Tag: GSS Monthly

Will the Next Industrial Revolution Be Bigger than the First? Will Geospatial Technology be Part of It?

The waves of innovation.

It’s truly mind-boggling when I think of how early we are in the technology adoption curve — not just for geospatial technology, but technology in general. On the one hand, it’s scary to think about how much technology might penetrate and be further integrated into our lives, on the verge of threatening our privacy if we let it. On the other hand, it’s frustrating to think about how crashes, crimes and catastrophes can be avoided or minimized if today’s technology was deployed.

Crashes. There is no reason that something like the Asiana Airlines crash at the San Francisco International Airport or the Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 landing at the wrong airport in Branson, Missouri, earlier this month should have ever happened. Technology exists today that can prevent these sorts of incidents and tragedies caused by human error, and prevent some that are not caused by human error.

Simply put, if my automotive GPS receiver can steer me to the correct McDonald’s (one of many) within a city, there’s no reason a GPS receiver (with a current airport database) can’t guide a pilot to the correct airport. If I can load a CAD model into a bulldozer machine-control system and have it grade the surface material to within a few centimeters, a similar GPS system can certainly assist in landing an airliner at the San Francisco airport without hitting the sea wall.

Thinking on a broader scale, there is no reason that the vast majority of vehicle crashes should occur. That’s right, something that occurs every day and in every city in the world, causing billions of dollars of economic loss each year, should never happen. At a minimum, high-speed laser rangefinders on each side of a vehicle could monitor the distance from other vehicles/obstacles and automatically brake or warn the vehicle operator of an impending collision if preventive action is not taken. The advancement of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) will change our daily lives, and that technology revolution is just beginning.

Crimes. Stolen vehicles should become nearly extinct. Just like nearly every rental car today has a GPS tracking system in it to track its location if stolen, there’s no reason that every personal and commercial vehicle should not have the same technology. In fact, every valuable (as deemed by you) possession such as your bicycle, your pets, your lawnmower, and even your kids, can be outfitted with some sort of inexpensive location technology.

How about monitoring convicted felons? Imagine the massive cost savings if prison populations could be significantly reduced because convicted felons could be “electronically incarcerated”?

Catastrophes. We can’t control Mother Nature’s power to wreak havoc with her weather phenomena, but people can be forewarned and bettered prepared to take timely action. Television has the Emergency Alert System, which is designed to enable the president of the United States to speak on television to the American population within 10 minutes. However, with services such as Netflix, Chromecast, and DVR recording devices, television viewing habits are changing. The mobile device is the new television. A tremendous amount of work still needs to be done to catch up with the rapid adoption of mobile devices.

SARSAT U.S. Rescues – 2013. Source: NOAA

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that it helped save 253 lives in 2013 using sensors on satellites to forewarn people of severe weather. According to NOAA, its satellites detected distress signals from emergency beacons carried by downed pilots, shipwrecked boaters and stranded hikers, and relayed information about their locations to first responders on the ground. It’s a powerful statement of what the combination of sensors and communications can accomplish.

“Each life we save underscores the undeniable value of NOAA satellites,” said Mary Kicza, assistant administrator for NOAA’s Satellite and Information Service.

The Common Denominator

The common technology denominator for eliminating or mitigating the effects of crashes, crimes, and catastrophes is sensors and communications. Those two technologies are the driving forces behind the next industrial revolution, and it’s going to be huge, perhaps a bigger economic impact on the world than the first industrial revolution, according to an article in the San Jose Mercury News.

The Mercury News article quotes a study published by General Electric (GE) concluding that sensors and communications (referred to as the Internet of Things in the article) could “add as much as $15 trillion to the global GDP, which it noted is roughly the size of today’s U.S. economy.” That’s a staggering number.

After I read the Mercury News article, I thought about many of the geospatial consulting projects I’m working on. The biggest challenges my clients face are related to one of three technologies: lack of inexpensive sensors, lack of communications, and lack of software to deal with the increasing volumes of data (for example, Big Data).

I’ve written about the value of sensors (GNSS, RFID, analog, etc.) quite a bit. I believe they will be the foundation of the next industrial revolution because they will provide a high level of granularity — in other words, very detailed data from which better decisions can be made. A great example is the Snapshot program that insurance company Progressive uses to dial in automobile insurance rates. Part of the Snapshot program is a device that you plug into your car’s OBD (On-Board Diagnostic) port. It monitors your driving habits for 30 days. It records how often and how hard you apply your brakes, how many miles you drive and times during the day that you drive. After 30 days, Progressive statisticians evaluate your driving habits and assign an insurance premium. If you’re a safe driver (by their definition), you’ll likely save money on your insurance premium.

According to Progressive, drivers respond to real-time feedback.

The industry publication Insurance & Technology reports that the newer version of Snapshot provides real-time feedback such as a “beep” when driver brakes too hard. Progressive General Manager Dave Pratt claims, “You do see the driving score change — we have data that says people who get that kind of feedback have fewer accidents. But I see that as real-time feedback 1.0. You want to do more, but you do not want to distract people while they’re driving either. There’s a balance to be struck.”

Progressive’s Snapshot program is a great example of using an inexpensive sensor to collect highly granular data in order to make better decisions. Think about how having access to granular data like this in your job may enhance your decision-making. If a farmer precisely knew the characteristics of the soil in all of his fields and within each field, wouldn’t he make better decisions about soil treatment and planting? If a municipal engineer precisely knew the condition of a water distribution system, wouldn’t she be able to make better decisions about maintenance and upgrade requirements?

Inexpensive sensors are only one piece of the puzzle. Without a method of real-time communication and software to process it, the value of the data suffers. Therefore, inexpensive sensors will drive the demand for both communications and data processing software.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with an image of a slide presented by Dr. James Canton, CEO at the Institute for Global Futures. The slide is part of a presentation of his entitled “Global Tech Trends 2014”. It is a concise illustration of the confluence of sensors, communications, and data.

Global Tech Trends 2014. Source: Dr. James Canton

Thanks, and see you next time.

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

January 21, 2014

Part 2: Is It Legal to Fly Drones for Mapping in the United States?

After I published last month’s Is It Legal to Fly Drones for Mapping in the United States? article, I received a bit of reader feedback and attended a small conference focused on UASs for mapping. I learned and experienced a few new thoughts about UASs for mapping in the United States, so I thought I’d share them in a second installment.

In early December, I attended the UAS Precision Farming Forum, a local conference that was sponsored by Yamhill County (Oregon) and targeted at the agriculture market. Yamhill County covers 718 square miles (1,860 square kilometers) and contains a healthy number of agricultural and vineyard farms.

The conference was filled to capacity with 120 attendees, a complete lineup of speakers, and even a couple of exhibitors — not bad for a county-hosted local conference. This, and other such conferences around the United States, speaks volumes about the intense interest in UASs for agricultural uses in the U.S. For instance, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) hosts an annual conference that attracts more than 8,000 attendees.

At the Yamhill conference, I was most interested in hearing what speakers, attendees and exhibitors were saying about the FAA rules on civilians flying UAVs. The FAA is pretty clear (at least when responding to me and others) about the rules for civilian use.

First of all, the most prolific user of UASs for mapping in Oregon seems to be Oregon State University, who possess eight Certificates of Authorization (CoA) from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to operate UASs for research purposes, according to Dr. Michael Wing, associate professor of Geomatics. Dr. Wing explained that applying for a CoA from the FAA is an intense process requiring a lot of detail.

PROJECT	SITE	PLATFORM	SENSOR	PARTNERS
Forest Canopy/Structure	McDonald Forest	Prioria Maveric	EO	n-Link
Search and Rescue	McDonald Forest	Aerospace Vapor/VTOL	EO/IR	n-Link
Xmas Tree Research	OSU No. Willamette	Mikrokopter VTOL	EO	OSU, n-Link
Potato Research	HAREC	Lockheed/Procerus	EO/IR	Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Potato Research	HAREC	Tetracam HawkEye	EO/IR	Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Large Scale Potato Res.	Boardman	Lockheed/Procerus	EO/IR	Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Large Scale Potato Res.	Boardman	Tetracam HawkEye	EO/IR	Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Flight Research	Olympia	Tetracam HawkEye		Boeing, n-Link

Dr. Wing also presented the bill of materials (BOM) for one of the UASs they are using, a Zephyr II.

Zephyr II components (per OSU):

2.4GHz Tx/Rx radio			$360
4500mAh LiPo battery			$30
Airspeed sensor			$25
ArduPilot APM 2.5			$160
Canon S100			$300
RiteWing Zephyr II			$325
TTC Radio			$86
uBlox GPS module			$76
Voltage regulator			$15

Total:			$1,377

When I asked Dr. Wing about the CoA restrictions, he said the CoAs require him to have an FAA-licensed pilot on site for each mission.

