometric height with 2-sigma uncertainties that are typically +/- 2 cm. Therefore, it is possible to establish GNSS-derived orthometric heights to meet certain standards, not millimeter standards, but 2-cm (95%) standards are routinely met now using GNSS.
When high-accuracy field procedures are used, orthometric height differences can be computed from measurements of precise geodetic leveling with an uncertainty of less than 1 cm over a 50 kilometer distance. Less accurate results are achieved when third-order leveling methods are employed. Depending on the accuracy requirements, GNSS surveys and present high-resolution geoid models can be employed as an alternative to classical leveling methods.
In the past, the primary limiting factor was the accuracy of estimating geoid height differences. With the computation of the more accurate National high-resolution geoid models, e.g., GEOID12A, the limiting factor is ensuring that the NAVD 88 orthometric height values used to control the project are valid. Strategically occupying benchmarks with GNSS that have valid NAVD 88 height values is critical to detecting, reducing or eliminating blunders and systematic errors between the three height systems. (Note: Valid NAVD 88 height values include, but are not limited to, the following: benchmarks that have not moved since their heights were last determined, were not misidentified, and are consistent with NAVD 88.)
Conclusion
This newsletter addressed the basic concepts of GPS-derived heights. To reiterate, it is important that you understand there are three types of heights involved with estimating GNSS-derived heights: ellipsoid, geoid and orthometric. Each of these heights has its own error sources that need to be detected, reduced or eliminated by following specific procedures or applying special models. This series of newsletter columns will address these potential errors sources and provide procedures to assist you in identifying these errors.
My next column in this series, coming in the August Survey Scene, will review guidelines for detecting, reducing or eliminating error sources in ellipsoid heights, and provide a brief discussion on using published NAD 83 (2011) ellipsoid heights in your analysis.
References
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-58, Guidelines for Establishing GPS-derived Ellipsoidal Heights (Standards: 2 cm and 5 cm), Version 4.3.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-59, Guidelines for Establishing GPS-derived Orthometric Heights (Standards: 2 cm and 5 cm), are available. These guidelines address the establishment and densification of vertical control networks through the use of GPS surveys and valid NAVD 88 orthometric control.
David B. Zilkoski has worked in the fields of geodesy and surveying for more than 40 years. He was employed by National Geodetic Survey (NGS) from 1974 to 2009. He served as NGS director from October 2005 to January 2009. During his career with NGS, he conducted applied GPS research to evaluate and develop guidelines for using new technology to generate geospatial products. Based on instrument testing, he developed and verified new specifications and procedures to estimate classically derived, as well as GPS-derived, orthometric heights.
Now retired from government service, as a consultant he provides technical guidance on GNSS surveys; computes crustal movement rates using GPS and leveling data; and leads training sessions on guidelines for estimating GPS-derived heights, procedures for performing leveling network adjustments, the use of ArcGIS for analyses of adjustment data and results, and the proper procedures to follow when estimating crustal movement rates using geodetic leveling data.
If you are a professional land surveyor, we’d like to hear from you! Send us a brief account of how you use GNSS in your surveying work, what tips and tricks you can share with other surveyors, and what other hardware and software you are combining with GNSS to get the job done.
Submit around 300 words, although you can certainly go longer if you wish. Five winners will be chosen from the submissions received at [email protected]; winners will be chosen on the basis of clarity, liveliness, and, in some small measure, the unusual nature of the surveying tasks you perform or the way you go about them. Winners will receive $100 gift cards.
But we’re interested in hearing about straight run-of-the-mill jobs, too! Send your entries to [email protected]. Some entries may also be chosen for further development into articles for this newsletter, or GPS World magazine, or other publishing opportunities.
Intergraph Security, Government and Infrastructure (SG&I) has unveiled I/Map Editor for ArcGIS, a product that works directly with Esri’s ArcGIS Platform to migrate geospatial data into Intergraph’s Computer-Aided Dispatch software (I/CAD), creating greater efficiencies for users of both systems.
Also, SG&I has established Studio One, a user experience design and development lab that provides space for multi-disciplinary teams to collaborate on innovative, user-centered products and solutions.
I/Map Editor for ArcGIS brings advanced mapping features to Intergraph’s map build environment, automating and streamlining map creation in I/CAD. I/Map Editor for ArcGIS is designed to minimize the number of different systems and steps required for ArcGIS users, offering them a one-stop shop for uploading data into their I/CAD system.
‘I/Map Editor for ArcGIS enables ArcGIS users to more efficiently get their GIS data into I/CAD using tools familiar to them,” said Kalyn Sims, chief technology officer, Intergraph SG&I. “It also provides them with the ability to more frequently update their data, which benefits agencies and the public they serve. Our goal is to provide public safety organizations with the most up-to-date geospatial data possible within their first responder systems.”
