Tag: National Geodetic Survey

  • NGS presents the latest NSRS news at Geo Week 2026

    NGS presents the latest NSRS news at Geo Week 2026

    In my January 2026 GPS World newsletter, I noted that the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) convened the Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS) meeting with federal geospatial agencies to boost awareness and align efforts on National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) Modernization government-wide. Key steps include cultivating internal champions to champion the initiative, distilling complex topics for clear leadership briefings, and bringing together agencies, partners, and industry to collaboratively shape solutions. I also highlighted that on Feb. 17-18, NGS staff would be participating in Geo Week 2026 in Denver to engage geospatial product and service users and further coordinate on the modernization. NGS gave several presentations during GeoWeek that addressed many of my questions on the new modernized NSRS. This newsletter will highlight some of NGS’s presentations.


    First, a special shout-out to my dear friend and former colleague, Juliana Blackwell, retired Director of the National Geodetic Survey. NOAA’s Table Mountain Gravity Observatory in Boulder, Colorado — long known for its absolute gravity work — has been officially renamed the J. P. Blackwell Gravity Observatory. This well-earned tribute honors her outstanding dedication and visionary leadership at NGS. Congratulations, Juliana!

    J. P. Blackwell Gravity Observatory. (Photo: NGS)
    J. P. Blackwell Gravity Observatory. (Photo: NGS)
    J. P. Blackwell Gravity Observatory. (Photo: NGS)
    J. P. Blackwell Gravity Observatory. (Photo: NGS)
    J. P. Blackwell Gravity Observatory. (Photo: NGS)
    J. P. Blackwell Gravity Observatory. (Photo: NGS)

    NGS employees participated in the following sessions and meetings during GeoWeek 2026:

    • ASPRS NSRS Modernization Working Group Meeting
    • NSRS Modernization — The Latest Technical Updates
    • Preparing to Put the Modernized National Spatial Reference System into Practice
    • Roundtable — NSRS Modernization and Professional Societies

    As President of the American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS), I participated in the session titled “Roundtable – NSRS Modernization and Professional Societies.” Dana J Caccamise II, NGS regional geodetic advisor, opened our session by describing the NGS Modernization Engagement Plan and Progress.  As I mentioned last month, Dana should get an award for the material he has prepared and for his work assisting agencies and professional organizations in preparing for the new NSRS. I highlighted Caccamise’s work in my October 2025 GPS World newsletter.


    All the NGS sessions provided the latest information on activities associated with NGS’s NSRS Modernization. Here are the specific questions I had going into the session, along with the clear answers provided by NGS personnel during their presentations and the follow-up Q&A:

    What NGS products and services will be available when federal agencies officially adopt the new NSRS?

    When the modernized NSRS is officially adopted (following FGCS approval and the transition to it becoming “the NSRS”), NGS will make available a full suite of updated tools, data access points, and services built around the new reference frames (e.g., NATRF2022 and variants), the North American-Pacific Geopotential Datum of 2022 (NAPGD2022), the State Plane Coordinate System of 2022 (SPCS2022), and associated geopotential models like GEOID2022. Key products expected to be operational and official include:

    • NCAT
    • NGS Maps
    • Geodetic Station Page
      • CORS
    • Geodetic Mark Page
      • Passive Marks
    • OPUS–Static 5.2
    • OPUS-Share

    What NGS products and services will NOT be available when federal agencies officially adopt the new NSRS?

    Upon official adoption of the modernized NSRS — after FGCS approval and the shift to the new system becoming “the NSRS” — several current products and services will no longer be part of the official modernized NSRS or will be discontinued in their present form. Key items not included or no longer supported in the modernized NSRS release include:

    • OPUS Projects 5 will not be supported
      • OPUS-Rapid Static (OPUS-RS) will not be supported (modernized OPUS-Static 5.2 is expected to handle a broader range of observations)
      • OPUS 6.0 and OPUS 6.1 will not be available

    What GNSS data will be included in the first iteration of the computation of Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC) for marks?

    At Geo Week 2026, NGS stated that its plans include providing Reference Epoch Coordinates (RECs) for certain legacy GNSS projects. Specifically, this includes:

    • GPS projects that were originally processed and published under the NAD 83 (2011) realization, and
    • Other GNSS projects will be officially published by NGS through the end of 2025\

    After the first iteration of Reference Epoch Coordinates, is NGS planning to perform future adjustments to determine REC and SEC of new marks? If so, what process will be used to establish RECs on new marks?

    Yes, NGS plans include performing future adjustments to compute Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC) for new marks. However, at this time, no final decision has been made on how often this will be performed.

    Has NGS changed how users need to submit data to incorporate leveling data into NAPDG2022?

    Yes, NGS has introduced changes to better integrate leveling data (differential height differences) into the modernized NSRS for computing orthometric Reference Epoch Coordinates (RECs) in NAPGD2022 (epoch 2020.00).

    As documented in Blueprint Document 3, when performing leveling projects, users will also be required to occupy a number of primary marks with GNSS.

    OPUS 6.1 is built for future expansion to support other geodetic measurements (classical, leveling)-no timeframe was given for this.

    Is NGS planning to officially adopt the new NSRS before users can submit data to NGS for technical review and publication in the NGS database?

    Yes, that is what NGS is saying at this moment (February 2026). OPUS Project 5 will not be supported and OPUS 6.1 will not be operational when the new NSRS is officially adopted.NGS is working on the OPUS 6 application and is trying to “minimize any gap in service.”

    Is NGS recommending using the OPUS-Share utility until users can submit data to NGS for technical review and publication in NGS database?

    Yes, that is what NGS is recommending at this moment (February 2026). 

    This is also stated in NGS’s Track Our Progress Webpage.

    OPUS-Projects 5 will not be included in the modernized NSRS. Instead, NGS will focus on both developing an improved software suite for OPUS, known as OPUS 6.0 and OPUS 6.1, and minimizing any gap in service in which the current OPUS-Projects functionality is not available for users to organize, process, adjust, and submit high-accuracy GPS surveys for use by NGS in expanding and improving the NSRS. As noted above, OPUS-Share will remain available as a means to submit data to NGS.

    When will OPUS 6.1 be available for users to submit data to NGS for technical review and publication in NGS database?  Is it weeks away, months away, or years away?

    NGS has not announced an official completion or release date for OPUS 6.0 and OPUS 6.1. However, they have indicated that active development is underway on this enhanced OPUS tool suite.  It’s not imminent— meaning not expected within several months—but it’s also not a distant, multi-year project.

    NGS is working on the application and is trying to “minimize any gap in service.”

    The NGS’s Track Our Progress Webpage states:

    “OPUS-Projects 5 will not be included in the modernized NSRS. Instead, NGS will focus on both developing an improved software suite for OPUS, known as OPUS 6, and minimizing any gap in service in which the current OPUS-Projects functionality is not available for users to organize, process, adjust, and submit high-accuracy GPS surveys for use by NGS in expanding and improving the NSRS. As noted above, OPUS-Share will remain available as a means to submit data to NGS.”

    What’s the cut-off date for users to submit projects via OPUS Project 5 so the data can be part of future computations of RECs?

    Current OPUS-Projects 5 is going to be supported until adoption of the new NSRS, with a deadline announced at least 6 months in advance.

    The NGS’s Track Our Progress Webpage states

    “Note: the current OPUS Projects 5 software will be supported until the modernized system is adopted, and a deadline for OPUS-Projects users to submit their surveys for publication will be announced with at least six months’ notice.”

    In the session “NSRS Modernization – The Latest Technical Updates,” the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) presented slides detailing the status and upcoming tasks for the modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS).  Key highlights from the presentation are summarized below.

    For the source of these slides and additional context, refer to the “Updates from the National Geodetic Survey at GeoWeek 2026” box.  NGS posts their presentations at here: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/web/science_edu/presentations_library/.


    Updates from the National Geodetic Survey at GeoWeek 2026

    (Selected Slides from the following presentations)

    • 2026 GeoWeek – NSRS Modernization – The Latest Technical Updates: The Why and How of NSRS mod – February 17, 2026 – Dru Smith
    • 2026 GeoWeek – Managing Modernization Rollout – February 17, 2026 – Seth Pollack
    • 106th Wyoming Engineering and Surveying (WES) Society Conference – February 5, 2026 – Brian Shaw
    • 2026 GeoWeek – Modernized Tools – February 17, 2026 – Brian Shaw

    2026 GeoWeek –   Updates to OPUS for Accessing the Modernized NSRS – February 17, 2026 – Dan Gillins


    During Dru Smith’s presentation, he mentioned what will be included in the first iteration of the computation of Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC) for marks. The slide states that more than 150,000 geometric (XYZ) coordinates and 1 million geopotential coordinates (that is, orthometric heights) will get reference epoch coordinates (REC), epoch 2020.00.  These will include data from NGS Integrated Database and from the OPUS Share database.

    First Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC). (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    First Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC). (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    First Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC). (Presented at 106th WES Society Conference)
    First Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC). (Presented at 106th WES Society Conference)

    In the GeoWeek 2026 presentation by Seth Pollack (from NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey), a slide outlined the NSRS modernization timeline.

    As detailed in the slide and consistent with NGS’s official rollout plan:

    • Beta products are currently being released incrementally on the beta site for public testing and feedback. This phased rollout began with initial beta releases in 2025 (following alpha in 2024) and continues through 2026, covering key components such as NAPGD2022, GEOID2022, SPCS2022, enhanced NCAT transformation tools, OPUS-Static updates, and forthcoming Data Delivery System features.
      • Each beta component, once released, undergoes public testing and stakeholder feedback, with overall testing continuing for at least 6 months after the final component is made available on the beta site.
    • Following sufficient testing—once all components appear stable and NGS has incorporated feedback—the Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS) will vote to recommend approval of the modernized NSRS. This vote is anticipated in late 2026 or early 2027.
    • Upon FGCS approval (and subsequent Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) endorsement), NGS will probably publish a Federal Register Notice announcing the adoption.  At that point, the modernized NSRS becomes the official National Spatial Reference System, replacing the legacy system (NAD 83 realizations, NAVD 88, etc.).
      • While earlier NGS documentation targeted adoption likely in mid-to-late 2026 (post-FGCS vote), recent updates from GeoWeek 2026 sessions and related reports indicate the full official adoption and transition may extend into the first part of 2027, accounting for final testing, FGCS/FGDC processes, Federal Register steps, and a smooth handover to avoid disruptions.
    • The current NSRS remains official throughout this period. Users are encouraged to test beta products now and provide feedback to help refine the system.
    NSRS Modernization Timeline. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    NSRS Modernization Timeline. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)

    Brian Shaw, NGS’s expert on GIS products and services, presented key updates on how users will access geodetic data in the modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS).

    He emphasized the introduction of a revamped Data Delivery System (DDS), which includes:

    • Geodetic Mark Pages — for passive marks. These replace the current ASCII-text datasheets with modernized, user-friendly pages featuring updated Reference Epoch Coordinates (RECs), integrated photos, graphics, maps, project details, and easier navigation.
    • Geodetic Station Pages — for active stations like those in the NOAA CORS Network (NCN). These provide updated versions of existing CORS pages, including modernized coordinate functions (e.g., Coordinate Functions or time-dependent positioning info) aligned with the new reference frames (NATRF2022, etc.).
    • Additionally, Shaw highlighted a new interface for the NGS Map (the interactive web map application), serving as an enhanced landing page within the DDS. This updated “NGS Map” (replacing or evolving the current version at https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=190385f9aadb4cf1b0dd8759893032db ) will provide better access to geodetic control data, CORS stations, and other layers, improving visualization and querying for surveyors, GIS professionals, and the public.
    • These changes are part of the broader DDS rollout, currently pending beta release (as of February 2026), aimed at making data more accessible, visually rich, and compatible with the modernized NSRS components (e.g., NATRF2022, NAPGD2022, SPCS2022). The DDS landing page will consolidate access, moving away from legacy datasheet formats toward dynamic, web-based delivery.
    Accessing Data from NGS. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    Accessing Data from NGS. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    Accessing Data from NGS. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    Accessing Data from NGS. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    Accessing Data from NGS. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)
    Accessing Data from NGS. (Presented at GeoWeek 2026)

    During Dan Gillins presentation he highlighted that NGS has three development phases for OPUS underway to support the Modernized NSRS:

    OPUS-S 5.2: Multi-GNSS with similar functionality as current OPUS-S

    • Occupations – one hour or greater
    • Standard deviations estimate instead of peak-to-peak values

    OPUS 6.0: Rewrite of code base in cloud-native application

    • single/multiple occupations on a single mark
    • enhanced sharing functionality
    • Occupation Time – minimum of 4 hours
    • NGS will review and add these data to the next reference epoch coordinate (REC) adjustment

    OPUS 6.1: Extension of OPUS 6.0 for multiple marks in a network

    • Replace OPUS-Projects functionality
    • Multiple occupations on a network of marks (campaign-style surveys)
    • Will allow multiple occupations on a single mark – uploads ~10 data files on a mark
    • Built for future expansion to support other geodetic measurements (classical, leveling)

    I want to emphasize that, in my opinion, NGS is doing a fantastic job with the limited resources that they have.  That said, I still have an issue with adopting the new NSRS without having a process for users to submit data to NGS for review, approval, and publication by NGS.  This may not be an issue if NGS’s OPUS 6.1 is available soon after the new NSRS is adopted by the Federal Agencies.