If you recall from last month’s article, the FAA was very clear in responding to my queries that civilian commercial operation of UASs in the U.S. are prohibited unless the operator possesses a CoA from the FAA. Furthermore, the FAA says that commercial operation of UASs in the U.S. airspace is not allowed. The FAA is working on rules to integrate commercial UAS operation into the U.S. NAS (National Airspace System). The local AUVSI president, in his keynote speech, essentially said the same thing.

I went to the exhibition area because I wanted to talk to the exhibitors and understand who their target market was, since commercial operations of UASs are prohibited. Their answers were interesting. Their first answer was that “farmers can fly UAS as hobbyists.” Recall that hobbyists (or modelers as the FAA refers to them) can operate UASs up to 400 feet above ground level (AGL). I asked the FAA specifically about this. They say that any commercial usage of UASs is prohibited. For example, you can take the same UAS that you fly for fun, and you are permitted to fly it below 400 feet AGL. However, once you use the same UAS for commercial purposes (such as mapping your farm), you are violating the FAA rules.

When I pushed the vendor about this, his next answer was “as long as the farmer only flies it above his or her farm, they are allowed.” While I can sort of understand the logic behind his first statement, this statement didn’t make sense to me. If he’s using it for a commercial purpose, what difference does it make if it is over his own property or not? The problem I have with the vendor’s attitude is that he has little risk. It’s not against the FAA rules to sell UASs for commercial purposes. FAA rules are only violated when someone uses a UAS for commercial purposes. The bottom line: caveat emptor (buyer beware). The FAA is likely not going to pursue the manufacturer or distributor of the UAS, only the operator (the farmer).

But, is it really against FAA rules to operate commercial UASs in the U.S.? The vendor claimed that he asked the FAA, and said that you will get a different answer from the FAA depending on who you speak to. To some extent, I understand the confusion. Furthermore, when I asked the FAA to cite examples of litigation, enforcement actions, etc., I was told I would need to file a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA), which I did about November 12. Beyond acknowledging my request, the FAA has sent nothing. I’m told from others that they have made similar requests (months ago) and have still not received the FOIA information. This certainly casts a cloud of doubt over the confidence the FAA has in its position.

Has anyone actually tested the FAA’s position in court?

Thanks to Twitter, I linked up with an attorney who is representing a UAS operator who is being sued by the FAA for flying a UAS for commercial purposes in the United States. Attorney Brendan M. Schulman says his client’s case is the first to test the FAA rules in court. Mr. Schulman says that the FAA has no basis on which to enforce the rules. He’s arguing that the “FAA’s position is based on policy statement and not an enforceable regulation.”

Schulman’s client, Raphael Pirker, a Swiss citizen and resident, was assessed a $10,000 fine pursuant 49 U.S.C. §§46301(a)(1) and (d)(2) and 46301(a)(5). The FAA argues that Pirker:

1. On or about October 17, 2011, you were the pilot in command of a Ritewing Zephyr powered glider aircraft in the vicinity of the University of Virginia (UVA), Charlottesville,

2. The aircraft referenced above is an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).

3. At all times relevant herein you did not possess a Federal Aviation Administration pilot certificate.

4. The aircraft referenced above contained a camera mounted on the aircraft which sent real time video to you on the ground.

5. You operated the flight referenced above for compensation.

6. Specifically, you were being paid by Lewis Communications to supply aerial photographs and video of the UVA campus and medical center.

7. You deliberately operated the above-described aircraft at extremely low altitudes over vehicles, buildings, people, streets, and structures.

8. Specifically, you operated the above-described aircraft at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 400 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

9. For example, you deliberately operated the above-described aircraft in the following manner:

a. You operated the aircraft directly towards an individual standing on a UVA sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by your aircraft.
b. You operated the aircraft through a UVA tunnel containing moving vehicles.
c. You operated the aircraft under a crane.
d. You operated the aircraft below tree top level over a tree lined walkway.
e. You operated the aircraft within approximately 15 feet of a UVA statue.
f. You operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of railway tracks.
g. You operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of numerous individuals.
h. You operated the aircraft within approximately 20 feet of a UVA active street containing numerous pedestrians and cars.
i. You operated the aircraft within approximately 25 feet of numerous UVA buildings.
j. You operated the aircraft on at least three occasions under an elevated pedestrian walkway and above an active street.
k. You operated the aircraft directly towards a two story UVA building below rooftop level and made an abrupt climb in order to avoid hitting the building.
1. You operated the aircraft within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA.

10. Additionally, in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another, you operated the above-described aircraft at altitudes between 10 and 1500 feet AGL when you failed to take precautions to prevent collision hazards with other aircraft that may have been flying within the vicinity of your aircraft.

11. By reason of the above, you operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

To view the entire complaint, click on FAA_Pirker_Complaint.

Schulman argues:

“In this proceeding, the FAA uses those same policy statements as a pretext for applying federal aviation regulations to the operation of model airplanes. This approach violates the most basic tenets of regulatory law and the Administrative Procedures Act which require a valid notice and comment rulemaking process before legislative rules are issued. Both at the time of Mr. Pirker’s model aircraft operation in 2011, and still today, there exist no enforceable federal aviation regulations concerning the operation of civilian “drones,” whether that operation is for commercial purposes or otherwise. For the reasons set out below, the Administrator’s civil penalty is improper as a matter of law and the Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.”

To view Schulman’s entire brief, click on FAA-v-Pirker. Per Schulman’s brief, he has asked the court to dismiss the case for reasons he outlines. He is awaiting the judge’s response. If the case is not dismissed, Schulman says the next step is discovery and a hearing.

On a related note, Schulman’s law firm, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, announced on December 18 that they launched a new practice group named Unmanned Aircraft Systems Practice Group. Following is the announcement:

In light of the increasing use of drones for commercial purposes, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP has launched a practice group dedicated to providing counsel to clients in this rapidly growing industry. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Practice Group is a multidisciplinary team of Kramer Levin attorneys who are versed in the legal complexities of the nascent commercial drone revolution.

Emerging commercial drone technology presents a number of economic opportunities, as well as the prospect of enhanced worker safety in hazardous conditions, humanitarian benefits in search-and-rescue and disaster missions, and environmental advantages through improved agriculture, energy and infrastructure management. Kramer Levin’s new practice will provide sophisticated and creative problem-solving approaches in this uncharted legal territory.

“Unmanned aircraft technology will define the next century in countless industries in the United States and will present new legal challenges in a number of areas including regulatory policy, aviation law, property rights, and intellectual property law, to name a few,” said Paul S. Pearlman, Kramer Levin’s managing partner. “As the definitive leaders in this field, we saw an opportunity to formalize a practice area led by informed attorneys who can advise clients in a wide range of industries.”

The firm is currently representing Raphael Pirker, the world’s foremost civilian drone pilot, in the first federal case ever involving the operation of commercial drones in the United States. Kramer Levin attorneys also regularly advise individuals, corporations, venture capital firms, educational institutions and robotics developers worldwide on the use of unmanned aircraft technologies in commercial, educational, public interest and scientific applications.

“The landmark case we are litigating will have enormous regulatory and economic implications for the industry’s future,” said Brendan Schulman, special counsel at Kramer Levin who has two decades of hands-on experience with unmanned aircraft and understands how the technology works and how to apply it safely and effectively. “This is a game-changing moment for forward-thinking businesses, and we are here to assist our clients navigate legal issues so they can become the next decade’s pioneers in their industries.”

In addition to Mr. Schulman, the new practice area will include attorneys from a number of existing firm practice areas including corporate, environmental law, litigation, intellectual property, insurance, government relations, and regulatory issues.

I’ll keep you updated on the FAA v. Pirker case as it evolves.

Thanks, and see you next month. Happy Holidays!

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

December 27, 2013

Is It Legal to Fly Drones for Mapping in the United States?
There is no doubt about it: drones (also referred to as UAVs and UAS) are a disruptive technology that will significantly impact geospatial professionals not only in the U.S., but around the world. While the mainstream media has mostly pushed the panic button with regards to privacy and drones, you don’t often read a discussion about using drones for mapping.

3D Matterhorn image produced from senseFly’s drone mapping effort.

In Switzerland, where drones weighing less than 30 kg (66 lbs) are legal to operate without a license as long as the operator maintains line of sight, drones mapped the famous Matterhorn Mountain (4,478 meters/14,692 feet) in the Swiss alps, at a resolution of 20 cm. This illustrates the power of drones for 3D mapping, and mapping in general. More efficient and less costly than traditional photogrammetry and airborne lidar, there is no doubt in my mind you will begin working with drones and/or data collected via drones in the near future. Of course, mapping the Matterhorn in 3D at 20-cm resolution is a monumental effort. Even using drones, senseFly reported that it took 11 flights, 5 hours and 40 minutes of flight time, and a total of 2,188 images to process covering 2,800 hectares (~6,920 acres). senseFly didn’t report how many manhours of post-processing the Matterhorn project required, but you know it must be a healthy number. Also, remember that Swiss regulations require that the drone operator must be within “direct eye contact” of the drone at all times, so you can bet the senseFly team had to do some serious mountain climbing.