Intergraph’s industry-leading I/CAD system is critical to public safety operations, enabling agencies to quickly answer emergency and non-emergency calls, create and update incidents and manage multiple resources in real time. Intergraph’s I/Map Editor products facilitate the use of GIS data as the source of mapping information in I/CAD.
Built on Intergraph’s GeoMedia, I/Map Editor permits the use of GIS data from third-party systems as the source of map graphics in I/CAD. Built on ArcGIS, the new I/Map Editor for ArcGIS enables I/CAD map production within ArcGIS. An extension hosted in ArcMap, it natively connects to Esri data sources.
In March, Intergraph and Esri announced collaborative efforts to enhance geospatial capabilities for public safety and security agencies. Through the collaboration, the companies have been working together to more tightly align Intergraph’s I/CAD software and Esri’s ArcGIS Platform.
Studio One. Located at Intergraph SG&I’s headquarters, Studio One is an extension of the company’s strategic efforts to ensure its products are built to meet the needs of users, some of whom are in high-pressure environments.
“The methodologies and technologies of UX (user experience) are maturing very quickly. For example, now we can accurately assess whether software raises or lowers stress,” said Amy Hawkins, UX team manager, Intergraph SG&I. “As we move information technology closer and closer to users, in the form of mobile and wearable devices, we need to be very sure that we are making people’s jobs easier, not harder. That’s why we established Studio One.”
Comprised of a distributed group of user researchers, designers, technical architects and functional designers, Intergraph SG&I’s UX team conducts customer site visits, ethnographic observation, interviews and surveys to understand customer workflows and environments. The UX team has traveled to multiple cities across the U.S., visiting a dozen different public safety agencies in four different metropolitan areas. In the Denver area, the team conducted approximately 47 ride-alongs with police, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel.
The UX team works with product development teams to build usage metrics collection into Intergraph SG&I’s products so that strategists and design and development teams have the best possible data on which to base product direction decisions. The team also works with research groups at universities such as Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt and the University of Alabama in Huntsville to get independent perspectives on user mental models and emerging technologies.
“By working directly with users, we get a clear understanding of how to meet customer needs now and in the future as new technologies and challenges emerge,” Hawkins said. “Our customers are in the business of providing important public services. Studio One is all about, helping people help people.”
Intergraph SG&I’s UX team will meet with customers for UX assessments during HxGN LIVE, Hexagon’s annual international user conference, in Las Vegas from June 1-4.
TerraGo Edge 3.6 is now available. TerraGo Edge 3.6 features enhanced support for high-accuracy GPS receivers on both iOS and Android, as well as a host of new mapping features, basemap sources and integration with Google Earth.
“TerraGo Edge’s enhanced support for EOS and SXBlue receivers helps users take advantage of real-time, high-precision GPS receivers while getting all the productivity benefits that come with the smartphone and tablet user experience,” said Brian Mickel, technical consultant, LHNav. “This is the future of GPS data collection where mobile users can integrate independent GPS receivers to get whatever level of accuracy the job requires.”
New features in version 3.6 include:
Sub-meter and cm precision with SXBlue and EOS GPS receivers for iOS and Android
Polygon and polyline note support added on iPhone and Android
Auto-drawing polygons and polylines from GPS points
Multi-note view on iPhone and Android
KML import and export added to growing list of data interfaces, improves Google Earth integration
New mapping features and editing of polygon notes
New “over-zoom” feature allows extreme map zooming on all devices and basemaps
Brand new basemap source options
TerraGo Edge is an open GPS data collection solution, helping customers replace outdated handhelds and proprietary databases with an open, modern, mobile solution that meets the needs of all stakeholders. For the field users, TerraGo Edge delivers any level of precision with unparalleled support for a full range of Bluetooth GPS receivers on Android and iOS.
For the manager, TerraGo Edge provides a real-time dashboard for monitoring field users and data collection. For GIS users, TerraGo Edge provides accuracy settings that ensure GPS data quality, with tools for QA and open export to any GIS or CAD system.
A free trial of the TerraGo Edge app for iOS or Android is available.
The latest version of the TerraGo Edge includes enhanced polygon and polyline capabilities, enriched mapping features, expanded GPS receiver integration and adds KML import and export formats. View the video above for an on-demand demo of the latest features in TerraGo Edge v3.6.
The latest version of the TerraGo Edge includes enhanced polygon and polyline capabilities, enriched mapping features, expanded GPS receiver integration and adds KML import and export formats. View the video above for an on-demand demo of the latest features in TerraGo Edge v3.6.
Telit Wireless Solutionsand Agnik are collaborating on Internet of Things (IoT) applications and Big Data analytics for connected devices in the auto, home and health industries. Agnik’s solutions expand the quality and quantity of integrated IoT apps and analytics available to customers and ecosystem partners of the industry-leading deviceWISE AEP.