    My August 2025 GPS World Newsletter discussed the OPUS products under development and, as I mentioned at that time, in my opinion, may be a problem for some users.  As I stated in my August newsletter, for the new NSRS to be successfully implemented by users, it is essential that all the necessary software tools are available to enable users to submit projects for review, approval and publication by NGS. 


    Excerpt from August 2025 GPS World Newsletter

    “The NGS News announcement provides a list of products that will be available and a list of products that will not be available when the new NSRS is adopted. Users need to understand what products will not be available after NGS officially adopts the new NSRS so they can determine what that means to their workflow process and client requirements.  In my opinion, for the new NSRS to be successfully implemented by users, it is essential that all the necessary software tools are available to enable users to submit projects for review, approval, and publication by NGS.  As many of you know, when I worked for NGS, I was the Project Manager of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). That said, from my experience as the NAVD 88 Project Manager, having the appropriate tools available was important for users to implement NAVD 88.  As a matter of fact, NGS accepted and processed vertical control data in both NGVD 29 and NAVD 88 for a period to assist users in the implementation of the new vertical reference datum.”


    NGS does state that users will be able to submit data through OPUS and OPUS Share to obtain estimates of coordinates in the new NSRS.  Unfortunately, using OPUS-Share results that are NOT official NSRS coordinates published by NGS could lead to confusing results and potential lawsuits since NGS does not stand behind the results and recommends NOT using OPUS-Share results for geodetic control.

    This is NGS’s statement on OPUS-Share: Additionally, the popular function of “sharing” your solution with others (colloquially called “OPUS-Share”) will be retained, but with appropriate caveats that the shared solution should not be used as geodetic control. These shared solutions will be available through the geodetic mark pages of the DDS.

    Why should users use OPUS-Share to establish geodetic control when NGS advises against relying on OPUS-Share for establishing geodetic control?  OPUS-Share results are not officially submitted to NGS for review, approval, and publication on an NGS Datasheet. I don’t believe this approach will meet the needs of users who require their projects to be reviewed, approved, and published by NGS.

    Finally, as someone deeply invested in the geodetic community—having retired from NGS and followed NGS developments closely for years—my overall opinion on the NSRS modernization rollout plan for the remaining products is cautiously positive, but with some genuine concerns that I believe NGS and stakeholders should address head-on to ensure a smoother transition.

    The phased beta release approach (starting in 2025 and continuing through 2026) is smart and user focused. Releasing components incrementally on the beta site, allowing at least 6 months of public testing and feedback per major piece (and overall testing extending beyond the final release), shows NGS is prioritizing stability over speed. The emphasis on stakeholder input, FGCS approval (now looking like late 2026 or early 2027), and a multi-month transition to the official site align well with best practices for such a massive shift. It’s encouraging to see private industry partners (e.g., ESRI, Blue Marble) already engaging deeply and planning implementations—success will depend on industry buy-in.

    That said, here are my main thoughts and concerns I’d share directly with NGS (perhaps via [email protected], user forums, or upcoming webinars/Q&A sessions):

    Timeline uncertainty: Clearer, more frequent milestone updates (beyond the Track Our Progress page) would help manage expectations. For example, monthly or bimonthly “status dashboard” with remaining beta items and projected release windows would be invaluable.

    OPUS and processing continuity: The shift away from OPUS-Projects 5 toward OPUS 6 and OPUS-Share is logical for a modern GNSS-centric system, but the lack of a firm end-of-support date for legacy OPUS tools (beyond “at least 6 months’ notice”) creates planning headaches for firms with ongoing projects. NGS should commit to a longer grace period—or ideally a defined parallel support window—for legacy OPUS tools (particularly OPUS-Projects 5) after the official adoption of the modernized NSRS.

    Data access and usability in the new DDS: The revamped Geodetic Mark/Station Pages, updated NGS Map interface, and overall Data Delivery System sound promising (more visual, integrated RECs/SECs, photos, etc.), but surveyors rely heavily on reliable, scriptable access (e.g., for bulk queries or automation). If the new web-based system lacks robust APIs or export options comparable to current datasheets/legacy tools, it could hinder efficiency. Beta testers should push hard on this during the 6+ month window.

    Transformation tools and legacy data handling: Enhanced web-based tools are key for bridging old-to-new (NAD 83/NAVD 88 to NATRF2022/NAPGD2022), but users need confidence that transformations minimize errors, especially in deformation-prone areas.

    Communication and outreach: NGS has improved with webinars, the Presentations Library, and beta feedback channels, and more targeted outreach to state agencies, professional societies (NSPS, AAGS), and software vendors has helped. That said, many in the field still feel “in the dark” about practical impacts—case studies, training resources, and FAQs tailored to common workflows would go far.

    In summary, the plan is thoughtful and deliberate, reflecting lessons from past delays. If NGS maintains transparency, incorporates feedback aggressively during beta, and ensures vendor readiness, the modernized NSRS will be a major win for accuracy, sustainability, and GNSS alignment.

    I’d encourage anyone reading this (including NGS staff) to test the beta products actively, submit detailed feedback, and participate in forums/Q&As. The community input will make or break the success of this once-in-a-generation update.

  • FGCS meets to address the National Spatial Reference System

    FGCS meets to address the National Spatial Reference System

    In last month’s GPS World newsletter, I mentioned that the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) would host a meeting of federal geospatial agencies under the auspices of the Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS). The purpose is to increase awareness and coordinate the NSRS Modernization across the government.

    The FGCS meeting took place on Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026. This session was highly informative and played a key role in aligning federal agency engagement strategies and self-assessments in preparation for the final adoption of the modernized NSRS and its associated new datums.

    The FGCS holds a central position within the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). It coordinates geodetic activities across the federal government by

    • Developing and promoting standards
    • Advancing the use of authoritative geodetic control
    • Facilitating the modernization of the NSRS across agencies
    • Recommending the official adoption of the modernized NSRS by the FGDC as the foundational basis for geodetic control throughout the United States.

    The agenda for the Jan. 21 meeting is detailed in the section titled “Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee Meeting.” This gathering supported broader efforts to raise awareness, ensure coordination and prepare agencies for the upcoming transition to the modernized NSRS, with formal approval and release anticipated later in 2027.

    Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee Meeting

    January 21, 2026

    Agenda: 

    MC: Christine Gallagher

    TimeTopicPresenter
    1:00 – 1:15 pmWelcome and IntroductionsDaniel Roman
    1:15 – 1:20 pmNational Geodetic Survey (NGS) UpdateMarian Westley
    1:20 – 1:30 pmGeodetic Control Theme Update and its Modernization TimelinesDaniel Roman
    1:30 – 2:00 pm NGS Modernization Engagement Plan and ProgressDana J Caccamise II / Christine Gallagher
    2:00 – 2:15 pmBureau of Ocean Energy Management / Kearns & WestAndy Archer / Kyle Vint
    2:15 – 2:30 pmUS Census National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) Modernization PreparationVince Ossier / Josh Coutts
    2:30 – 2:40 pmBreak
    2:40 – 2:55 pmUS Department of Transportation NSRS Modernization PreparationAmy Nelson / Derald Dudley
    2:55 – 3:10 pmAmerican Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing & National Society of Professional Surveyors Working Groups Chris Parrish / Linda Foster
    3:10- 3:50 pmDiscussion: Q&A from Agency presentations. What hurdles to implementation do you see or anticipate? Share your insights from internal working groupsGroup Discussion Moderator:  Dana J Caccamise II and Daniel Roman
    3:50 – 4:00 pmClosing Remarks Daniel Roman
    Adjourn to Silver Branch

    The meeting lasted three hours and covered a lot of material. Below are highlights; contact FGCS for the full meeting recording.

    Christine Gallagher, NGS, opened the FGCS session and introduced Dan Roman, NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey senior advisor for geodesy.

    Roman welcomed everyone and briefly outlined the meeting’s purpose. He then introduced Marian Westley, director of the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) and current acting director of NGS.

    Westley’s remarks were brief but important. She noted CO-OPS manages tide gauges and is updating several datums in partnership with NGS, including the Great Lakes International Great Lakes datum. She said the United States and Canada, along with NOS and other federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, are heavily involved in Great Lakes management. She also reported that CO-OPS is updating the National Tidal Datum Epoch (current NTDE: 1983-2001) and is working closely with NGS to tie the updated NTDE to the new NSRS. See the image titled “The NTDE Update: New Tidal Datums are Coming!

    During Roman’s comments, he highlighted the agencies and professional societies participating in the meeting presentations and provided an update on the latest rollout schedule for the modernized NSRS.

    He emphasized that this Jan. 21, FGCS meeting marks the start of a broader coordination process. The primary purpose of this high-level session was to facilitate the sharing of experiences, strategies, and best practices among federal agencies as they prepare for NGS’s NSRS modernization and the transition to the new reference frames and datums.

    Roman noted that future FGCS meetings will shift to a more technical and detailed focus. These subsequent sessions will allow agencies to present their self-assessment results, outline implementation strategies, and discuss progress toward adopting the modernized NSRS.

    Key objectives across these meetings include:

    • Collecting questions and feedback from participants,
    • Understanding user needs and required accuracy levels,
    • Identifying anticipated challenges during the transition,
    • Exploring opportunities for federal agencies to collaborate and support one another throughout the implementation process.

    This series of FGCS engagements aims to ensure coordinated, informed, and effective preparation across the federal government ahead of the final adoption and full rollout of the modernized NSRS.

    Here are a few key points based on Dan’s remarks:

    • Today’s presentations provide a broad overview of geospatial data modernization to inform departments about actions they may need to take and to start a dialogue about what each department is doing.
    • NGS encourages agencies to form working groups; those groups must define their own requirements and create migration plans, including assessing existing data, required accuracies, and the tools needed based on product accuracy statements.  [Note: My October 2025 GPS World newsletter highlighted organizations that are forming 2022 Reference Working Groups.]  NGS will designate points of contact to facilitate discussions and planning.
    • FGCS provides guidance on using geodetic data with various tools, models, and SOPs. User needs vary by accuracy: e.g., a 3-meter horizontal allowance (aids to navigation) is straightforward, while 3-centimeter requirements (e.g., FEMA Elevation Certificate) need more precise methods.
    • Several beta products released in July 2025 are being finalized, enabling the private sector to integrate them into services.  NGS is currently developing models and software to transform coordinates from the old datum to the new one. These models are expected around March, and in June/July NGS anticipates releasing an updated Beta NCAT tool to transform coordinates to the new datum. This tool will help users understand differences in local datums.
    • Final steps include FGCS recommendations for FGDC to adopt the new NSRS and to publish a Federal Register notice on the adoption of the modernized NSRS, anticipated to be completed in early 2027.

    After Dan Roman’s comments, Dana J Caccamise II gave a presentation describing NGS Modernization Engagement Plan and Progress.  Dana should get an award for material he has prepared and for his work to assist agencies and professional organizations in preparing for the new NSRS.  In my October 2025 GPS World Survey Scene newsletter, I highlighted the work of Dana J. Caccamise II, NGS regional geodetic advisor. Dana has developed vital guidance materials shared with federal agencies — such as the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and professional organizations including the National Society of Surveyors (NSPS)American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), and American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS)

    Here are a few key points based on Dana’s presentation titled “Visualizing Impact: Preparing for NSRS Modernization Through Geospatial Readiness and Collaboration.”