While generating precise 3D images of a mountain certainly push the limits of drone technology, there are plenty of uses for mapping drones that make a lot of sense and are less complex. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems (AUVSI) reports that in the United States, in the first three years of UAS integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created with an economic impact of $13.6 billion. AUVSI further reports that by 2025, the jobs number will increase to 100,000 jobs, and the economic value to $82 billion. Earlier this year, The Daily Beast reported that agriculture may end up being the largest user of drone technology. Other uses, according to AUVSI, include wildfire mapping, environmental mapping, disaster management, power-line surveys, oil and gas exploration, and general aerial mapping.

So what are we waiting for? Let’s start flying!

Not so fast. In many countries in the world, you can purchase a drone mapping kit and start flying tomorrow. Last month, I witnessed the massive offering of drones at the Intergeo 2013 conference. Copters and fixed-wing aircraft in all shapes and sizes were on display.

However, in the U.S. it’s not so easy. In fact, it’s illegal to operate any drone for mapping unless you have a special permit from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If you think XYZ Corp. down the road who is using drones for mapping have such a permit, you are wrong. Despite the rumors and gossip you may have heard, and the fact that many companies are using drones for mapping in the U.S., it is not legal, by any stretch of the imagination.

Let’s have a look at what the FAA regulations state.

The FAA divides drone users into two categories: public and civil.

Public Users

Examples of public users by the FAA include the U.S. military and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as well as other government agencies. Public users must apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Certificate of Authorization (COA) and adhere to the following guidelines:
- The operator is required establish the drone’s airworthiness either from FAA certification, a Department of Defense airworthiness statement, or by other means.
- The operator must demonstrate that a collision with another aircraft or other airspace user is extremely improbable.
- The operator must comply with appropriate cloud and terrain clearance requirements.
- The PIC (Pilot in Command), the operator in control of the drone, must maintain minimum qualifications and currency requirements.
- An observer must be present to observe the drone and surrounding airspace via line-of-sight on the ground or via chase aircraft.
- The PIC and observer must be within, generally speaking, one mile horizontally and 3,000 feet vertically of the drone.
- Direct communications between the PIC and Observer must be maintained at all times.
As you imagine, these requirements are not easy to meet and issued to a select few entities. if you want to take a look at the list of Certificates of Authorization issued by the FAA, click here and scroll down to find links to redacted CoA awards that aren’t exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

As of February 15, 2013, the FAA reports there were 347 active COAs.

Civil Users

Civil users include any entity other than Public users, and includes commercial users.

Civil users must obtain an FAA airworthiness certificate just like you would need for any type of aircraft such as an airliner.

The FAA is issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category for testing, market survey, and training of drones. The FAA is very clear that no Certificate of Authorization (CoA) or experimental certificates will be issued to commercial users. In fact, the FAA specifically states that drone users awarded an experimental certificate are not licensed to use drones for “hire or compensation.”

That’s it: short, sweet and to the point.

What about model aircraft users?

Interestingly enough, model aircraft users are allowed to operate drones and have a surprising amount flexibility in doing so. The guidelines for model aircraft users can be found here, but essentially the only concrete rules are that the “hobby” drone cannot exceed 400 feet AGL (above ground level), and that when flying within three miles of an airport, notify the airport operator. That’s it!

Even more interesting is that some hobby-class drones can be very useful for businesses. For example, last month I bought an AR Drone 2.o for US$370. The manufacturer calls it a quadracopter. It operates like a helicopter with four rotor blades. It’s controlled by an app that runs on your smartphone or tablet. I use a Samsung Galaxy III to control it. It’s amazingly easy to control with my smartphone.

AR Drone 2.0

I took the AR Drone 2.0 to the Field Technology Conference to demonstrate it and give conference attendees an idea of what is possible for very little expense. The response from attendees was a little surprising. I didn’t expect geospatial users to appreciate the limited capabilities of the AR Drone 2.0, but attendees spoke of applications like checking birds’ nests for eggs and close-up inspection of structures that aren’t easily accessible. After spending some time flying it, even I began to think about the inspection app and the ability to create video fly-throughs of golf courses, environmental areas, proposed developments, etc. The AR Drone 2.0’s forward-looking, high-definition camera generates stunningly crisp video.

So, that begs the question…

Why can’t a user, following the hobby rules (fly below 400 feet AGL), use the AR Drone 2.0 or any other drone for commercial purposes?

The answer is simple. The FAA rules state that you can use a drone all day long as a hobbyist (following the AC 91-57 rules), but once you start using it for commercial purposes, you are violating the law. Some drone users have said that to skirt the FAA rules, they don’t charge for drone flight time, but just the image processing (data) after the flight. I don’t think this concept has been tested in court yet, but the FAA says this activity is illegal.

“They would be violating FAA rules,” says FAA Spokesperson Alison Duquette. “Please read this policy link. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.”

To understand how serious the FAA is about enforcing the no-business-use of hobby rules, I asked the FAA for a list of enforcement citations, cease and desist orders, etc. I was told I had to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which I did, but I’m warned by colleagues not to expect a speedy response.

Check out the following short (three-minute) video news report on a company in Minnesota that was “grounded” by the FAA for flying a drone for commercial use.

The good news is that in January 2012, the U.S. Congress ordered and funded the FAA to figure out how to integrate commercial drone use into the U.S. airspace by the end of 2015. In September 2013, the FAA released a document entitled “UAS Comprehensive Plan” and a document entitled “Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap“. If you’re really interested in learning more about drone usage in the U.S. and understand the FAA’s perspective, it’s worth a few minutes to scan these documents.

It’s going to be fascinating to see what rules the FAA establishes for commercial drone usage. Don’t be surprised if the PIC (Pilot in Command) must be a licensed pilot, and expect tough restrictions on altitude constraints, flight time, visibility, and control tower communications. I have my private pilot license (although I haven’t flown as PIC in years), and I recall that FAA rules state that you can fly as low as 500 feet AGL over rural areas and 1,000 feet AGL over populated areas. That doesn’t give commercial drone operators a lot of room to work with if they want to map a wide area.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric.
November 11, 2013
Esri User Conference and Intergeo: Mobile Devices, UAVs and High-Precision GNSS

When looking at geospatial technology, I like to use the analogy that GIS software is the engine and GIS data is the fuel. We have many choices of powerful GIS software engines (Esri, Intergraph, QGIS, GlobalMapper, MapInfo, etc.). That technology remains relatively unchanged. Before the software vendors harp on me, yes, I get that new bells and whistles are added to software every year to enhance software functionality. Yes, maybe there’s a new database technology that indexes massive databases significantly faster. Yes, maybe there’s a new software tool that makes generating 3D visualizations or augmented reality much easier and faster. But just like your automobile, motorcycle, train, airplane, etc., they all need fuel to run. Data is the fuel.

The analogy doesn’t fit perfectly. After fossil fuels are used once, they are not reusable. Obviously, that’s not the same for GIS data. Some GIS data, like street data, is used daily over and over again by millions of people around the world in their Garmin, TomTom, and Magellan auto navigation units. However, in the fossil-fuel world, engines and fuel are matched reasonably well. In the geospatial world, the engines and fuel aren’t matched. The GIS fuel (data) is far behind the engine (software). In other words, GIS software is starving for data. There are so many applications for GIS yet to be realized, and vast majority of the unrealized apps are due to the lack of data.

For example, imagine carrying your iPad (or other tablet) in the street and pointing it down at pavement. Imagine, on the screen of your iPad, being able to “see” all of the infrastructure underneath the pavement such as water lines, sewer lines, and communications lines. What’s keeping those types of apps from being deployed today? The answer: the lack of accurate geospatial data.

The lack of geospatial data is no more apparent than at the 2013 Esri International User Conference in July and the Intergeo conference in Germany earlier this month.

In the exhibition areas, three trends were clearly apparent:

1. Mobile devices

2. UAVs

3. High-precision GNSS receivers

Clearly, all three of these are related to collecting GIS data.

Following are some comments and photos of each trend.

Mobile Devices

A few short years ago, mobile devices suitable for GIS data collection were a specialty item, and we had a few limited choices. Ever since the smartphone explosion and Apple introducing the iPad, it’s been mobile devices galore. A tremendous number of consumer mobile devices have been introduced. Most have failed, but the trend has generated a tremendous amount of R&D effort that manufacturers have leveraged to make industrial mobile devices for the geospatial community, such as the following:

Most, if not all, of these devices are designed and manufactured in China.