The rapid proliferation of smart devices and products makes it challenging to aggregate and manage all these different data sources and also requires that this trove of data is harnessed and analyzed to extract valuable insights that help companies make more informed business decisions. The Internet of Things is already starting to transform businesses around the world. For example, in the automotive industry Big Data analytics provide a better understanding of vehicle performance, automotive business, automotive risk management, and connect with customers at a deeper level to improve efficiency and brand-loyalty. In the home, Big Data solutions are helping to manage energy consumption, maintain security while allowing entry to repair services while the homeowner is away. Individuals are wearing quasi healthcare devices on their bodies night and day.
Telit and Agnik are providing technology and analytics designed to make it easy for large and small companies to get onboard with the Internet of Things — reducing cost, time-to-market, complexity and risk versus trying to engineer a fragmented solution in house. At the core sits Telit’s Cloud-based deviceWISE, an application enablement platform for data acquisition, data and device management and data integration. In turn, Agnik converts the data from thousands of connected things into actionable business intelligence, delivered on custom web-based and mobile apps, and dashboards.
“We are honored to welcome Agnik as a deviceWISE business partner. Agnik’s leading IoT apps and Big Data Analytics further expand the number of off-the-shelf deviceWISE Ready solutions that are available to customers, MNOs and partners worldwide,” said Gideon Rogovsky, SVP, sales and marketing of deviceWISE platform at Telit. “Telit is creating a growing ecosystem of world-class IoT solution providers — ranging from the device side to applications and analytics.”
“We are pleased to collaborate with Telit and offer Agnik’s analytics-driven ecosystem of products and services to the deviceWISE AEP community,” said Hillol Kargupta, president of Agnik. “Agnik offers a comprehensive analytics platform for connected devices powered by our patented, onboard data-stream mining technology and wide range of distributed cloud-based analytics for consumer and commercial applications in connected environments.”
Agnik’s suite of analytics software products provide a wide range of powerful onboard and cloud-based tools that transform data about vehicle performance and user experience into valuable insights, according to the company. The analytics help companies in the automotive industry connect with car owners at a deeper level.
Agnik has also embarked upon a deep analytics driven path in the connected world of devices and products for industrial environments, home and health. Its collaboration with Telit will blend Agnik’s predictive data analytics capabilities with Telit’s device management infrastructure to develop a patchwork of insights into a holistic quilt of knowledge, from what would appear to be on the surface unrelated sources of information, devices, and products.
U.S. auto sales may drop about 40 percent in the next 25 years because of autonomous vehicles hitting the road, reports Bloomberg. In particular, shared driverless cars would force mass-market automakers such as General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. to slash output, a Barclays analyst told Bloomberg.
Vehicle ownership rates could be cut almost in half because many families would only need one car. However, driverless cars would travel twice as many miles as they return home between trips to ferry a different family member. As a result, automakers would have to shrink their production in order to survive.
The numbers are outlined in a new report by analyst Brian Johnson.
The GN-87 multi-GNSS receiver by Furuno Electric Co.
Furuno Electric Co.’s latest multi-GNSS receiver module, the GN-87, has been adopted for use in the new My Driving Pal (MDP) device.
The MDP device and app communicate with each other via Bluetooth low energy (BLE). When the MDP device and a phone running the MDP app are within range of each other (approximately 15 meters), the device keeps its internal GPS in idle mode. When the phone is out of Bluetooth range and the object that is carrying the MDP device is moving (for instance, under the seat of a stolen bicycle or in the pocket of a wandering child), the MDP device activates its built-in GNSS receiver and cellular modem, tracks the asset, and immediately notifies the user on a phone via remote push notification.
The range is unlimited, because the MDP device will track the asset anywhere in the world, with an accuracy level of meters. To protect user’s privacy, all tracking data remains locally on the phone and is not transmitted to any backend server.
In April, the GN-87 receiver was adopted for the new quadcopter Bebop Drone, made by Parrot SA. The GN-87 provides positioning accuracy and smooth ground tracking because of its multi-GNSS technology, which allows it to receive more satellite data even in harsh environments such as urban canyons.
My Driving Pal (MDP) is a technology startup based in Silicon Valley that develops advanced Internet of Things solutions. MDP’s mission is to improve road safety by enabling vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications. A small percentage of new vehicles are connected, but still the vast majority have no connectivity, not including motorcycles and bicycles. The MDP product delivers a suite of security, monitoring, and tracking applications, from delivering remote notification on phone if interior temperature of car gets too high, to automatically tracking the bike, if it’s ever stolen.
For more information on the MDP device (capabilities, availability, distribution, retail or partnerships), send an email to [email protected], or follow MDP on Facebook.