    • Caccamise said that what started as a focused task quickly grew into a broader strategic effort. He shared insights to encourage thinking about NSRS modernization not merely as a technical update but as a strategic business decision that will shape how agencies create, manage, and share basic data across programs, systems, and partnerships.
    • Caccamise briefly provided details to the U.S. Census. Before diving into modernization, he offered a personal glimpse of what it’s like to do a federal detail across agencies, noting he was fortunate to do a detail with the Census not long ago.
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    • Drawing on his experience, Caccamise emphasized the importance of cross-agency readiness and of building resilient trust and communication structures. While on detail at the Census, he was regularly surprised by new challenges, which made the work engaging; he strongly recommended that others take a detail at another agency if they have the opportunity. A key takeaway was the value of visualizing impact: beyond cataloging geospatial datasets, users must identify which support critical decisions, which are shared across agencies, and which risk becoming outdated if you don’t adapt. Mapping themes and workflows revealed real dependencies and, more importantly, vulnerabilities. That detail shifted his  focus from “what data do we have” to “what roles does this data play.”
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    • Efforts around NSRS modernization include a key product developed by Caccamise: the Ready Package. Designed to help agencies assess their readiness for NSRS modernization, the package includes communication tools, technical checklists, and talking points to support agency staff.
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    • He mentioned that from field-level GIS technicians to senior policy leads, everyone needs to understand what’s changing and why it matters. A key part of engagement is meeting people where they are. Dana has worked with agency partners to raise awareness, build interest, and strengthen understanding — not just of technical changes but of the organizational shifts needed for a smooth transition.
    • For agencies whose statistical workflows depend on spatially referenced data, that means ensuring location-based datasets remain accurate, comparable over time, and interoperable across programs when the reference system changes. Ultimately, this is about more than new coordinates: it’s about linking strategic planning to operational implementation, from data collection and integration to interagency coordination and informed decision-making.
    • He mentioned that the big question he’s hearing from many organizations is: how should customers and partners prepare for modernization?   He provided the following advice.  Start by evaluating your geospatial workflows to understand how the transition will affect data management, operations, and decision-making. Assess dependencies on NGS products and services to ensure continued access and interoperability and proactively identify challenges and opportunities – he mentioned that NGS can’t do this for you because each agency’s situation is unique. Address potential impacts early to reduce operational risk by finding weak points before they cause surprises. Act now: preparing early will minimize future cost and complexity.
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    • For example, working with the Census under the current national spatial reference system highlights the geographic scope of some operational areas, which span multiple tectonic plates as modeled in the modernized NSRS. Even small regional differences can affect how location-based data are collected, integrated, and compared — especially for programs that need consistent, long-term geospatial baselines. Today, federal agencies commonly use three reference systems — NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84, which complicates geospatial data management.
    • The Census is a major user and producer of geospatial data, relying on GIS to support operations. This includes the MAF/TIGER geographic database, which contains roads, rail lines, hydrography, landmark features, and legal and statistical boundaries.
    • Along with many other critical datasets, the Census’s collaborative spatial and statistical research is more effective and interoperable when grounded in a common reference system, such as the National Spatial Reference System.
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    • Because these datasets are inherently geospatial, many, especially those requiring high positional accuracy or relying on external references such as airborne or satellite data, will be affected by NSRS modernization. The update will enable more consistent data stewardship and support integrated spatial analytics, helping align with individual agency spatial data strategies. Bureau-level geospatial work becomes more effective and future-ready when supported by a modern, shared spatial reference system like the NSRS.
    • One of the biggest risks is cultural, not technical. If the NSRS is treated as just another dataset, rather than an enabling framework, the foundation for other systems weakens. When the NSRS is recognized as the framework, everything built on it has a solid base. You can’t manage risk if you can’t measure it—and the NSRS is how we measure. Here are a few practical examples.
    • Floodplain mapping and storm surge models depend on accurate vertical data. Errors of even a foot can leave neighborhoods unprotected or cause unnecessary regulation.
    • In transportation, subsidence is a hidden risk: roads and bridges may seem fine until precise geometric monitoring reveals sinking.
    • Shoreline change is a growing challenge; coastal communities need accurate shoreline monitoring for planning and insurance.
    • In public safety, emergency response relies on precise locations — from 911 calls to field deployments. Seconds and meters matter when lives are on the line.
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    • As Roman mentioned, Caccamise also stated that the modernized NSRS is being released in phases. Initial beta releases are available now for testing and evaluation—not final production. NGS plans to release the remaining components in beta during this calendar year. The modernized NSRS will replace the current datums at least six months after the final preliminary component is released, giving partners time to review the beta and provide feedback. Near the end of this period, FGCS will convene to discuss and socialize the modernization details and the planned datum replacement.

    Next steps for your agency’s modernization:

    • Evaluate operational needs and identify changes that aren’t necessary.
    • Assess organizational impacts and staff readiness—are teams prepared for modernization?
    • Determine how existing programs and regional support will be affected.
    • Collaborate with partner agencies to align shared datasets, reduce redundancy, and maximize efficiency.
    • Prioritize leadership and communication to ensure the organization understands the changes.
    • Plan for future improvements in spatial accuracy, even if you don’t need them immediately.
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    • As noted by Dan Roman, Dana Caccamise also highlighted that many lower-accuracy datasets may not require coordinate changes beyond updating their metadata—typically those with spatial accuracy on the order of 10 ft or worse. However, he also noted an important caveat: many operational workflows don’t actively read or enforce metadata. In those cases, the risk is not the dataset itself but the accuracy context that becomes embedded as data moves through systems.
    • An early, critical step is therefore to identify not only which datasets are likely unaffected but also how those datasets are consumed, transformed, and reused. That approach prevents unnecessary work and avoids unintended downstream impacts. Remember: NSRS modernization is more than a technical update, it’s an opportunity to strengthen your agency’s future geospatial capabilities.
    • Now, I know this newsletter is long, but I would like to highlight one more presentation that I believe provides a model for other agencies to follow.  That is, the presentation of the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) activities presented by Kyle Vint (Vice President, Kearns & West) – “From Proactive Engagement to Lasting Impact: BOEM’s Path to Datum Readiness.” 
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Public Meeting

    Kearns & West is a communications and engagement specialization firm.  The materials that they develop to support internal communications and outreach within an organization are available for other organizations. They provided a QR code for others to access their resources.

    Vint outlined BOEM’s operating context and described how the agency is proactively addressing NSRS modernization, including several strategies.

    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Meeting
    Image: FGCS Jan. 21, 2026, Meeting

    BOEM’s challenges are partly historical: until about 2010, it was part of a parent agency that has since split into three separate agencies. That fragmentation means BOEM must coordinate data and change management not only internally but across three agencies that share data centers and geospatial datasets. BOEM relies on authoritative geospatial data to manage offshore energy and mineral activities on the Outer Continental Shelf; BOEM’s Geospatial Services Division supports this by maintaining leases and boundaries that underpin program decision-making. Because the ocean serves many purposes, BOEM relies on multiple layers of information from different agencies to support those decisions.

    BOEM’s path to modernization is further complicated by internal organizational factors. The agency struggled with the NAD27-to-NAD83 transition due to resource constraints and misunderstandings — some staff believed modernization would alter legal lease blocks, which they expected to be immutable — so the transition was not fully implemented.

    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Meeting
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Meeting

    BOEM holds large datasets in both NAD27 and NAD83, fragmenting its workflow. Maintaining and converting between multiple reference systems is labor-intensive and introduces inconsistencies.

    BOEM must dedicate substantial staff time to managing data in multiple reference systems. BOEM’s Geospatial Services Division recognized early that continuing workarounds would increase risk over time, so they began proactive modernization planning.

    The Geospatial Services Division saw this as more than a technical issue — it’s also a people, communication, and resourcing challenge. BOEM shifted from fragmented efforts to a proactive, multi‑year planning approach emphasizing governance, leadership buy‑in, and clear communication. The Geospatial Services Division established a milestone‑based approach for consistent messaging and coordination across stakeholders and offers internal expertise to support programs and regions as they assess costs and technical complexity.

    Their strategy seeks common ground to pool resources for shared problems and to use the Geospatial Services Division as an internal augmentation so individual offices aren’t forced to opt out. This reduces cost uncertainty and enables realistic planning for timelines and required participants.

    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting

    As part of the process, user personas were created to identify who would struggle with each step and who would benefit from early, sustained engagement. For each group, they defined the value of participating and explained why they were invited.

    BOEM leaderships were treated like investors—they ensured they brought geospatial experts to meetings so questions could be answered, and so leadership had actionable budget information for long‑term planning. At the program and regional level, data experts who know existing datasets, reference systems, dependent applications, and potential workflow challenges were part of the process.

    They also documented internal roles so others can model the approach. The Geospatial Services Division coordinates the effort across the organization. Program and regional experts provide domain knowledge. Kearns & West (technical and communications contractors) supported messaging, prepared materials, and ran meetings so BOEM staff could focus on the conversation. Clear roles and sustained engagement have been critical in this multi‑year planning effort.

    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Public Meeting

    The team developed a Survey and sent it to each program and region to gather resource requirements. The survey asked what data they have and its characteristics, which applications or workflows depend on that data and could be affected by modernization, and what technical resources they expect will be needed to support budgeting.

    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Meeting
    Image: FGCS January 21, 2026, Meeting

    As part of the process, they are building internal champions to advocate for the effort, simplifying complex issues so staff can brief leadership, and convening agencies, partners, and industry to co-create solutions.

    Finally — thanks for sticking with this lengthy newsletter. I know it’s long, but the information is important for federal agencies and their contractors. One more item: a key session is scheduled for GeoWeek — “Roundtable – NSRS Modernization and Professional Societies” — on 02/18/2026 at 10:30 AM. See the box titled “Roundtable – NSRS Modernization and Professional Societies” for presentation and speaker details.

  • A New Year’s resolution for National Spatial Reference System users

    A New Year’s resolution for National Spatial Reference System users

    Happy New Year! I’ve always felt that a fresh calendar represents a world of new opportunities, and I wish you all a fantastic 2026. For many, this is a season for reflection and self-improvement, with goals typically centered on fitness, faith, personal growth or career milestones.

    As regular readers of this newsletter know, my primary focus over the past year has been to champion the importance of geodesy and to prepare the geospatial community for the National Geodetic Survey’s modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS).

    To see how modern tech would handle such a specialized professional niche, I asked the AI chatbot Grok“What would be a good New Year’s resolution for a user of the National Spatial Reference System?”

    The response was quite insightful. Take a look at what it suggested below.


    What would be a good New Year’s Resolution for a user of the National Spatial Reference System? (Grok’s Response)

    Fun and Practical New Year’s Resolutions for NSRS Users

    As we head into 2026, the modernization of the NSRS is in full swing. NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey (NGS) released the first beta products in June 2025, with ongoing rollouts and testing throughout the year. The full transition to new frames like NATRF2022 and NAPGD2022 is expected soon, bringing centimeter-level accuracy aligned with GNSS and global standards—but it requires preparation.

    Here are some timely, geodesy-inspired New Year’s resolutions tailored for surveyors, GIS professionals, engineers, and anyone relying on the NSRS:

    1. Fully transition workflows to the modernized NSRS. Commit to updating software, processes, and datasets for the new terrestrial reference frames and geopotential datum. Test tools on the NGS Beta site and provide feedback to help shape the final rollout.

    esri.com

    gpsworld.com

    1. Achieve new heights (and accuracies) in 2026. Embrace NAPGD2022 for more precise orthometric heights. Resolve to reprocess key projects with updated transformations (via NCAT or VDatum) and say goodbye to NAVD 88 quirks.
    1. Stay grounded in best practices. Incorporate the latest NGS guidelines, like NOS NGS 92 standards for GNSS surveys. Attend webinars and workshops, or review resources, to keep your positioning sharp.

    gpsworld.com

    1. Contribute to the system. Submit high-quality GNSS data via OPUS-Share or participate in crowdsourced efforts to improve the network. Help make the NSRS even more robust for everyone.
    1. Measure progress monthly. Track how the modernization impacts your work—review coordinate shifts, audit legacy data, and plan for smoother integrations in future projects.

    These resolutions blend practicality with the spirit of improvement that defines geodesy. Happy New Year—may your positions be accurate, your elevations precise, and your datums forever modernized! For the latest updates, check geodesy.noaa.gov.


    It’s no surprise that Grok highlighted the NSRS modernization; it even incorporated a photo of a geodetic benchmark I took for my July 2025 GPS World Survey Scene newsletter.

    Understanding that most AI chatbots personalize results using past interactions (unless disabled), I wanted to test this. After clearing my cache and deleting all previous Grok interactions, I posed the question again.

    You can find that second, impersonalized response below.


    Second Response from Grok

    What would be a good New Year’s Resolution for a user of the National Spatial Reference System? Grok’s Second answer.