Juniper Systems is one of the few remaining U.S.-based rugged handheld manufacturers, introducing the new Archer 2 at Intergeo.

UAVs

There’s no denying that UAVs are going to play a large role in geospatial applications. In some geographic regions of the world, they are already being deployed for mining, agriculture, accident reconstruction and other mapping applications. The low-cost and and quick, convenient deployment make it a very attractive technology for time-sensitive and cost-sensitive applications that require imagery.

In the U.S., it is illegal to use UAVs for commercial applications unless you have a Certificate of Authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which are only granted to some universities and some government agencies. President Obama ordered the FAA to generating guidelines for integrating the use of commercial UAVs into the U.S. airspace by 2015. For the latest FAA progress on matters regarding UAVs, you can visit this FAA web page.

The current FAA rules are a bit odd. In the U.S., you are allowed to fly “hobby” UAVs up to 400 feet above the ground if you’re at least 1/4 mile away from an airport. If you take that same UAV and abide by the same restrictions as hobbyists, but use it for commercial purposes, it’s illegal. Take a look at this article by NBC News.

High-Precision GNSS Receivers

I’ve been writing about this for awhile, but it’s worth mentioning that RTK GNSS receivers are getting cheaper and cheaper. Whereas in the past, there have only been a handful of RTK GNSS receiver vendors, there are now at least twice as many as before, and increasing every year. This is good for the user community because it increases competition. The result is better products at lower prices. This trend will continue.

NSPS (Formerly ACSM) Radio Hour

Last week, I was a guest along with David Doyle (retired NGS Geodesist) on the NSPS Radio Hour discussing a variety of GNSS-related items such as the U.S. federal government shutdown and LightSquared. A recording of the radio show is available in MP3 format. You can listen or download it here.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Get the latest news by following me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric.

Photos: Eric Gakstatter

October 21, 2013
Geospatial on Everything

By Alan Cameron

Everything has a geospatial aspect. Everything.

Over grits, coffee, and the airborne delicacy purveyed at the Flying Biscuit Cafe (right out of the oven, right into your mouth) in Sandy Springs, Georgia, I absorbed this high-tech homily.

You’ve heard of the European financial crisis. Trace it back to geospatial, from the Greek banking collapse, which in turn had roots in the implosion of the Greek tax system, due to a plethora of gaps, inconsistencies, and exceptions filed in a largely uncontrolled property cadastre — the register of real property, including details of ownership, precise location (by GPS coordinates), and value of land parcels.

Lose control of your cadastre (your GIS), lose the country. With global interconnections, soon the continent, if not perhaps the world economy.

For want of a nail, the battle was lost.

Jump forward, technologically, to flash lidar. Ball Aerospace created this ability to capture continuous rapid multiple laser interferometry detection and ranging (LiDAR) images/point clouds, merged with continuous high-resolution optical images, to create full-color 3D models in real time. Stitched together with GPS, this produces real-time full-motion video: interactive geo-referenced metric 3D models.

In field application, this can yield time-critical 3D mapping for urgent missions, enhanced situational awareness, battlefield characterization, and tactical mission planning. It can help with disaster-response planning and event forensics. Real-time models could be communicated with the public through easily comprehended moving images via television or the Internet. of the actual progress of a fire or flood, together with evacuation routes.

Jump again to fabfi. What’s a fabfi?

FabFi is an open-source, lab-grown system out of MIT using common building materials and off-the-shelf electronics to transmit wireless Ethernet signals across distances up to several miles. Communities can build their own networks for high-speed Internet connectivity, and access to online educational, medical, and other resources.

Simple, low-cost, and feasible in unstable environments: Afghanistan, Kenya, and any number of countries that leapfrogged telephone landlines to come quickly into the cellular era; now they can leapfrog Ethernet cable networks and even WiFi for virtual connectivity. Implement with locally available materials. Print out a 2D design file and create the pieces out of wood, metal, acrylic, clay, stone, or ice, as long as you can attach a metallic RF reflective surface to the front.

If you haven’t guessed the geospatial aspect of this, I assure you it’s there, but I’ve run out of room here.

For these geospatial glimpses, I am indebted to contributing editor Art Kalinski. Read his monthly columns here.

Alan Cameron is editor-in-chief and publisher of GPS World magazine, where he has worked since 2000. He also writes the monthly GNSS System Design e-mail newsletter and the Wide Awake blog.

August 29, 2013
GIS Integrates with Tracking Sensors for Threat Assessment

INTRUSION SENSORS strive to have a high detection rate and low false alarm rate.

By Eric Olson and Steven Pisciotta

Ongoing threats from terrorist activities at critical facilities require early detection before the threats can reach their target and complete their mission. This has produced the need for advanced security systems to effectively detect terrorist activity, while reducing alarms caused by normal friendly activity. Automatic Threat Assessment, also referred to as Identify Friend or Foe (IFF), is the ability to automatically acknowledge alarms created by friendly assets. It can be achieved with a security system that uses GPS and geospatial data to go beyond the typical intrusion-sensor-only configuration.

The addition of a tracking system associated with friendly vehicles and personnel can provide the missing information necessary to tighten security and reduce the need to take action on alarms caused by friendly targets, and reduce the material and personnel cost of threat assessment. Tracking systems and intrusion sensors can worktogether to automatically classify an actual intruder with high confidence and without operator intervention.

The Verification Problem

Typical intrusion sensors include intelligent fences, ground proximity sensors, radar, LIDAR, and video analytics. The role of the intrusion sensor is to identify a breach and notify security personnel so they may perform verification. Table 1 shows the formal alarm types received from intrusion sensors, which strive for a high detection rate and a low false-alarm rate. For this reason, the nuisance alarm can be problematic as it reflects a real event for the intrusion sensor, but often a non-event for the security operator.

These typical sensors only provide a “suspected intruder” list. The follow-on task is to decide whether or not to reclassify a suspected intruder as an actual intruder. This process is typically a manual task and can be difficult, confusing, and time-consuming.

For instance, a landscape crew will trigger alarms. Even for very accurate systems that can uniquely track the object over a long period, it is highly likely that over the period of time the landscapers are in the area, the track will be lost, causing the system to re-alarm on the same person or vehicle, as it represents a potential intrusion.

If the landscaping crew needs to open a gate, and that gate is integrated into the facility’s access control system via a dry contact or beam breaker device, it may continuously alarm while left open, or at a minimum, in the case of the beam, each time one of the workers or the vehicle passes through the entrance. In these situations, security will either need to validate each alarm by verifying it on a camera or having an officer follow the landscaping crew throughout their route.

The existence of a friendly alarm event that needs continual validation can lead to compacency of security personnel, either not verifying it, or not verifying it in a timely manner.

Table 1. Alarm types.

Combined Detection, Location

A GPS tracking system combined with the intrusion sensors can help identify friends. Tracking systems consist of two main types of locating devices: GPS-enabled devices and wireless transponders.

Modern, low-cost GPS receivers can achieve an accuracy rating of less than 3 meters, provide an update once per second, and do not require visibility to the open sky. Wireless communication transmits the GPS data to the C2 system. A typical data set includes time, date, latitude, longitude, altitude, heading, speed, and quality of GPS signal.

The combination of intrusion sensors and tracking systems can produce automatic threat assessment. Routine situations requiring significant security involvement, such as the landscaping scenario, can be automatically managed by the system. The command and control system has the ability to know friendly targets and their location.

Further, the system can perform a check before actually alarming. In the case of a perimeter alarm, it now has the intelligence to understand, within a level of confidence, that the object detected by the intrusion sensors is the same friendly item being tracking by the tracking system. If the system determines the targets to be the same object, the alarm can be suppressed, eliminating the need for security to verify the event.

THE COMBINATION of intrusion sensors and a tracking system allows for Automatic Threat Detection.

Common Operating Picture

The integration of these types of systems is not complex in terms of how to coordinate data. Interface documents exist for these types of integration and are done on a regular basis. Typical position and target information is communicated over XML in a standard format. However, to gain these benefits, the tracking systems and intrusion sensors must all work within a common geospatial operating picture.

Advantages of geospatial or geo-referenced systems systems include the ability to easily display and control data in a map-based format, allowing tracking systems and intrusion sensors to synergistically perform automatic verification. This combined knowledge of the target’s track also allows the fusing of the GPS data and the intrusion sensor data into a single object and path, aiding security by reducing target and track clutter on his command and control or PSIM (perimeter security information system).

Take for example a guard enabled with a tracking device, performing a tour around a fence protected by video analytics enabled cameras. On a typical PSIM, a normal guard tour would result in two icons on the display, one friendly from the tracking system and one unknown from the video analytics. This scenario would also result in two similar object tracks. Security would need to review the situation and understand that this symbology represents a single target and a single track.