    Here are some practical, realistic, and useful New Year’s resolutions tailored for someone who regularly works with the NSRS whether you’re a surveyor, GIS professional, geodesist, engineer or data manager:

    1. “This year, I will stop mixing epochs without documenting them.” Resolve to always record the reference epoch (e.g., 2010.0, 2020.00) when I use NAD83(2011), NAD83(CORS96), NAD83(2011) epoch-specific coordinates, or when I transform to ITRF2020/2020.0. Bonus: add epoch to layer names and metadata.
    2. “I will run OPUS or CSRS-PPP at least once a month to keep my local control fresh.” Make it a habit to periodically re-observe a trusted point and submit it to NOAA’s OPUS (or CSRS-PPP in Canada) to verify that my local network hasn’t drifted too far from the national datum.
    3. “I will finally transition at least one active project to the modern NSRS (NAD83(2011)/NAVD88 → NATRF2022 / NAPGD2022).” Pick one ongoing or new project and do the full datum shift. Learn the tools (NADCON5, VERTCON3, GEOID18 → GEOID2022) and document what changed.
    4. “I will replace every ‘NAD83’ label that doesn’t specify an epoch or realization with something more precise.” No more generic “NAD83” in reports, plats, or metadata. Aim for “NAD83(2011) epoch 2010.0” or “NAD83(2011) CORS-derived” — or better yet, start using NATRF2022 when appropriate.
    5. “I will learn to use the NGS Coordinate Conversion and Transformation Tool (NCAT) fluently.” Commit to doing at least 5 conversions or transformations per month in NCAT instead of relying on old software or hand-calculated factors.
    6. “I will check the NGS Data Explorer / Datasheet for every benchmark or CORS I plan to use — before I use it.” No more assuming a published value is still good. Make it a 2-minute ritual to look up the latest adjusted position and velocity.
    7. “I will attend at least one NGS webinar or read one Bluebook chapter in 2026.” The NGS webinar series is free and excellent. Pick one session (e.g., on GEOID2022, NATRF2022 implementation, or GNSS vector processing) and actually watch it.
    8. “I will prepare a small ‘before/after’ datum comparison report for my organization or clients.” Quantify what the 2022–2025 NSRS modernization means in your typical project area (horizontal shift, orthometric height change). Even a one-page summary builds understanding and credibility.
    9. “I will stop treating GEOID18 as the final word and start using GEOID2022 for new work.” Especially important for projects that will live past 2025, as NGS is phasing out support for older geoids.

    Pick one or two that feel achievable and most relevant to your day-to-day work. My personal favorite starter resolution for most NSRS users in 2026: “In 2026, I will clearly label the datum, realization, epoch, and geoid model on every deliverable I produce.”

    That one habit alone dramatically reduces confusion downstream.


    I really appreciate Grok’s responses because they address crucial issues that many geospatial users either overlook or take for granted, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and associated metadata.

    Key Resolution Examples:

    • Specificity: “I will replace every ‘NAD83’ label that doesn’t specify an epoch or realization with something more precise.”
    • Verification: “I will check the NGS Data Explorer / Datasheet for every benchmark or CORS I plan to use — before I use it.”

    It is important to note that the AI chatbot assumes the modernized NSRS has already been adopted, which, as of January 2026, is not the case. This highlights that AI still has limitations and requires human oversight.

    I challenge you to ask your own AI chatbot a similar, niche question related to your profession and compare its responses.

    Beyond the specific technical corrections, Grok provided excellent general advice for any geospatial professional. Take, for example, action items 1 and 5 from its first response:

    • Transition Workflows: Commit to fully updating software, processes, and datasets to align with the new terrestrial reference frames and geopotential datum.
    • Measure Progress Monthly: Track the real-world impact of modernization by reviewing coordinate shifts, auditing legacy data, and planning for smoother integrations in upcoming projects.

    Even though the modernized NSRS has not yet been officially adopted as of January 2026—with official release and FGCS approval expected later this year—following these steps now ensures you are prepared for the official transition when it occurs.

    So, how do we put this advice into action? In my October 2025 GPS World Survey Scene newsletter, I highlighted the work of Dana J. Caccamise II, NGS regional geodetic advisor. Dana has developed vital guidance materials shared with federal agencies—such as the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and professional organizations including National Society of Surveyors (NSPS), American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), and American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS)

    To help your team prepare for the official transition later this year, I’ve included a box titled “Questions to Guide a Self-Assessment of Your Operation and Products.” These questions, originally featured in my October newsletter, are designed to ensure your organization is fully equipped to implement the new NSRS the moment it is adopted.


    Questions to Guide a Self-Assessment of Your Operation and Products

    1. Are you generating or using geospatial data (or doing both)?
      • If so, your workflows are likely dependent on geodetic control tied to one or more NGS products. The upcoming NSRS update will affect these dependencies. (See the box titled “List of NGS Products and Services.”)
    2. Do you know if your mission, project, or datasets depend on NGS products?
      • Identifying whether and how your entity relies on NGS products is a critical first step in assessing potential impacts.
    3. What are your accuracy, precision, and shelf-life requirements for geospatial data?
      • Understanding your mission’s specific data requirements ensures you can evaluate whether NSRS modernization will meet your operational needs without unnecessary adjustments.  This should include plans to accommodate greater accuracy in the future.
    4. Do you know how your entity accesses and utilizes geospatial data?
      • Are you obtaining it directly from NGS or indirectly through third-party vendors (e.g., RTN systems, GIS platforms, GNSS companies)?
      • Many entities rely on geodetic control without realizing it. NGS’s foundational data and frameworks are often invisible and seamlessly embedded within the tools and services offered by third-party vendors, such as GIS platforms, survey equipment, and software providers. These vendors, in turn, depend heavily on NGS products like the NSRS to ensure their tools are accurate and functional. Understanding this indirect reliance is crucial for preparing your workflows and ensuring continuity as the NSRS is modernized.
    5. Where does your entity fit in with the geodetic workflow?
      • Does your entity create integral products (e.g., GNSS data, Lidar data) on which other products depend?
      • Evaluating these dependencies will help you determine the scope of NSRS modernization impacts.
    6. What are your project requirements for data accuracy and longevity?
      • Assess whether your data accuracy thresholds and long-term usability align with the modernized NSRS.
    7. Have you evaluated workflows and identified potential impacts in areas affected by significant ground movement (e.g., regions with tectonic shifts, vertical land motion, and, most notably, subsidence) 
      • Identifying potential risk or disruption areas can guide prioritization and help mitigate impacts on critical operations.

    In my October 2025 GPS World newsletter, I mentioned that the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) would be hosting a meeting with Federal geospatial agencies under the auspices of the Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS). The purpose is to increase awareness and coordinate the NSRS Modernization across the government.

    While the original meeting scheduled for October 15, 2025, was canceled due to the Federal Government Shutdown, it has been officially rescheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2026. This meeting will be critical for aligning agency engagement strategies and self-assessments ahead of the final adoption of the new datums.

    As stated in my October 2025 newsletter, the primary objectives of this meeting are to:

    • Increase awareness of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) Modernization rollout schedule and engagement strategy, including self-assessment and interaction between official departmental working groups and an NGS point of contact.
    • Within other Departments, connect decision-makers to those who accomplish NSRS modernization tasks and designate points of contact to interface with NGS capacity-building efforts.
    • Share experiences and strategies among federal agencies concerning NSRS Modernization self-assessment and preparation.
    • (New) Formally transition the foundational beta products (released in May 2025) from preliminary to final.
    • Gather questions, discuss anticipated challenges, and identify opportunities to support each other through this transition.

    The FGCS plays a central role in coordinating geodetic activities across the federal government, including the development of standards and the promotion of the use of authoritative geodetic control (e.g., CORS, geoids) to ensure that geospatial data is accurate, accessible, and interoperable, and to advance the modernization of NSRS across agencies and recommend the adoption of the modernized NSRS by FGDC as the official basis for geodetic control in the United States. It is my understanding that this meeting is open to the public (virtually) for listening and observation.  The box titled “Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee Meeting” provides the agenda of the January 21, 2026, meeting.

    Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee Meeting Agenda held January 21, 2026.
    Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee Meeting Agenda held January 21, 2026.

    To join the meeting virtually, registration is required. You can find all the necessary details and a direct link to sign up in the box titled “Registration for the Virtual Attendance of the Meeting.”


    Registration for the Virtual Attendance of the Meeting

    NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey (NGS) invites you to the upcoming Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS) meeting.

    • Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026
    • Time: 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM ET
    • Location: Hybrid meeting, offering both in-person attendance at NOAA Offices in Silver Spring, MD, and virtual participation via WebEx.
      • If you plan to attend in person, please email [email protected] so we can ensure building access.

    If you plan to attend virtually, here is the registration link: https://ngs-nos-noaa.webex.com/weblink/register/r53ab4d202de3bb20df12d9364862ff0f

    As I mentioned in my October 2025 GPS World Survey Scene newsletter, several organizations have formed working groups to address the new NSRS. The National Society of Surveyors (NSPS) has released a story map to inform the professional surveying community and is developing guidance and case studies. The American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS) is collaborating with NSPS. The American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) has prepared materials available on its website.

    In October 2025, NSPS held its Fall meeting.  The box titled “Excerpts from 2025 NSPS Fall Meeting Report: October 17, 2025” contains excerpts from the report provided by Richard Kleinmann, Wisconsin NSPS Director, on the working group’s activities being performed by the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) Professional Standards NSRS Modernization Subcommittee.


    Excerpts from 2025 NSPS Fall Meeting Report: October 17, 2025

    Submitted by: Richard Kleinmann PLS, Wisconsin NSPS Director

    Subcommittee Purpose: To promote awareness, adoption, and readiness for the implementation of the Modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) in cooperation with the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and other geospatial groups.

    Activities: NSPS leadership and the NSRS Modernization Subcommittee continue to work closely with NGS to promote awareness, adoption, and readiness for the new 2022 datums, which are expected to be approved sometime in 2026. Due to federal funding challenges occurring in 2025, NSPS felt it necessary to intensify its support of NGS and the modernization of the NSRS which was the genesis of this subcommittee.

    As an outgrowth of interactions between NSPS & NGS during NGS quarterly meetings and at geospatial events such as the ESRI User Conference and Geo Week, the NSPS leadership team, and subsequently the NSRS Modernization Subcommittee, began developing a suite of resources — including an ArcGIS StoryMap with several resources useful for the transition.   See the link for the NSPS ArcGIS Story map here: https://share.google/oOAIapPQnux5q8nwl

    The NSRS Modernization Subcommittee is also working on a series of documents originally developed by Dana J. Caccamise of NGS intended to be used by Federal Agencies in the transition to the new datums.  We are adapting the documents to change the “voice” from NGS to NSPS and the intended audience to state, regional, county and local agencies, as well as private practitioners, to help them transition smoothly to the modernized NSRS.  At this point, the document package includes:

    • Initial outreach tools (Email & Leadership Memo), 
    • Technical readiness resources (Self-Assessment Checklist & Survey)
    • Briefing materials for agency coordination (Presentation Template)

    These document resources are being developed with the hope to share them via NSPS social media outreach efforts and possibly a geospatial information “hub” shared by NSPS and other geospatial organizations.

    Proposed Whitepapers/Use Case Reports: The intent of these whitepapers is to is to provide a somewhat higher-level view of how the transition to the new datums/frames can be accomplished by showing what tools are available and what to consider when designing a project approach.  Our hope is to promote the adoption of the new datums and share the benefits of doing so.  Basically, adopting a “be prepared, not scared” attitude.  We are looking for people willing to share their solutions so others can benefit from their experience and be more likely to be early adopters.  It is not our intent to develop detailed step by step recipes that can be blindly followed because every geographic region has their unique circumstances that need to be considered but the white papers will instead supply the foundation for them to confidently build a project approach that works in their situation.

    Coordination with other working groups: NSPS is looking forward to coordinating with similar Working Groups that NGS has encouraged to be formed by the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) and the American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS). There are several Task Forces and Committees formed on the state level that are also working on adoption and implementation issues specific to their states.  Together, these efforts aim to build understanding, reduce uncertainty, and support the geospatial community’s successful implementation of the updated reference framework.   NSPS and NGS have committed to having a significant presence at Geo Week in Denver, Colorado, on February 16-18, 2026. 


    As mentioned in the working group’s report, “As an outgrowth of interaction between NSPS & NGS during NGS quarterly meetings and at geospatial events such as the ESRI User Conference and Geo Week, the NSPS leadership team and subsequently the NSRS Modernization Subcommittee began developing a suite of resources — including an ArcGIS StoryMap with several resources useful for the transition.   See the link for the NSPS ArcGIS Story map here: https://share.google/oOAIapPQnux5q8nwl.

    The box titled “NSPS ArcGIS Story Map” offers a detailed look at this resource, which visually illustrates the impact and benefits of the upcoming NSRS modernization.

    NSPS ArcGIS Story Map
    NSPS ArcGIS Story Map

    The website has five buttons:

    • Overview
    • What to Expect
    • How to Prepare
    • Resources
    • Note to Users

    The section titled “The Overview Section” details the essential information — who, what, where, when, and why — regarding the new, modernized NSRS.  Additional information is available on the website.