Integrating the tracking system with the video analytics system allows for a fusing of this data, and the resulting command-and-control symbology is a single target and a single track.

Other considerations when combining a tracking system with intrusion sensors include update rate, time and location accuracies, and overlapping coverage.

Ideally, all sensors would be synchronized when it comes to timing aspects, but this is typically not the case. Different timing between data updates and time inaccuracies can result in the inability for the systems to confidently conclude that two tracks were created by the same target. Transport delay, the transmission of the GPS data through the satellite, can also be an issue. For tracking devices, it’s vital for the data to be received by the C2 system with a repeatable transport delay. Variability in the transport delay also decreases the ability to automatically verify the threat.

Geographic accuracy of both the GPS tracker and the intrusion sensor is another important factor in data fusion. Typical GPS trackers have an accuracy rating of 3–10 meters. Actual accuracy varies based upon the visible GPS satellites, tall buildings, body worn, and RF interference. Intrusion sensors also possess an inherent accuracy. Radar surveillance may have a resolution of 1 x 1 meter at close range, but it expands at far range to 1 x 20 meters.

Intelligent fence sensors and video analytic systems can have resolutions that vary from 1 to 25 meters, based on the type of sensor and the terrain. These geographic inaccuracies can be handled to some degree by considering other factors, including heading, speed, and previous track, but it’s important to understand where these inaccuracies can occur.

Overlapping coverage of surveillance sensors also affects data fusion. In the case of track fusion, this ability is only available is areas where both a geospatial intrusion sensor exists and a tracking system is operational. If there are gaps in overlapping coverage, or areas that do not include geospatial- based intrusion sensors, then fusion is not possible in those regions.

Eric Olson is vice president of Marketing at PureTech Systems.

Steven Pisciotta is president of Remote Tracking Systems.

July 18, 2013
A New MobileGIS Workflow: Trimble Goes Device-Agnostic

Earlier this week, I stepped outside of the box I’ve resided in for many years when I wrote a GPS World article about a specific product. It was unusual because for the more than seven years I’ve been writing for GPS World, I’ve never written specifically about a certain product. No, I’m not caving into advertiser (or potential advertiser) pressure or influence. I don’t play that game. I’ve chosen to write about specific products or services when I feel they represent significant industry changes.

Now, for Geospatial Solutions this week, I’m in the same predicament. So, for the second time in a week, I’m stepping outside of my box.

Since its incorporation, Trimble Navigation’s name has been synonymous with GPS devices. Its mission, at least to me, was to build GPS receivers and software solutions to sell its GPS receivers. Historically, the company has made it difficult for other companies to utilize their technology. I recall back in the 1990s when I was in charge of GPS mapping hardware/software for one of Trimble’s competitors. Trimble submeter GPS base stations blanketed the U.S. (and many parts of the world) and the company kept the data in the proprietary SSF format so that none of its competitors could use its base-station data. Trimble’s GPS/GIS ecosystem was closed to their competitors and their market share for GPS mapping devices (such as GeoExplorer or GeoXT/XH) dominated the GPS/GIS mapping industry. Trimble’s distribution channel thrived, which further contributed to its market dominance.

For a long time, the device-centric marketing strategy worked well for Trimble employees and shareholders. However, every party must come to an end, and this case is no exception.

In Trimble’s latest financial release (April 30, 2013), the company reported that GIS revenues declined in its third quarter and that “Non-GAAP operating margin was down primarily due to product mix in GIS sales.”

The days of high-end GNSS receivers dominating the GIS data-collection market are coming to an end. Yes, there will be some innovative new features like inertial positioning, MEMS and other positioning technologies that will allow manufacturers to command a higher price, but the cost of mainstream, high-precision GNSS devices is declining and will continue to decline. Furthermore, tablets and mobile phones muddy the waters as they are increasingly more powerful devices that can run powerful data-collection software.

What is Trimble doing about this?

This week, the company introduced the Trimble TerraFlex software ecosystem.

I saw a sneak preview of the concept a couple of months ago. When I saw it, I knew it was a paradigm shift from the classic Trimble device-centric ecosystem to a device-agnostic, workflow-centric ecosystem.

Translated: You can use any mobile device and/or GPS receiver of your choosing within Trimble’s TerraFlex ecosystem.

Perhaps the coolest feature of the software is that you can run it on an Apple (iOS 5 or later), Android (4.x or later), or Windows Mobile (6.5 or later) device. In these days of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) to work, that’s a powerful feature. Support for Windows Phone devices is missing, but that’s understandable because of the lack of traction for those devices to this point.

TerraFlex supports iOS (5 or later), Android (4.x or later), and Windows Mobile (6.5 or later)

Of course, it’s still an ecosystem, so although the mobile apps are free, you must subscribe to Trimble’s cloud service ($250/year per user), much like using the free ArcGIS for Android/iOS/WindowsMobile apps requires an Esri cloud subscription. However, at $21/month it’s very affordable and flexible. Use any GPS/GNSS receiver you like and use the mobile device you are comfortable with.

With the desktop software, you can build the data-collection form for the mobile device, complete with attributing.

TerraFlex Form Editor for designing mobile device data-collection forms

In speaking with the Trimble marketing folks about the ecosystem, their intent is not only to reach the traditional people involved in GIS data collection, but also those who aren’t, such as a city public works crew, a utility worker, a construction worker or others who are already comfortable with the mobile device they carry. Will it work? Perhaps, but it will take someone at the enterprise level to assume the lead in designing the forms. Either way, it’s probably got the best potential to reach the non-GIS market that I’ve seen so far.

However, building a better mousetrap doesn’t always work. In 1960, Jerome McCarthy published Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, which discussed the four Ps of marketing: product, price, promotion, place (distribution). With geospatial technologies, especially geospatial hardware, place (distribution) has played an important role. In fact, dealer support can make or break a new product or deny a company access to the market. In thinking about Trimble, its mapping and GIS division (in its various forms) has built a strong dealer network over the past 20+ years, and salespeople in its distribution channel have been selling device-centric products since the beginning. This is going to be a serious issue in promoting Trimble’s TerraFlex software. Trimble dealer salespeople are accustomed to selling hardware, not services. Furthermore, Trimble dealers are accustomed to receiving 20 percent margin on GPS receivers that sell for thousands of dollars, and sales of those devices has been pretty easy due to Trimble’s market dominance. That won’t be the case with TerraFlex. It’s a new concept that will require the salesperson to sell the concept, not a device that one can hold in one’s hand. How seriously will salespeople promote a service that sells for $250/year per device? How can one convince and transform a dealer salesforce from being device-centric to workflow-centric? That task may be more difficult to accomplish than the effort it took to design and write the TerraFlex software.

Thanks, and see you next time.

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

Webinar This Thursday

Nightmare on GIS Street: GNSS Accuracy, Datums and Geospatial Data

Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Time: 10 a.m. PDT / 1 p.m. EDT / 6 p.m. GMT

Summary: A look at the challenge of dealing with horizontal datums in your GIS. We are moving into a new era in dealing with datum transformations. Geodata 2.0 is coming, and it can create big headaches when attempting to combine disparate geospatial databases. Sensors such as GPS receivers, remote sensing imagery, and 3D scanning provide much more accurate data, setting up a collision with outdated and mismatched legacy horizontal datums.

Speakers:

Kevin Kelly, Geodesist, ESRI, Inc.
Kevin Kelly is a Geodesist with ESRI in Redlands, California where he researches and implements geodetic algorithms and applications for the ArcGIS software. His experience spans over 35 years in hydrography, geodesy, surveying and most recently, geographic information systems. He has held the posts of Manager of Geodetic Services for the Province of Ontario, Chief Geodesist for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Military Survey Department and Senior Project Surveyor for The Keith Companies (now Stantec, Inc.). Mr. Kelly received a Master of Applied Science in Geodesy at the University of Toronto, Canada and holds an Honors Diploma in Hydrographic Surveying Technology from Humber College in Toronto. He is also a licensed Geodetic Surveyor in the Province of Ontario, Canada.

Craig Greenwald, Technical Director, GeoMobile Innovations
Craig Greenwald is the Technical Director and a principal at GeoMobile Innovations Inc. He has worked in the GPS and Mobile GIS industry for over 13 years, including seven years for GIS software leader, ESRI and is well known for his work on the ESRI ArcPad team. Craig leads the GeoMobile software development and consulting team specializing in Mobile GIS and field data collection applications and technology providing Mobile GIS software, consulting, and training services to GeoMobile Innovations? clients. Craig has real world experience designing, implementing, and consulting on all sizes of projects, ranging from local campground trash mapping to the U.S. national census, and has been a key developer in GeoMobile?s commercial applications such as LaserGIS for ArcPad and Geo-Photo Inventory Tool for Garmin GPS solutions.