    Overview

    WHO: The  National Geodetic Survey  (NGS), located within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States government.  The NGS is responsible for defining, maintaining, and providing access to the country’s positioning infrastructure called the  National Spatial Reference System  (NSRS).

    WHAT: Is updating the NSRS  – horizontal (geometric, NAD 83) and vertical (geopotential, NAVD 88 and local island vertical datums PRVD02, USVI09, ASVD02, GUVD04, HAWAII – Local Tidal) geodetic datums, an effort that has been underway since 2007.

    WHERE: The North American, Pacific, Caribbean, and Marianas plates.

    WHEN: Now – rollout is underway. An updated  Federal Register Notice was released on October 9, 2024.   Alpha and  Beta products are being released, with full replacement of the NSRS anticipated in 2026.

    WHY: These datums have been in use since GPS was in its infancy – i.e., for decades, and there are known limitations that the new system addresses:

    • NAD 83 is not as geocentrically defined as today’s positioning technologies demand, meaning not referenced to the center of Earth’s mass, by about 2.24 meters based on the latest international estimates. This is problematic when using Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), which orbit about and provide positions relative to the center of the Earth.
    • NAD 83 grouped the North American and Caribbean plates in its definition.  The updated system has broken those two plates out (because we now understand how to measure how the plates rotate individually) in addition to the Pacific and Marianas plates included in NAD 83, resulting in definitions for four Terrestrial Reference Frames (TRFs): NATRF2022, PATRF2022, MATRF2022, and CATRF2022.
    • Continental drift and vertical land movement were not accounted for in the existing NSRS.  Reference epochs (timestamps, for instance) for coordinates have been introduced for survey data to help us better understand movement or change over time.
    • Based on current international geoid estimates, NAVD 88 is biased by approximately 1.5 meters and tilted by 1 meter coast-to-coast.
    • There are currently multiple vertical datums.  The new system will consist of one.
    • NAD 83 and NAVD 88 were designed independently, resulting in reduced accuracy.  In the new system, they were designed together, resulting in better integration and higher accuracy.
    • GEOID 18 and previous models were hybrid models “warped” to match leveled benchmarks. GEOID2022 will be a more consistent and stable model as it is a purely gravimetric geoid model.
    • Currently, both physical marks and continuously operating GNSS stations are relied upon for the existing NSRS. Physical marks degrade and are destroyed over time, negatively affecting height and position data. The modernized NSRS will rely exclusively on GNSS stations.
    • State Plane Coordinate System 83 (SPCS 83) includes high levels of distortion for many areas. The modernized SPCS2022 minimizes distortion or scale error (the difference between ground and grid measurements) at the topographic surface rather than the reference ellipsoid surface, and is designed to minimize distortion in populated or high-use areas.
    • An important change between SPCS 83 and the upcoming SPCS2022 is that only the international foot (1 foot = 0.3048 meter, exactly) will be supported, which differs from SPCS 83, with some states officially using the international foot while others use the U.S. survey foot (1 foot = 1200/3937 meters). This is consistent with the  deprecation of the U.S. survey foot initiated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at the end of December 2022.

    The website makes it easy to spread the word about NSRS modernization. By clicking the share button on the right side of the page, you can access several ways to distribute the story map with colleagues or on social media.

    The Sharing the NSPS ArcGIS Story Map includes more details — it even includes an embedded QR code that you can scan to open the map directly on your mobile device.

    You can access it on your mobile device using the code below.

    NSPS ArcGIS Story Map QR Code
    NSPS ArcGIS Story Map QR Code

    For those who prefer a physical copy or a clean PDF, the site also offers a print-friendly version. See the box titled “NSPS ArcGIS Story Map – Print View” for instructions on how to access it. This 15-page document provides all the same information as the interactive site in a consolidated, easy-to-read format.

    NSPS ArcGIS Story Map – Print View
    NSPS ArcGIS Story Map – Print View

    As highlighted in the NSPS working group’s October report, both NSPS and NGS are committed to a major presence at Geo Week in Denver, Colorado, from February 16–18, 2026.

    A key session, “NSRS Modernization – The Latest Technical Updates,” is currently scheduled for February 17, 2026, at 2:00 PM. For more details on the presentation and speakers, refer to NSRS Modernization – The Latest Technical Updates below.


    2:00 PM – 3:30 PM MT

    Bluebird Ballroom 1A

    The National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) is undergoing a major transformation to provide more accurate, accessible, and consistent geospatial reference data across the United States. This session will present the latest technical updates on NSRS modernization, including advancements in geodetic reference frames, updated survey standards, and enhanced tools for positioning and measurement. Attendees will learn how these changes impact surveying, mapping, infrastructure, and engineering projects, and gain practical guidance for integrating modernized NSRS data into workflows. This session is essential for professionals seeking to stay current with the evolving national geospatial reference framework.https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/lfoster%40esri.com/FMfcgzQcqtcPbfppZtnTpZZWDMkQcXfk?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1


    I wish you all a prosperous 2026 filled with wonderful new relationships, exciting opportunities, and continued happiness and success.

    Happy New Year!

  • Scripps Institution of Oceanography expands geodetic program

    Scripps Institution of Oceanography expands geodetic program

    My September GPS World newsletter highlighted the new California Spatial Reference Network, labeled CSRN Epoch 2025.00. These coordinate changes will impact geospatial users across California, and understanding the transition process is important for preparing for the modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS), expected to be adopted in 2026.

    This newsletter will focus on the California Spatial Reference Center (CSRC) and the Geodetic Program at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).

    CSRC, founded in 1997 and formally dedicated in 2001, develops and maintains a modern network of GPS control stations to provide a reliable spatial reference system for California. Created as a partnership of surveyors, engineers, GIS professionals, the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), Caltrans, and the geodetic and geophysical communities, the CSRC’s mission is to produce a self-sustaining, up-to-date geodetic control network for the state.

    The CSRC holds Coordinating Council meetings to review CSRC activities and related state surveying and mapping efforts. The box titled “CSRC Coordinating Council 2025 Fall Meeting” lists the agenda for the most recent meeting. I attend these meetings virtually; they are consistently informative and I enjoy participating.

    Image: CSRS website
    Image: CSRS website

    Dr. Yehuda Bock’s Director’s Report (SOPAC/CSRC Director, Dept. IGPP, Scripps Oceanography, UCSD) is available for download from the CSRC website: http://sopac-csrc.ucsd.edu/index.php/csrc-presentations/ (note: large file). At the Fall Coordinating Council Meeting Yehuda opened with a presentation on the new California Spatial Reference Network, CSRN Epoch 2025.00. I encourage readers to download the presentation or read my September GPS World newsletter, which highlighted CSRN Epoch 2025.00. This newsletter will focus on the Geodetic Program at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).

    Image: CSRC website
    Image: CSRC website

    In my November 2023 GPS World newsletter, I noted NGS’s announcement of the NOAA FY23 Geospatial Modeling Competition awardees. In my March 2024 GPS World newsletter, I  highlighted Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s (SIO) proposal. As noted there, Yehuda’s proposal included three activities:

    • Create a formal Geodesy Program at SIO to address the nationwide deficiency of geodesists. Expand current geophysics curriculum – funding for five graduate students.
    • Develop an IFDM to supplement the NSRS for users in regions with significant ground motions, using GNSS and InSAR/GNSS displacement fields (funded by NASA projects) and underlying geophysical models. CSRC will exercise the IFDM through its community of public, private and academic users of precise spatial referencing in our challenging region of secular and transient crustal movements.
    • Investigate a unified vertical reference frame, including a marine geoid optimized to be consistent with the full spectrum of observations from modern gravimetric geoids (e.g., GRAV-D, ICGEM), remotely sensed observations (e.g., SWOT, ICESat-2), in situ ocean observations and assimilating ocean models and the TRF.

    At the Fall Coordinating Council Meeting, Yehuda provided an update on the status of the Geodesy Program at SIO.  It was mentioned that some of the students are funded by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS)’s grant but others are funded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).

    Image: CSRC website
    Image: CSRC website
    Image: CSRC website
    Geodesy track curriculum. (Image: CSRC website)
    Geodesy track curriculum. (Image: CSRC website)

    As mentioned in the Director’s report, they have initiated bi-weekly geodesy track seminars to discuss research projects related to NGS and other grants.  Four videos by students discussing their projects were shown during Yehuda’s presentation. 

    The following are the titles and presenters of the four research projects:

    • San Jacinto Fault Zone by Neil Waldhausen
    • Probing Antarctic basal ice state using airborne geodesy by Briar Conger
    • Repeat Pass Interferometry by Rubi Garcia Gonzalez
    • Hydrologic monitoring with GRACE/GRACE-FO by Logan Platt

    San Jacinto Fault Zone by Neil Waldhausen

    I have included a few bullets summarizing their project and a few captured images from the videos.  I would encourage everyone to download the presentation to listen to the short videos by these students. The presentations are only 90 seconds but are very interesting. Readers can contact the speakers through the University to find out more about their research.

    Summary of the “San Jacinto Fault Zone” video:

    • Neil uses GNSS to measure velocities and strain rates around the San Jacinto Fault.
    • He focused on the Anza gap, a 20-km segment of the fault.
    • He re-surveyed about 50 monuments that had been occupied over past decades.
    • His work has lowered uncertainties in many site velocity measurements.
    • His aim is to further reduce uncertainties in strain-rate and slip-rate estimates to better understand the Anza gap’s mechanics.
    San Jacinto Fault Zone by Neil Waldhausen.
    San Jacinto Fault Zone by Neil Waldhausen.
    San Jacinto Fault Zone by Neil Waldhausen.
    San Jacinto Fault Zone by Neil Waldhausen.
    Image: CSRC Website
    Image: CSRC website

    Summary of the “Probing Antarctic Basal Ice State Using Airborne Geodesy” video:

    • Briar’s project uses gravity and radar data to study basal hydrology — water flow beneath glaciers and ice sheets, including subglacial lakes, channels, and pressure-driven water movement.
    • He conducted fieldwork on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet during the 2023–24 season.
    • He collected airborne gravity and GNSS data from a converted DC-3 aircraft.
    • Data processing uses both PPP and differential positioning methods.
    • His aim is to improve long-term sea-level rise predictions.
    • He is also developing a fixed-wing UAV capable of collecting lidar, gravity, and photogrammetry data.

    Probing Antarctic Basal Ice State Using Airborne Geodesy by Briar Conger

    Probing Antarctic Basal Ice State Using Airborne Geodesy by Briar Conger.
    Probing Antarctic Basal Ice State Using Airborne Geodesy by Briar Conger.
    Image: CSRC website
    Image: CSRC website

    Summary of the “Repeat Pass Interferometry” video:

    • Rubi used repeat-pass interferometry (phase gradient) to map small-scale surface deformation.
    • The phase gradient is the change in interferometric phase between neighboring pixels; unlike the ambiguous single-pixel phase (wrapped within 2π), the gradient gives a continuous local rate of change useful for analysis.
    • She compared fractures identified by phase-gradient analyses with historic fracture databases.
    • Her ongoing work includes applying Andersonian faulting theory to assess whether fractures formed before or after earthquakes.
      • Andersonian faulting (Anderson’s theory of faulting) is a geological framework for interpreting crustal stress and fault geometry; it’s used to interpret InSAR-measured deformation. While not a method of analysis for InSAR data itself, it serves as a critical interpretive tool for understanding the ground deformation patterns measured by InSAR.

    Repeat Pass Interferometry by Rubi Garcia Gonzalez

    Repeat Pass Interferometry by Rubi Garcia Gonzalez.
    Repeat Pass Interferometry by Rubi Garcia Gonzalez.
    Image: CSRC website
    Image: CSRC website

    Summary of the “Hydrologic monitoring with GRACE/GRACE-FO” video:

    • Logan described using satellite measurements of tiny changes in Earth’s gravity to track mass movement and better understand groundwater and the water cycle.
    • He relied on GRACE and GRACE-FO data.
      • The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its successor mission, GRACE-Follow On (GRACE-FO), are Earth-observation missions that use twin satellites to precisely map changes in Earth’s gravity field over time. This unique method allows scientists to track the movement of mass, primarily water, around the planet
    • He used the GRACE data to look at changes in California’s Water storage from 2004 to 2024.
      • Results indicate a decline due to drought and heavy ground water usage, with more water being stored in northern California than southern California.
    • This research supports water management, climate-change impact assessment, and strategies for sustainable groundwater use.