Michael L. Dennis, RLS, PE, Geodesist, NOAA
Michael L. Dennis, RLS, PE, is a geodesist at NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey (NGS) where his duties include analysis of geometric (“horizontal”) and vertical datums; evaluation of data processing and survey network adjustment procedures; development and promotion of standards and guidelines; integration of NGS products and services with GIS; and public outreach. Mr. Dennis is also a registered professional engineer and surveyor with private sector experience, including ownership of a consulting and surveying firm. Mr. Dennis is an officer of the American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS), an American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) Fellow, and a member of the Arizona Professional Land Surveyors Association and the Geomatics Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Moderator:

Eric Gakstatter, Editor of Geospatial Solutions Monthly and Survey Scene
Eric Gakstatter has been involved in the GPS/GNSS industry for more than 20 years. For 10 years, he held several product management positions in the GPS/GNSS industry, managing the development of several medium- and high-precision GNSS products along with associated data-collection and post-processing software.

REGISTER TODAY!

June 18, 2013
Part 2: Nightmare on GIS Street – Accuracy, Datums, and Geospatial Data

This is Part 2 of the discussion I started in March with this article. It frames this discussion.

I ended Part 1 of this discussion with a statement from Michael Dennis of the U.S. National Geodetic Survey. He said while people understand that the 14-parameter transformation algorithm is important in transformations between horizontal datums, the step people are leaving out is reconciling epoch dates of the data.

What is an epoch date?

The epoch date is simply the date in which geospatial data is referenced. It can be the date the data was collected or a standardized date. For example, the current NAD83 (North American Datum of 1983) datum has a standardized epoch date of 2010.0 (January 1, 2010).

Why do we care about the epoch date of geospatial data?

It can be overwhelming to think about trying to populate and manage a centimeter-level GIS, and even more unfathomable when one considers the fact is that the land we occupy is moving. Some refer to it as continental drift. Scientists refer to it as tectonic plate movement. Geodesists refer to it as velocity. No matter which term you use to describe the phenomenon, it’s something that we, as geospatial practioners, need to reconcile. For example, the islands of Hawaii “move” horizontally about 6 cm/year. If you collected GPS data in 2005 using WAAS as a source of GPS corrections, WAAS base stations were referenced to ITRF00 epoch 1997.0. In 2013, WAAS is now referenced to ITRF08 with an epoch of 2013.5. If you collected data today and compared the two coordinates, you would introduce 99 cm of horizontal error (16.5 years x 6 cm/yr) if you did not take into account the movement and epoch date. Other geographic regions don’t move as much, but even the most stable plates still move. Following is a map of the tectonic plates of the world.

The Earth & Environmental Sciences Department at the University of Kentucky has got a really neat interactive tectonic plate map.

Worldwide Map of Tectonic Plates.
Source: University of Kentucky

Each tectonic plate moves, and with the large number of stationary GPS/GNSS receivers (CORS) located around the world, scientists can closely monitor (and model) the movement. Following is a general map of worldwide velocities. Higher resolution velocity maps for many geographic regions are available from local agencies:

Rough, Worldwide Velocity Model.
Source: University of Kentucky

Finally, if you’re looking for further reading on tectonic plate theory, take a look at these websites:

Tulane University Physical Geology (Dr. Stephen A. Nelson)

Georgia Perimeter College (Dr. Pamela Gore)

The Epoch Date, Applied

In order to properly capture a location of a point on the Earth and be able to accurately (within centimeters) return to that location in the future, it’s critical that the “epoch date” of the location be recorded along with the x, y and z. In the future, when you’re preparing to relocate or return to the location, you’ll need to bring the coordinates to the same epoch date prior to comparing them. Perhaps it’s best to use an example to explain.

A few weeks ago, I was in Colorado and wanted to test the accuracy of a free CORS Streaming service (RTK) using a dual-frequency GNSS receiver. I was just outside of the city of Boulder. I located a nearby survey mark that had recently been surveyed using a high-precision GNSS receiver and adjusted to the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). Following is a photograph of the survey mark I found:

National Geodetic Survey Mark KK2060.

I downloaded the survey mark datasheet from here on the National Geodetic Survey website. What pieces of information do I need in order to accurately compared the NSRS coordinates of the survey mark with the coordinates being determined by the GNSS receiver? Certainly, I needed the coordinate and the datum the coordinate is referenced to. In this case, the following datasheet tells me the datum is NAD83/2011 (North American Datum of 1983 Ver. 2011). The other critical piece of information is the epoch date, which is clearly noted on the datasheet as highlighted below, epoch 2010.0 (January 1, 2010).

National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Datasheet for KK2060.

Since I have all the information about the survey mark that I need, I turn my attention to the GNSS receiver. Actually, the GNSS receiver doesn’t determine which datum/epoch date the GNSS receiver provides. In reality, it depends on the datum the GNSS base station data is referenced to. For example, if you’re using a state-government-operated RTK Network, the datum is likely NAD83/2011. If you’re using OmniSTAR real-time corrections, the datum is ITRF08/epoch 2010.0. If you’re using Starfire real-time corrections, the datum is ITRF05, and the epoch date is updated nightly. WAAS (SBAS) uses ITRF08 and updates the epoch approximately annually, so the current epoch is 2013.5. These are just a few examples. There are many possible datum that the GNSS base station can be referenced to.

In my case, I was using a streaming RTK data (over the Internet) from a public RTK base station 18 km away. I was able to connect to the RTK base station over the Internet and obtain a real-time, centimeter-level coordinate in ArcPad:

ArcPad GPS Data Quality Tab. In the ArcPad screenshot, the EPE, HPE, VPE values show 0.0, but that’s only because there aren’t enough digits of precision to show the 1-cm estimated accuracy.

In speaking to the administrator of the public RTK base station, I learned the RTK base station was referenced to ITRF00, epoch 1997.0. That means the coordinate my GNSS receiver was displaying in ArcPad was referenced to ITRF00, epoch 1997.0. If I’m going to accurately compare the coordinate of the NGS survey mark and the GNSS data I’m collecting, I going to need to adjust the ITRF00, epoch 1997.0 coordinate data to NAD83/2011. If I only adjusted the ITRF00 datum to NAD83/2011 and ignored the epoch date of the data, I would be ignoring 14 years of tectonic plate movement. If the tectonic plate movement is 2 cm/year, not reconciling the epoch date could introduce 28 cm of error, which is a lot considering I’m using RTK GNSS equipment capable of 1-2 cm precision.

Which software tool should you use to reconcile the datums and epoch dates? That’s the biggest challenge our industry faces today.

Very few GIS software and data collection software handle datums and epoch dates correctly. That’s a subject for the next article in this series.

If you’ve been interested in my two articles on this subject, you might want to attend a webinar I’m conducting to be held June 20, 10:00am Pacific time. I’ve lined up world-class panel members to join me in an in-depth discussion on this subject.

Webinar: Nightmare on GIS Street: GNSS Accuracy, Datums and Geospatial Data

Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Time: 10 a.m. PDT / 1 p.m. EDT / 6 p.m. GMT

An introduction to the challenge of dealing with disparate horizontal datums in your GIS. We are moving into a new era in dealing with datum transformations. Geodata 2.0 is coming, and it creates big headaches when imported into existing geospatial databases. Sensors such as GPS receivers and satellite imagery provide much more accurate (centimeter-level) data, setting up a collision with outdated and mismatched legacy horizontal datums.

Moderator: Eric Gakstatter

Speakers:

Kevin Kelly, Geodesist, Esri
Michael Dennis, National Geodetic Survey
Craig Greenwald, Mobile GIS Consultant, GeoMobile Innovations Inc.

Registration is free.

Following me on Twitter@ https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

May 23, 2013
Nightmare on GIS Street: Accuracy, Datums, and Geospatial Data
This subject scares me. I’m not a trained geodesist. I’m not a mathematician. Yet, I’d be derelict in my duty if I didn’t write about this subject. I know enough to be dangerous, and enough to know this subject is going to be a nightmare for people managing geospatial databases.

Headache today, nightmare tomorrow

The only reason it’s not a nightmare today is because most of you don’t know it’s even a problem. Or, you know it’s a problem, but let it slide because dealing with it is not easy. It’s going to get worse in the future, much worse. It’s going to get worse because sensors (GPS, GNSS, imagery, etc.) are getting much more accurate. The cost of acquiring high-precision (centimeter-level) data, whether it’s via GNSS, scanning or ?? is falling hard and fast. As I’ve written before, high-precision GNSS receivers are getting much cheaper. Geodata 2.0 is coming, and it is making existing geospatial databases look like my kids’ coloring books.

It reminds me of an experience I had nearly 20 years ago.