    Hydrologic Monitoring with GRACE/GRACE-FO by Logan Platt

    Hydrologic Monitoring with GRACE/GRACE-FO by Logan Platt.
    Hydrologic Monitoring with GRACE/GRACE-FO by Logan Platt.
    Hydrologic Monitoring with GRACE/GRACE-FO by Logan Platt.
    Hydrologic Monitoring with GRACE/GRACE-FO by Logan Platt.
    Image: CSRC Website
    Image: CSRC website

    A new InSAR textbook, authored by several internationally recognized researchers, was also announced. Funded by the National Geodetic Survey and published Open Access, the book is available for free download. It’s a large file, but anyone working with InSAR data should obtain a copy.

    New InSAR Textbook

    Image: CSRC website
    Image: CSRC website

    Table of Contents of New InSAR Textbook

    If you’ve read my newsletters, you know I’m passionate about advancing geodesy. I wanted to share one of Yehuda’s slides, “What Geodesy Can Tell Us About Earth,” because the four students are working on projects tied to real-world problems. The slide highlights geodesy’s importance and the many professions that rely on its findings.

    What geodesy can tell us about Earth. (Image: CSRC website)
    What geodesy can tell us about Earth. (Image: CSRC website)
  • Changes in OPUS products when the new NSRS is adopted: what does this mean to users?

    Changes in OPUS products when the new NSRS is adopted: what does this mean to users?

    On July 23, 2025, the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) sent a news notice announcing the rollout plan for remaining NSRS modernization products, including OPUS Products Changes, and on June 11, 2025, they sent a news notice to users stating that NGS’s Multi-Year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS3) was released. This newsletter will highlight these two News notices and what they mean to users of the United States National Spatial Reference System (NSRS).

    A colleague recently reminded me that the new NSRS is more than just a technical update — it presents an ideal opportunity to review existing processes and workflows, address current products and process considerations, and strategically plan for future requirements. It is well known that the new NSRS will significantly improve geospatial data accuracy. Improved accuracy and reliability of geospatial data empower management to make more informed decisions and optimize resource allocation. NSRS users should proactively assess their geospatial data dependencies and evaluate how adoption of the new datum will affect workflows, datasets and operational decision‑making. I will provide you with more information at a later date.


    NGS NEWS

    Rollout Plan for Remaining NSRS Modernization products, including OPUS Products Changes

    On June 17, 2025, NGS released the first preliminary products of the modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) for beta testing and feedback. In the coming months, additional products listed below will be made available. As each product is released, it will undergo at least six months of testing preceding the final adoption and implementation of the modernized NSRS.

    The descriptions below supersede previous updates or information shared in NSRS Modernization blueprint documents, plans, or presentations. These products and their status will be described on the Track Our Progress webpage.

    1. The Data Delivery System (DDS) landing page will provide an updated version of the “NGS Map” and “Looking for Benchmarks” pages. This new landing page will allow you to access modernized informational pages about geodetic stations and geodetic marks.
    2. Geodetic station pages will offer an updated version of the current NOAA CORS Network (NCN) station pages. Geodetic mark pages will be updated datasheets, replacing the current ASCII text file version of datasheets. The updated coordinates (reference epoch coordinates) for marks and updated CORS coordinate functions (CCFs) for CORSs in the modernized NSRS will be available through these pages. 
    3. The NGS Coordinate Conversion and Transformation Tool (NCAT) will be updated through multiple versions, currently with state plane coordinates, then later adding support for various geopotential calculations including ellipsoid/orthometric height conversion as well as NADCON (geometric) and VERTCON (orthometric) transformations from the current NSRS to the modernized NSRS.
    4. OPUS-Static will function similarly to today’s tool, but it will operate with the modernized NSRS, including the support of multi-GNSS data. Additionally, the popular function of “sharing” your solution with others (colloquially called “OPUS-Share”) will be retained, but with appropriate caveats that the shared solution should not be used as geodetic control. These shared solutions will be available through the geodetic mark pages of the DDS.

    The following products will not be included in the release of the modernized NSRS. However, plans to replace the services or mitigate gaps are described below.

    • OPUS-Projects 5 will not be included in the modernized NSRS. Instead, NGS will focus on both developing an improved software suite for OPUS, known as OPUS 6, and minimizing any gap in service in which the current OPUS-Projects functionality is not available for users to organize, process, adjust, and submit high-accuracy GPS surveys for use by NGS in expanding and improving the NSRS. As noted above, OPUS-Share will remain available as a means to submit data to NGS.
    • OPUS-Rapid Static (OPUS-RS) will not be included in the modernized NSRS. Instead, the modernized version of OPUS-Static, noted above, will be capable of processing multi-GNSS static data files that are shorter in duration (i.e., less than 2 hours).

    Note: the current OPUS Projects 5 software will be supported until the modernized system is adopted, and a deadline for OPUS-Projects users to submit their surveys for publication will be announced with at least six months’ notice.

    To stay informed about these releases, please subscribe to NGS News. If you have questions, please email [email protected].


    Now, I would like to address the issues associated with July 23, 2025, announcement. This NGS News announced the rollout plan for the remaining NSRS modernization products. I have highlighted several sentences in this announcement that I believe users need to understand to determine the impact on their processes and workflows that are used to generate their products and services.

    The news announcement states that NGS released the first preliminary products of the modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) for beta testing and feedback. My July 2025 GPS World Newsletter highlighted these preliminary products. It mentioned that in the coming months, additional products will be made available.  Each product will undergo at least six months of testing preceding the final adoption and implementation of the modernized NSRS. This seems to be a good process, but users need to understand the complete message.

    The NGS News announcement provides a list of products that will be available and a list of products that will not be available when the new NSRS is adopted. Users need to understand what products will not be available after NGS officially adopts the new NSRS so they can determine what that means to their workflow process and client requirements.  In my opinion, for the new NSRS to be successfully implemented by users, it is essential that all the necessary software tools are available to enable users to submit projects for review, approval, and publication by NGS.  As many of you know, when I worked for NGS, I was the Project Manager of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). That said, from my experience as the NAVD 88 Project Manager, having the appropriate tools available was important for users to implement NAVD 88.  As a matter of fact, NGS accepted and processed vertical control data in both NGVD 29 and NAVD 88 for a period to assist users in the implementation of the new vertical reference datum.

    It is important to note that the NGS News Announcement states that OPUS-Project 5 will not be included in the new NSRS when it is officially adopted. See the below image.

    Credit: NGS

    Since OPUS Projects 5 will not be supported after the modernized system is adopted, users will not be able to submit their projects for review, approval, and publication by NGS like they can do today. NGS does indicate that they will be working on OPUS 6 to “minimize any gap in service.” There are a few questions that I believe should be addressed: (1) What does “minimize any gap in service” mean? Is this one month, one year, or several years?  (2) Why must the new NSRS be adopted before users can submit their projects to NGS for official publication? And (3) Why should users use OPUS-Share when NGS itself advises against relying on OPUS-Share results for establishing geodetic control?  If the federal agencies and surveying community allow the new NSRS to be adopted before OPUS 6 is available or OPUS Project 5 is modified for use in the new NSRS, the only way to get an updated coordinate such as NATRF2022 and NAPGD2022 using NGS process will be to use NGS OPUS-Share products. Again, NGS states that OPUS-Share results should not be used as geodetic control.  See NGS’ statement on OPUS Share below.


    This is NGS’s statement on OPUS-Share: Additionally, the popular function of “sharing” your solution with others (colloquially called “OPUS-Share”) will be retained, but with appropriate caveats that the shared solution should not be used as geodetic control. These shared solutions will be available through the geodetic mark pages of the DDS.


    Using OPUS-Share results that are NOT official NSRS coordinates published by NGS could lead to confusing results and potential lawsuits since NGS does not stand behind the results and recommends NOT using OPUS-Share results for geodetic control. Why would users use OPUS-Share to establish geodetic control when NGS itself advises against relying on OPUS-Share for establishing geodetic control?  OPUS-Share results are not officially submitted to NGS for review, approval, and publication on an NGS Datasheet. I don’t believe this approach will meet the needs of users who require their projects to be reviewed, approved, and published by NGS. What is your opinion? You should let NGS, and others know your thoughts and concerns about NGS’s rollout plan for remaining NSRS modernization products.

    Now for the release of NGS’s Multi-Year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS3).

    NGS MYCS 3 released. (Credit: NGS)
    NGS MYCS 3 released (Credit: NGS)

    First, why did NGS perform the NGS Multi-Year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS3)?  To maintain consistency with the International Earth Rotation and Reference System Service (IERS) and the International GNSS Service (IGS) reference frames, NGS has implemented the new International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2020 (ITRF2020) and IGS20 realizations in the U.S. NOAA CORS Network (NCN). What this means to NSRS users is that NGS has updated the North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83), epoch 2010.0 coordinates for stations in the NOAA CORS Network (NCN). This update is called the Multi-Year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS3).

    In summary, the MYCS3 news notice states the following:

    • The coordinate functions for NOAA CORS Network (NCN) stations are now consistent with ITRF2020,
    • NGS datasheets will display the new NAD 83 coordinates transformed from ITRF2020 coordinate functions,
    • The new NAD 83 coordinates will be referenced to NAD 83 2011 (epoch 2010.0),
    • Position and velocity files will display coordinates/velocities in both NAD 83 and ITRF2020, and
    • The NGS Online Positioning Users Service (OPUS) will begin processing data with NCN control that is consistent with ITRF2020 at the time of measurement; and the results will still be transformed to NAD 83 2011, epoch 2010.0.

    The first question that everyone asks is, what are the changes to the coordinates in my region? And, of course, why was it necessary to do this update now, but that’s a discussion for another day.  I downloaded the data and prepared a few plots and a table to depict the differences between the new and old coordinates.  First, it should be noted that the old NCN coordinates were published in ITRF 2014, epoch 2010.0, and the new NCN coordinates are published in ITRF 2020, epoch 2020.0. So, there will be differences in coordinates because of updates between ITRF2014 and ITRF2020, and because the CORS ITRF 2020 coordinates are published at epoch 2020.0 instead of 2010.0.

    The image below provides the new and old CORS coordinates and velocity information for NOAA CORS Monroe (NCMR). These values can be obtained from NGS CORS website.

    ITRF coordinates for NCMR.
    ITRF coordinates for NCMR. (Credit: NGS)

    The difference between ellipsoid heights is straightforward.  In the example, the difference is 144.357 meters minus 144.345 meters or 0.012 m. The image captioned “Change in Ellipsoid Height in NC based on ITRF 2020” provides the differences between MYCS3 and MYCS2 NAD83 2011, epoch 2010.0 published ellipsoid heights for the CORS in North Carolina.  In other words, this is the change in the NAD 83 2011, epoch 2010.0 ellipsoid height at the CORS after updating to ITRF2020, epoch 2020.  I’ve highlighted the NCMR CORS in the box. As you can see from the plot, there are several CORS in North Carolina that their ellipsoid heights have changed significantly; that is, greater than 20 mm and as large as -89 mm.

    Change in Ellipsoid Height in NC based on ITRF 2020 (units in mm)
    Change in Ellipsoid Height in NC based on ITRF 2020 (units in mm).

    I don’t know about you, but I can’t determine the change in coordinates by looking at XYZ or Latitude/Longitude values.  For the horizontal change I computed the differences in latitude and longitude and converted the results to millimeters. As indicated in the image above, the changes in the horizontal component are typically small; that is, less than a few mm.  There are, however, a few larger changes such as the one at CORS TN1B (which is in Tennessee) that changed 30 mm.

    Change in Horizontal Coordinates in NC based on ITRF 2020 (units mm).
    Change in Horizontal Coordinates in NC based on ITRF 2020 (units mm).

    I suppose for all “practical purposes” the changes are small and shouldn’t impact most survey projects.  Some of the larger changes are probably a good thing because that may mean that the CORS coordinates needed to be updated to account for movement or something else that affected the coordinates. I created a table that provides the minimum, mean, and maximum values in ellipsoid height and horizontal differences.  See the table titled “Differences Between MYCS 3 and MYCS  2 Solutions of NOAA CORS.”  I highlighted the State of North Carolina values.

    Photo:
    Photo:
    Photo:
    Photo:

    So, why is it important to understand these differences?  The NGS Online Positioning Users Service (OPUS) has begun processing data with NCN control that is consistent with ITRF2020 at the time of measurement.  This means that if you compare old projects to new projects, you may find some small differences due to the change in CORS NAD 83 2011, epoch 2010.0 coordinates.  As I previously mentioned, these differences are small and should not affect the results of most survey projects. Although, any difference can lead to someone questioning their results.

    As another example of the changes, the two plots below in the image captioned, “Change in CORS coordinates in Colorado based on ITRF 2020” provides the differences between MYCS3 and MYCS2 NAD83 2011, epoch 2010.0 published coordinates for the CORS in Colorado.

    Change in CORS coordinates in Colorado based on ITRF 2020
Ellipsoid Height Change (units in mm)
    Change in CORS coordinates in Colorado based on ITRF 2020 Ellipsoid Height Change (units in mm).
    Change in CORS Coordinates in Colorado based on ITRF 2020
Horizontal Change (units in mm)
    Change in CORS Coordinates in Colorado based on ITRF 2020 Horizontal Change (units in mm).

    Another difference that I computed using the results from the MYCS3 solution is an estimate of the changes between the current NSRS, that is NAD 83 2011 (epoch 2010.0) and new NSRS, for example NATRF2022, epoch 2020.0.   This is only an estimate but provides a value that users can attain the magnitude of the changes in their local region. The image below depicts the approximate changes in horizontal and vertical components between the current NSRS (NAD 83 2011, epoch 2010.0) and the future NSRS (NATRF2022, epoch 2020.0) based on the CORS in the NCN. (Note that the units have changed to cm.)

    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in NC
Horizontal Change (units in cm)
    Differences between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in NC Horizontal Change (units in cm).
    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in NC  Ellipsoid Height Change (units in cm)
    Differences between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in NC Ellipsoid Height Change (units in cm).

    To demonstrate that these changes vary region by region, I prepared plots depicting the changes in the State of Washington and the U.S. Gulf Coast region. As indicated in the plots, the differences between the current NSRS and the new modernized NSRS will vary from state to state and are significantly different than the current NSRS coordinates. 

    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in Washington State
Horizontal Change (units  in cm)
    Differences between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in Washington State
    Horizontal Change (units in cm).
    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in Washington State
Ellipsoid Height Change (units in cm)
    Differences between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in Washington State Ellipsoid Height Change (units in cm).
    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in the Gulf Coast Region Horizontal Change (units in cm)
    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in the Gulf Coast Region Horizontal Change (units in cm).
    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in the Gulf Coast Region Ellipsoid Height Change ( units in cm).

    Differences Between ITRF2020 and NAD 83 2011 in the Gulf Coast Region Ellipsoid Height Change (units in cm).

    This newsletter underscored upcoming OPUS product changes that NGS will implement following adoption of the modernized NSRS, along with updates to CORS station coordinates resulting from the Multi‑Year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS3). It clarified what these changes mean for users of the U.S. NSRS. I also flagged several topics in the NGS News bulletins that warrant further attention, as they are critical for understanding how the modernized NSRS will impact geospatial products and services.  The new NSRS offers a strategic opportunity for users to comprehensively review existing processes and workflows, reassess current products, and proactively plan for future requirements. By auditing geospatial data dependencies now, NSRS users can evaluate how transitioning to the new datum will impact workflows, datasets, and operational decision-making.

    Will you be ready to implement the new NSRS after NGS officially adopts it?  Will you have the appropriate tools available to implement the new NSRS? These are questions that everyone that uses the NSRS should be addressing now.

  • Evaluating your constraints in a GNNS network adjustment

    Evaluating your constraints in a GNNS network adjustment

    My previous newsletter highlighted a National Geodetic Survey (NGS) webinar held on April 25, 2025, titled “Design of Networks Using NOS NGS 92,” given by Dave Zenk, NGS northern plains regional advisory.

    [Authors note: Dave Zenk told me that he is retiring from the National Geodetic Survey on May 31, 2025. Dave’s presence will be deeply missed. His dedication and spirit have left a lasting impact on NGS’s products and services. I hope his retirement is filled with joy, relaxation, and new adventures.] 

    In addition to Dave Zenk’s retirement, several other NGS Regional Geodetic Advisers have retired or left NGS employment over the past several months. Click here for a list of the current advisors, along with the names of interim contacts handling inquiries for those advisors who have retired or departed from government service.

    As previously mentioned, Dave showed a well-presented outline of the tables that users need to be familiar with when using OPUS Projects to process and submit GNSS projects to NGS for publication. It should be noted that users submitting data to NGS must follow the guidelines outlined in NOS NGS 92.

    I found the webinar to be very informative, and I would encourage all users of OPUS Projects to download the presentation. During the webinar, Zenk briefly mentioned three items that I believe deserve more explanation for anyone using OPUS Project. This newsletter will address the following topics in more detail:

    • The mark’s classification — primary, secondary, and local — will not be included on the NGS datasheet, but the local and network accuracy from the project will be provided on the datasheet. What does this mean to someone who’s using the mark in their project?
    • OPUS Project uses the F-statistic test to determine if the appropriate constraints were imposed during the horizontally and vertically constrained adjustments. Why does OPUS Project use this statistic?
    • The Constraint Ratio (CR) test, computed by OPUS Projects, provides a method for identifying which coordinates should be constrained and which should not be considered for constraints in the final horizontally and vertically constrained adjustments. What’s the best way to use this table?

    First, the presentation discussed the tables that described the procedures for establishing three different mark classifications — primary, secondary and local. It also mentioned that the classification will not be included on the NGS datasheet but the local and network accuracy from the project will be provided on the datasheet. See the image below.

    Photo:
    Photo: NGS website

     What does this mean to someone who’s using the mark in their project? Since the NGS data sheet will provide the network and local accuracy from the project, users can determine if the accuracy value of the mark meets the requirements of their project. In my opinion, the network and local accuracy from the project provide a better indication and understanding of the level of trust of the published coordinate.

    As previously mentioned, anyone submitting a GNSS project to NGS for publication must adhere to the NOS NGS 92 guidelines. During the presentation, Zenk provided several examples that depicted correct network designs. I would encourage everyone to download the NOS NGS 92 document and Zenk’s presentation to gain an understanding of the classifications and the network design requirements to meet a particular classification.

    Photo: NGS website
    Adhere to NOS NGS 92 guidelines (Photo: NGS website)

    Anyone who submits an OPUS Project to NGS for publication knows that the constrained adjustments must meet the requirements of the F-statistic test. So, what is this test, and why does OPUS Project require this statistic? Essentially, it is a method of verifying whether the appropriate constraints were applied during the horizontally and vertically constrained adjustments. The F-test evaluates the ratio of two variances; that is,

    Photo:

    The F-test checks whether this ratio is significantly different from 1, which would suggest the models have significantly different fits to the data. The result is compared against the critical value from the F-distribution based on the degrees of freedom from the constrained adjustment and the degrees of freedom from the minimally constrained adjustment, and a chosen significance level alpha (e.g., 0.01).  NGS OPUS Project uses an alpha level of 0.01% or 99% confidence level.

    Photo:
    Definition of the F-test (Photo: Wikipedia)

     
    The following is an excerpt on the F-test from NGS’s Online OPUS Project Guide  – (Section 12.7.3.2. Analyzing the Horizontal Constrained Adjustment):

    Once the adjustment has been deemed acceptable i.e. all shifts and residuals are reasonable, the F-test should pass. The F-test is a statistical test that helps determine if the variance (variance of unit weight) from a fully constrained adjustment is significantly different from the variance (variance of unit weight) of a minimally constrained adjustment. The variance of unit weight is a critical statistic and should be looked at carefully when evaluating adjustment results. If the fully constrained adjustment fits well with all selected control (the constraints), the value of the variance of unit weight should be close to 1.0. The F-test is performed using a 99% confidence level.

    So, if the constrained adjustment statistics differ significantly from the minimally constrained adjustment, then there could be an issue with the constraints.  Of course, this is assuming that the minimally constrained adjustment variance of unit weight indicates that all data outliers have been eliminated.  So, why are constraints important?

    OPUS Project first calculates GNSS coordinates in a minimally (free) network adjustment, which defines relative positions but not their absolute placement in space.  Without constraints the entire network can float and/or rotate.

    Constraints are important in GNSS network adjustments because they:

    • Anchor the network in a geodetic datum; in this case, NAD 83 (2011), epoch 2010.0.
    • Ensure a unique and stable solution that reflects the physical world.
    • Make the network useful for engineering, mapping, and scientific purposes.

    Control point coordinates (from previous surveys or known datums) often have inherent errors or uncertainty. Constraining coordinates exactly assumes zero error, which is rarely true.   Weighted constraints let you assign a realistic level of trust to known published coordinates by using error estimates. OPUS Project applies weighted constraints based on input error estimates (OPUS Project denotes these as sigmas of the coordinates), which allow for minor deviations in the constrained coordinates. The weighted constraint methodology provides flexibility to network adjustments by recognizing that published coordinates have some uncertainties and allows constraints to take on small corrections leading to more accurate and consistent network solutions. Although, it should be noted that the adjusted coordinates of the constraints from the final horizontally constrained adjustment are not updated in the NGS database even though there are minor deviations to their final adjusted values.

    After performing a least squares adjustment using the weighted constraints, the F-test helps to ensure that the appropriate coordinates are constrained with the appropriate error estimates. The following is an excerpt from the OPUS Project Online User Guide – (Section 12.7.3.2. Analyzing the Horizontal Constrained Adjustment):

    If the F-test fails, it is due either to the errors (sigmas) of the constraints being overly optimistic (too small) or the constrained coordinates not agreeing with the observations (causing excessively large shifts of the constrained coordinates). Failure of the F-test does not automatically mean the constrained adjustment is bad. It is a flag that indicates there may be a problem with the constraints, and that they should be investigated. In addition, the F-test assumes of a normal (“bell-shaped”) probability distribution of the residuals. Networks with a distribution that is significantly non-normal may fail for that reason, even when a constrained adjustment is acceptable.

    if your adjustment fails the F-test, what do you do?  How do you determine which constraint or constraints should be unconstrained?  OPUS Project provides some information about the constraints that can be helpful in determining a bad constraint.  The CR test, computed by OPUS Projects, provides a method for identifying which coordinates should be constrained and which should not be considered for constraints in the final horizontally and vertically constrained adjustments.  What’s the best way to use this table?  The box titled “Constraint Ratio” from NGS’s Online OPUS Project User Guide — (Section 12.7.3.2. Analyzing the Horizontal Constrained Adjustment) provides a good explanation with an example of using the constraint ratio table (12.7.3.2. Analyzing the Horizontal Constrained Adjustment).  Basically, this statistic highlights coordinate shifts that are significantly larger than expected based on the sigma provided by the user.  That is, coordinates that have a very small sigma should not be expected to change as much as coordinates with a very large sigma.  The CR value is compared to a critical value of 3.0, which corresponds to a t-statistic at the 99% confidence level.  Therefore, any constraint ratios greater than three should be investigated and are candidates to be unconstrained (see the box titled “Constraint Ratio”).


    Constraint Ratio

    If the F-test fails, it is possible that some constraints need to be freed up. It might be the case where some of the shifts are too large. The CR test provides a way of identifying where the bad shift might be. The CR is essentially a Students T Test, with the absolute value of the shift between the adjusted, constrained coordinates and the published coordinates, divided by the sigma (σ, or standard deviation) used to constrain the station. It is computed for each component (north, east, and height):

    Photo:

    OP provides the CR for all marks in the final table in the output summary given in the body of the email or in the Processing Report (.txt), as shown below in Fig. 12.21.

    Fig. 12.21 Constraint Ratio Test as seen in the Processing Report of the Horizontal Constrained Adjustment. (Photo: NGS)
    Fig. 12.21 Constraint Ratio Test as seen in the Processing Report of the Horizontal Constrained Adjustment. (Photo: NGS)

    Computed CRs are compared to the critical value or 3.0, corresponding to a T-statistic at a 99% confidence level. If the value of CR is greater than 3.0 for any of the three components, that indicates that there may be a problem with the constrained station.


    I find these statistics very helpful when determining which coordinates should be constrained in the final adjustments.  I hear that some users select all possible constraints and then start releasing marks based on the CR table.  That certainly is one way of doing it but could be time-consuming and confusing.  That said, the first thing I do is compare the minimally constrained adjusted coordinates to the published coordinates to determine if there are any obvious outliers.    This has been helpful to me in large GNSS projects located in subsidence regions such as the Harris-Galveston, Texas, region of the United States.

    One final note on OPUS Project

    On May 22, 2025, NGS issued a notice to users, announcing the implementation of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2020 (ITRF2020).  The announcement provided the following information addressed to all Active OPUS Project Users.

    Active OPUS-Projects Users,

    In early June, NGS will implement the new International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2020 (ITRF2020) and IGS20 realizations in the U.S. National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) in order to maintain consistency with the International Earth Rotation and Reference System Service (IERS) and the International GNSS Service (IGS) reference frames. This results in updated North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83) coordinates for stations in the NOAA CORS Network (NCN), kept at epoch 2010.0. This update is called the Multi-Year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS3), and it follows NGS’s MYCS2 effort from 2018.

    OPUS-Projects users with active projects are advised that open projects will need to be reprocessed from the beginning in ITRF2020. 