I was traveling through the southeastern U.S. demonstrating a new GPS mapping handheld that I helped develop. Mind you, this was in the early days of GPS mapping. WAAS/SBAS didn’t exist, sub-meter receivers didn’t exist, CORS didn’t exist, and real-time corrections were only a dream so almost everyone post-processed using a local base station, if they could find one — and achieving 1-3 meter accuracy was pretty dang good.

I was showing this new GPS mapping receiver to a forestry company that owned a lot of land in the southeast. We traversed a ~40 acre parcel of land, brought it back to the office and post-processed the data against a nearby GPS base station. After post-processing, the data looked very clean and I was eager to see it inserted into the company’s GIS, hoping it would slide into the right spot in the GIS and they would purchase a bunch of GPS units. No dice. When it was inserted into their GIS, the perfectly shaped polygon fit imperfectly into the GIS. It didn’t match up with the orthophotos and it didn’t match up with their existing vector data (point/line/polygon). It was offset enough to make you raise your eyebrows and think to yourself — hmmm, that’s a problem.

Of course, I did my due diligence by checking the integrity of the GPS base station data I used and verified its surveyed antenna location. Everything checked out. I was confident that my data was accurate. I started questioning the GIS manager about the horizontal datum used in their GIS database. It quickly became clear to me that the enterprise GIS database was referenced to something different than the modern horizontal datum of that era. It was also clear that there were varying types of accurate and less accurate data in the GIS. A mish-mash of geographic data with some of it based on the legacy NAD27 horizontal datum that was transformed to NAD83/86 using NADCON or something similar.

After discussing this a bit with the GIS manager, he admitted that my GPS data was likely more accurate than his GIS database, but he was clear that “I’m not going to readjust my entire GIS database for your GPS unit.” My counter-argument that “you’re going to have to do it eventually anyway” was met with “I honestly don’t see this happening anytime soon.”

I may have won the battle, but lost the war.

Later that same year, I had a similar experience in California. A major environmental consulting company wanted to delve into using GPS for mapping. I sent them one of my GPS units to try. After a few days of the company collecting GPS data and post-processing, I got the call.

“Your GPS unit isn’t accurate enough for our work.”

Whaaaat? From the outset, I was clear to them that the GPS unit would deliver accuracy within 1-3 meters, and they stated this was acceptable accuracy to them. I looked at the data. It was clean and point averages were tight. It looked very good. I verified the GPS base station they were using. No problems there.

“What are you comparing the GPS data to?” I asked.

“USGS 7.5’, 1:24,000 scale topo maps,” he replied.

Ruh roh.

Me: Wellllll, you know that USGS 7.5’ topos are referenced to NAD27 and have gross errors up to hundreds of feet in some places, especially rural areas, don’t you?

Him: We’ve used 7.5’ topo maps for many years and feel good about the accuracy they provide. Your GPS data is on the wrong side of the creek.

Me: Hmmm, how about you go occupy a survey mark with known coordinate and compare the GPS data to the survey mark coordinates? That will tell you how accurate the GPS is performing.

Him: We need it to work where we work, and it’s giving us data on the wrong side of the creek. Thanks for your time. Click.

Sigh, lost the battle, and lost the war.

After nearly 25 years in the GPS/GNSS and GIS industries, data mismatch (“my data doesn’t line up”) is still the #1 question I get from people.

The problem is two-fold.
1. People, even educated geospatial professionals, have a general lack of understanding of the different horizontal datums being used (not to mention vertical datums).
2. Software vendors (even the major ones), have generally done a poor job of keeping up with modern datum transformations. While most software makes it easy to transform data from one horizontal datum to another, they mostly do it wrong.
The errors can vary from a few centimeters to a few meters to tens of meters. In the world of GPS data collection, the most common datum transformation error is when software considers WGS-84 equivalent to NAD 83 and applies no transformation when, in reality, the difference between the latest version of NAD83 differs from the latest version of WGS-84 by more than a meter in most parts of the USA.

In this day of ever-increasing availability of public GIS data, it’s soooo easy to download an orthphoto (ortho-rectified aerial photograph), or GIS vector data from a public website and import it into your GIS. When importing, you’ll likely be asked to select the horizontal datum and the measurement units of the new data. More than likely, information about the new GIS data (metadata) isn’t readily obvious or available so you make your best guess from the list of choices presented. Is the data referenced to NAD83/86? Is it referenced to NAD83/HARN? Is it referenced to WGS-84? If so, which version of WGS-84? Your selection might significantly affect the accuracy of imported features of your GIS. What if you make the wrong selection with an aerial photo, then months or years later you have someone digitize (heads-up with a mouse) road centerlines, fire hydrants, manhole covers, etc., based on that aerial photo? Any transformation error you introduced when importing the original aerial photo will carry through to the digitized features.

The good news is that GIS software makes it very easy to import raster (images) and vector (points/polylines/polygons) data. That’s also the bad news. With a few clicks of a mouse, your GIS database can be infected with data you think is accurate to a certain level, but it’s really not, maybe due to the way you imported the data. I’m not saying that every piece of data imported into a GIS needs to be a certain (or the same) accuracy level. The problem is if you don’t keep track of the metadata for items that you import into your database, you will quickly lose a grip on the accuracy integrity of your GIS. As GIS data becomes more accurate, as I discussed above, the accuracy disparity among different layers in your GIS will increase. In other words, the problem will become bigger than it is today.

I’ll give you a scenario I’m involved with now that highlights this challenge. I used a pseudo-name for the company and have embellished a bit to emphasize some points, but the basic facts are correct.

ABC Company has tens of thousands of small infrastructure assets in the field across the U.S. It already has the desired location accuracy on some (within 30 cm, or 1 foot) on some of them. For the remaining assets, the company wants to improve the accuracy of the features. To do this, the company plans to use GPS/GNSS receivers to collect position and attribute information on the assets. A second requirement is to deploy GPS/GNSS receivers capable of sub-meter accuracy to navigate back to assets when necessary.

They are now in initial phase of testing various GPS/GNSS receivers.

Their first try was using a handheld GNSS receiver capable of “sub-foot” accuracy and post-processing against GPS CORS. It didn’t take long for them to figure out the workflow was a headache. I agree, the whole GPS post-processing workflow is so last decade (and mind you, I helped design one of the first Windows-based GPS post-processing software programs back in the 1990s).

For the second iteration, the workflow was much smoother. They used a GNSS receiver that utilized real-time WAAS corrections for sub-meter accuracy. The workflow was smooth due to real-time GNSS data being brought directly into ArcGIS Mobile in the field. The problem was accuracy. All of the coordinates collected during the testing were offset to the northwest by about 3 feet. Precision was great, but accuracy was unacceptable. Was it a problem with the GNSS receiver? No. When GPS/GNSS data is shifted consistently in one direction when compared to other data, it is almost always due to a difference in horizontal datums. In this case, it didn’t take long to determine that the difference was data referenced to ITRF (WAAS) vs. NAD83 (basemap). However, we had to do a little more investigation to understand which version of NAD83 was being used in order to find the best horizontal datum transformation choice in ArcGIS Mobile. It wasn’t obvious, not by a long shot. In fact, it was downright cryptic. There wasn’t a datum transformation labeled “WAAS” or anything close to it. As an example, one of the transformation names was cryptically named NAD_1983_To_WGS_1984_5. What does that mean? Which version of NAD83? Which version of WGS-1984? What does _5 mean?

With some investigation and experimenting with different transformation choices, we finally got it dialed in to a reasonable level. Remember, we were only looking for sub-meter accuracy so ~10 cm of datum transformation error here or there wasn’t significant. Even if we didn’t make the perfect transformation choice, we were close enough. However the investigation and experimenting drill was painfully time-consuming (locate a high-integrity survey mark nearby and occupy it), more than it should have been.

The next step, setting up the workflow for the “sub-foot” mapping GPS/GNSS receivers, wasn’t as easy. First of all, instead of using WAAS as a correction source (not accurate enough), they used an RTK network. The network base stations were tied to the latest version of NAD83, which is NAD83/2011. They really wanted to dial in the correct horizontal datum transformation. The challenges were a bit different than testing the datum transformation for the sub-meter equipment. They wanted to dial in the datum transformation as close as possible. Again, the datum transformation selection choices in ArcGIS Mobile were cryptic. But, this wasn’t the only challenge. Since they were using RTK GPS/GNSS receiver capable of 1-2 cm accuracy, errors within the different GIS layers emerged. Some layers were referenced to NAD83/2011, which was perfect, while other layers were referenced to much older versions of NAD83. To the software’s credit, an alarm popped up noting the difference in datums of the older layers, but didn’t give them any guidance as to how they should proceed. In that case, Cancel is the normal response and is what they selected.

After experimenting and testing the different datum transformations in ArcGIS Mobile, they found the one that seemed to produce the best results (confirmed by testing against a high-integrity survey mark). All in all, a very time-consuming process spread out over a few weeks.

A challenge that still remains is “hot-swapping” between using the RTK Network (NAD83/2011) or WAAS (ITRF08) as a source of GPS/GNSS corrections. ArcGIS Mobile doesn’t seem to deal with switching GPS/GNSS incoming datum changes very well on the fly (in the field).

If, after reading the above, you’re confused or feel the need to read it again to understand it, welcome to the club. Plenty of brainpower was spent sorting out this problem and verifying the solution. When your GIS has plenty of slop in it, no worries. When you start dissecting it at the centimeter level, you’ll really be forced to take a microscope to each data layer and all of the sudden metadata becomes very important.

This article is just an introduction to the challenge of dealing with disparate horizontal datums in your GIS. As the programmer for datum transformation at a major GIS software manufacturer said, “We are moving into a new era” in dealing with datum transformations. Although I mention Esri software in this article, other leading software vendors aren’t doing any better. I discussed the issue of supporting the 14-parameter transformation between NAD83/2011 and ITRF08 with another major software vendor late last year. Their CEO’s response? “Yeah, we just had an internal meeting on that and need to support it.” Whaaaat? I wonder how his thousands of users utilizing WAAS as a source of GPS corrections have been handling this in the past 10 years. Not surprisingly, they aren’t the only major geospatial software that is falling down in this area. More than likely the software you use isn’t handling this correctly.

Lastly, in speaking with Michael Dennis at the U.S. National Geodetic Survey, he said that while the 14-parameter transformation algorithm is important, the step that people are leaving out is reconciling epoch dates of the data. Why is a date stamp of the data important? That’s the focus of my next article on this subject.

Follow me on Twitter by clicking here.

Thanks, and see you next time.
March 5, 2013
My Presentation at the 2012 Esri International User Conference

This is my powerpoint presentation (in pdf format) that I gave at the 2012 Esri International User Conference in San Diego on July 26, 2012.

Somehow, I was able to deliver this in about 20 minutes (although I did skip over a few slides). However, I really needed about 60+ minutes to go through it.

Next week, I’m presenting at the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC) Meeting in Seattle, WA.

This week I intended to post my 2012 Esri UC post-conference summary, but I couldn’t finish it in time. Look for that next week. Being in the geospatial space is pretty exciting these days with so much technology development happening.

Thanks, and see you next week.

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

August 10, 2012
Hello From San Diego…Survey Summit and Esri User Conference

Last weekend, I attend the Survey Summit in San Diego, which is sponsored by Esri with participation by ACSM/NSPS. As usual, there’s was some great content, but it’s not all good news. On the other hand, attendance at the Esri International User Conference, which started on Monday, was at 16,000 and counting. That’s up considerably from last year.

Survey Summit

The agenda for the first day of the Summit was different this year, and better. It was mostly a set of Lightning talks, followed by some technical presentations, and rounded off with a keynote. The lightning talks were very good. I like that style, get to the point and show what you have

July 25, 2012
Survey Summit and Esri International User Conference Coming Up

This weekend is the Survey Summit conference, which is a joint effort between Esri and the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM). I expect it will attract around 500 people. It’s immediately followed by the Esri International User Conference, which runs all of next week and will likely attract ~13,000 attendees. Both conferences are in San Diego.

The Survey Summit agenda format is a bit different this year. First of all, it’s at the Hyatt Hotel next to the San Diego Convention Center. Second, it’s starting two days later, on Saturday, as opposed to starting earlier in the week on Thursday. The first day of the Summit is now a series of lightning talks and presentations followed by a keynote presentation to wrap up the day into the the expo and reception.

8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.WelcomeOpening Remarks – BrentJones, Esri

9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m.Lightning TalkThe National Survey Society: Road Ahead Curt Sumner, National Society of Professional Surveyors, NSPS

9:10 a.m. – 9:20 a.m.Lightning TalkSupporting the Next Generation, Rich Vannozzi, NSPS Student Competition

9:20 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.Lightning TalkCelebrating 200 Years with the GLO, Don Buhler, Bureau of Land Management, BLM

9:30 a.m. – 9:40 a.m.Lightning TalkA New Approach for New Datums, Ronnie Taylor, National Geodetic Survey, NGS

9:40 a.m. – 9:50 a.m.Lightning TalkLand Surveys in Support of Fish and Wildlife, David Clark, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, FWS

9:50 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.Lightning TalkGPS Day, Donny Sosa, Esri

10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.Break

10:30 a.m. – 10:50 a.m.Industry PresentationSurveyor 2.0, CheeHai Teo. International Federation of Surveyors , FIG

10:50 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.Technology PresentationUAVs for Mapping and Survey, Rowland Harrison, Hawkeye UAV

11:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.Technology PresentationPreserving the California Missions with 3D, Tom Greaves. CyArk

11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.Technology PresentationMapping Our Future, Lawrie Jordan, Esri

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.LUNCH

1:30 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.Technology PresentationSurveying the New Frontier, Mike Beavers, Frontier Surveying

2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.Break

2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.Keynote PresentationNOAA’s Geospatial Information Officer, Tony Lavoi , NOAA

3:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.Survey Summit EXPO and Reception

On Sunday, the technical presentations are in a traditional format (45-minute presentations) on subjects from surveying in the cloud to UAV mapping to handling lidar data. Of course, there’s also the annual discussion of surveying vs. GIS.

There’s no real discussion about GPS/GNSS (albeit a talk about GEOID12) at the Survey Summit, which is surprising given that GPS/GNSS such a prolific tool for surveyors and high-precision GIS users. But, you have to realize that at the end of the day, this is a vendor conference and not an industry conference. I see a real shift going back to state and regional conferences, as opposed to a national surveying conference. It just seems that attendees will get more localized and relevant information in that type of venue, and I also see the trend of state/local conferences bringing in nationally recognized speakers talking about national issues that complement the local speakers and presentations.

Esri International User Conference

Yes, it’s a vendor conference, so you get a lot of Esri Kool-Aid. But, that said, there’s no better place in the U.S. to network with your colleagues about geospatial technologies and issues like this venue. If nothing else, it’s due to the sheer volume of geospatial people that converge on San Diego…~13,000.

Nearly all, if not all of the geospatial technology trends I write about (mobile GIS, BIM, UAVs, GPS/GNSS, RFID, satellite imagery/lidar, etc.) are being discussed at this conference in some form or another. You may have to dig into the agenda a bit to find them, but they are there, and there are plenty of experts attending the conference who are presenting, manning exhibit booths, and otherwise walking around that can answer nearly any question you have. The challenge is finding the people you want to talk to among the 13,000 other people.

I’ll be there all week attending sessions and talking with exhibitors about their work, products, services, and vision. If you want to keep up with me during the week, make sure you follow me on twitter. Twitter is replacing blogging to a certain degree. I’ll be posting photos, links, and interesting comments via Twitter throughout the day, every day at the conferences. You’ll get the latest news in almost real-time.

On Wednesday, I’ll have a professional film crew following me around the User Conference as I talk with different exhibitors and attendees. We’ll produce some pretty neat videos of the conference that will be posted to a special Video Gallery section at 98.27.162.175/gpsworld.com. I’ll be asking exhibitors to talk about their newest GIS, surveying, and mapping products and services, their customers’ requirements and success stories, and any special features they may be unveiling at the show. The videos will be edited to 3- to 5-minute clips for posting to the Geospatial Solutions website. Relevant interviews may also be featured on GPS World’s website.

On Thursday at 10:15 a.m. in Room 31B, I’ll be giving a presentation on the latest developments in GPS and GNSS technology. It’s part of the “Using a Mobile GIS to Manage Assets in the Field” session in the Mobile GIS topic track. I’ll be touching on the newest developments in SBAS, GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and maybe a little bit about LightSquared. As always, there’s a lot happening in the world of GPS/GNSS and some major changes that you should know about, so stop by and join me.

Esri Acquires ArcPad Developer Maptel

In late-breaking news today, Esri announced it has acquired Austrailian-based ArcPad developer Maptel. This adds an interesting twist to Esri’s mobile GIS development efforts. While it’s been clear that Esri has been pushing ArcGIS for Mobile as the mobile GIS path for the future, the acquisition may be signaling a change in that strategy. ArcPad is the most widely deployed mobile GIS software in the world with well over 500,000 copies deployed. Look for more on this subject from me next week while I’m in San Diego.

Thanks, and see you next week.

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

July 20, 2012

Tag: GSS Monthly

Mobile Devices

High-Precision GNSS Receivers

NSPS (Formerly ACSM) Radio Hour

The Epoch Date, Applied

Webinar: Nightmare on GIS Street: GNSS Accuracy, Datums and Geospatial Data