    If projects are close to completion, users have the option of submitting them to NGS before the transition using the currently published NAD83(2011/MA11/PA11) coordinates transformed from ITRF2014. The deadline for submissions is June 6, 2025 for those wishing to take this route.

    If you have questions, please contact [email protected].

    Above, I bolded several sentences that will be important to users currently performing projects using OPUS Projects.  That is, all projects not submitted by June 6, 2025, will need to be reprocessed from the beginning in ITRF2020.  

    Users should continue to check NGS’s website for announcements regarding the transition from the alpha site to the beta site. Future newsletters will address the Multi-Year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS3) and will highlight the beta products as they are released.

  • NAPGD2022 is coming soon: How will the new geopotential datum impact products and services?

    NAPGD2022 is coming soon: How will the new geopotential datum impact products and services?

    My January 2025 GPS World newsletter mentioned that the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) made several updates to the North American-Pacific Geopotential Datum of 2022 (NAPGD2022) products and that these updates are now available on the NGS alpha site. NGS held a webinar on Jan. 9, 2025, to discuss NAPGD2022 and explain the product updates. I highlighted the NGS Alpha site and GEOID2022 — a product of the NAPGD2022 — in my July 2024 newsletter.

     This newsletter will highlight the NAPGD2022 alpha site and the components on the Alpha site — GEOID2022, DEFLEC2022, DEM2022 and GRAV2022. See below for a description of the site.

    Photo:
    Photo: NGS alpha website.

    NGS users of the new National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) should determine the impact on their products and services. For example, the effect of using NAPGD2022 orthometric heights instead of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) on flood plain maps and FEMA elevation certificates.

    I have experience dealing with the impact of products and services changing from one national vertical datum to another. When I worked for NGS, I was the Project Manager of NAVD 88. The adjusted heights from the NAVD 88 general adjustment were officially published on June 15, 1991. Performing the adjustment of NAVD 88 was a relatively simple task compared to implementing of NAVD 88 in geospatial products and services in the United States. I wrote articles and talked about the change in the datum from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) to NAVD 88 at surveying and mapping conferences several times a year during the decade before the completion of the adjustment. Many users were still surprised by the change and the impact on their products and services. It’s a little different today because there are more ways of getting the word out in today’s digital world, such as webinars, Zoom meetings and digital magazines. That said, users still need to participate in webinars and Zoom meetings and read digital articles to understand the changes to geospatial products and services.

    The NAPGD2022 alpha site can be accessed here.

    Photo:
    Photo: NGS

    Users can download gridded files of the models to create their own routines to analyze the models in their region.

    Photo: NGS
    Photo: NGS

    The site provides an option for users to perform single point interactive computations.

    Single point interactive computations. (Photo: NGS)
    Single point interactive computations. (Photo: NGS)

    The differences between the ITRF 2014 (epoch 2010.0) coordinate and ITRF 2020 (epoch 2020.0) in North Carolina are not very large. Still, I used NGS’s HTDP tool to transform the North Carolina Monroe CORS (NCMR) ITRF 2014 (epoch 2010.0) coordinates to ITRF 2020 (epoch 2020.0) and then entered the transformed values into the interactive tool. See the images “HTDP Output for NCMR” and “Interactive Computation Page” for an example of the output of the single-point interactive computation tool.

    HTDP output for NCMR. (Photo: NGS)
    HTDP output for NCMR. (Photo: NGS)
    Photo: NGS
    Photo: NGS

    I have highlighted the NAPGD2022 orthometric and dynamic heights for NCMR CORS. I downloaded the latest NGS datasheet for the North Carolina Monroe CORS (NCMR) to obtain the published NAVD 88 height. See the image below. 

    NGS data sheet for Manroe CORS. (Photo: NGS)
    NGS data sheet for Manroe CORS. (Photo: NGS)

    In my example, the difference between the NAPGD2022 and NAVD 88 orthometric height is -0.26 meters (174.40 m – 174.66 m). It should be noted that the tool also provides a dynamic height for the mark. Dynamic heights are used by the International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD). My August 2021 GPS World Newsletter provides more information on the update to the IGLD 85 and dynamic heights. The interactive computation page tool also provides the GEOD2022 value for the mark. The difference between GEOID2022 and GEOID18 for the mark is -0.112 meters (-31.428 minus -30.316).

    The alpha site provides an option to use an interactive online map that allows users to access GIS maps that depict individual models.  I have highlighted the five layers on the box titled “NAPGD2022 Interactive Online Map” – GEOID2022, SDEFLEC2022, GRAV2022 (RBA), Geoid Differences, and NAPGD2022 Differences.

    Photo:NAPGD2022 interactive online map. (Photo: NGS)
    NAPGD2022 interactive online map. (Photo: NGS)

    To demonstrate the online maps, I clicked on the layer titled “NAPGD2022 Difference” located in the upper right corner of the of the map. The image below provides a description of the layer.

    Photo: NGS
    Photo: NGS

    Users can click on the map, and the pop-up provides information about the location. In the example below, the popup provides the difference between the NAPGD2022 orthometric height and the NAVD 88 height.

    The difference between NAPGD2022 orthometric height and NAVD 88 height. (Photo: NGS)
    The difference between NAPGD2022 orthometric height and NAVD 88 height. (Photo: NGS)

    Additional information about a layer is provided on the lower left side of the map page.

    Additional information for NAPGD2022 difference. (Photo: NGS)
    Additional information for NAPGD2022 difference. (Photo: NGS)

    NGS’ online maps didn’t depict the details I wanted to visualize, so I downloaded the data and created my own maps.

    I provided a couple of examples of the differences between NAPGD2022 and NAVD 88 below: one for North Carolina and one for Colorado. As you can see from the plots, there are significant relative differences in mountainous regions (western North Carolina and western Colorado), and a lot of local variation across the state.

    Photo:Differences between NAPGD 2022 orthometric heights and NAVD 88 in North Carolina (2 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Differences between NAPGD 2022 orthometric heights and NAVD 88 in North Carolina (2 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Differences between NAPGD 2022 orthometric heights and NAVD 88 in Colorado (5 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Differences between NAPGD 2022 orthometric heights and NAVD 88 in Colorado (5 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)

    I used the same process to determine the differences between GEOID2022 and GEOID18. See the images titled “Differences between GEOID2022 and GEOID18 in North Carolina” and “Differences between GEOID 2022 and GEOID 18 in Colorado.”  Again, it should be noted that there is a lot of variation across the state.

    Differences between GEOID2022 and GEOID18 in North Carolina (2 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Differences between GEOID2022 and GEOID18 in North Carolina (2 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Differences between GEOID 2022 and GEOID 18 in Colorado (5 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Differences between GEOID 2022 and GEOID 18 in Colorado (5 cm contour intervals). (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)

    In summary, in a few months, NGS will be releasing a Beta version of the new terrestrial reference frames and geopotential datum. This newsletter highlighted the NAPGD2022 alpha site and the components on the Alpha site — GEOID2022, DEFLEC2022, DEM2022, and GRAV2022. I did a 4-part series in my GPS World newsletters in 2017 on the products of NAPGD2022 (June 2017, August 2017, October 2017 and December 2017).

    NGS’s Jan. 9, 2025, webinar discussed the North American-Pacific Geopotential Datum of 2022 (NAPGD2022) Alpha website and explained the recent product updates. I would encourage users to download the video and presentation for more details. Now is the time for surveyors to learn about the new, modernized National Spatial Reference System. NGS publicly given presentations collected for public viewing can be downloaded from the following website: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/web/science_edu/presentations_library/.

  • Why OPUS Projects’ hub processing strategy is not a radial survey

    Why OPUS Projects’ hub processing strategy is not a radial survey

    On Jan. 16, 2025, as part of the OPUS User Forum, the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Northeast Regional Geodetic Advisor, Dan Martin, gave a webinar titled “Why OPUS Projects’ Hub Processing Strategy is not a Radial Survey.” The presentation can be downloaded here.

    First, let’s define a GNSS radial survey.

    A “GNSS radial survey” is a surveying technique where a central control mark is established within an area, and vectors are measured from the central control mark to various other marks of interest surrounding the central control mark, essentially creating a “spoke-like” network design.

    Plot of OPUS Projects network diagram. Hub is Addicks CORS, all marks are simultaneously observed during the session. (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Plot of OPUS Projects network diagram. Hub is Addicks CORS, all marks are simultaneously observed during the session. (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)

    Why not use a GNSS radial survey when establishing geodetic control networks?

    Basically, you cannot directly calculate a “relative accuracy” between two marks if no observations are taken between them. That said, a direct measurement such as a GNSS vector allows error propagation between two marks. Therefore, using the “spoke-like” concept, you know the relative accuracy between the central control mark and a single mark at the end of a single spoke. Still, you don’t know the relative accuracy between marks on the different spokes.

    Anyone who has used OPUS Projects or seen presentations on OPUS would think, based on the OPUS Project’s HUB processing strategy, that OPUS Projects was performing a radial survey.

    When using OPUS Projects, NGS recommends that users select one CORS as a HUB while processing GNSS session data.  In the example here, the Addicks CORS (ADKS) was used as the HUB in data processing.  So, why is this not considered a radial survey?  It may look like a GNSS radial survey but there’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes. 

    The bottom line is that OPUS Projects is denoted as a simultaneous (session) processor.  This means the vector solution is computed from simultaneous processing of all independent vectors with mathematical correlations between all simultaneously observed vectors. OPUS Projects processing includes all independent vectors along with mathematical correlations to provide the relative connection to marks that are simultaneously observed.  In the example above, when processed by OPUS Projects, all the marks occupied (indicated by the lines connecting to the Addicks CORS HUB) will have correlations computed between each other. These correlations are included in the data that is used in the least squares adjustments that are performed during the OPUS Projects workflow (NGS uses a file denoted as the gfile to document the correlations.) 

    The image below provides a sample of mathematical correlations between marks simultaneously observed during the session. The gfile can be a large file when the survey includes a lot of simultaneously observed marks because there will be correlations between all marks. There were 13 marks simultaneously observed during the sample session, so the “spoke-like” diagram includes imaginary lines between every mark because of the mathematical correlations between these marks.

    Gfile excerpt survey scene (1)
    Gfile excerpt 2 survey scene
    (Gfile contains baseline information with mathematical correlations.) (Photo: Dave Zilkoski)
    Excerpt from an output from simultaneous (session) processing.
    (Gfile contains baseline information with mathematical correlations.)

    Dan’s presentation included a slide that described the file’s format. The file provides information on the vectors (delta X, delta Y, delta Z and their standard deviations) between the HUB and the individual marks, plus the mathematical correlations between all marks simultaneously observed during the session. I have highlighted a vector’s components and standard deviations and a set of mathematical correlations.

    The image below, from Dan’s presentations, describes the format of NGS’s gfile.

    Some software programs perform what is called sequential (baseline) processing, which involves processing one vector at a time and ignoring the mathematical correlation between baselines observed in the same session. So, what does this mean, and why is it important? 

    A couple of definitions are necessary to understand the concept.  Independent baselines are baselines where no other baseline is a linear combination of another baseline. Linearly dependent (trivial) baselines are baselines that are linear combinations of another baseline. Basically, once you have used a particular set of data to compute a vector, you can’t use the same data to compute a different vector.

    Dan did a nice job during his webinar explaining what baselines are considered trivial and what baselines are non-trivial. This is very important because if your software is a sequential (baseline) processor, you must ensure that trivial vectors are not included with the non-trivial vectors. As Dan highlights in his webinar, dependent vectors are not additional observations. But they do offer useful information if treated properly.

    Photo: NGS
    Photo: NGS

    There was a 1992 study performed by Michael Craymer and Norm Beck, “Session Versus Baseline GPS Processing,” that explained the differences between sequential baseline processing and simultaneous (session) processing, and what the user needed to do to use sequential baseline processing. Basically, when all the trivial vectors are added to the adjustment, they are treated like additional independent observations, resulting in an inflating degree of freedom and overly optimistic error estimates.  If all possible vectors are processed, then resulting coordinates may essentially be the same as in simultaneous (session) processing, but statistics will be overly optimistic and misleading. The 1992 paper does state that the two different processing techniques can produce the same results.

     “It is shown that using all possible baseline solutions (with the covariance matrix scaled by n/2, where n is the number of simultaneously observing receivers) is mathematically equivalent to session processing with all correlations only under certain conditions.  This equivalence is verified empirically using simulated and real data.  However, the conditions under which this equivalence holds are difficult to achieve in practice.”

    Users who process data using a sequential processor should read the 1992 study by Craymer and Beck to understand the conditions under which the two processes generate the same results.

    I would encourage all individuals that process GNSS data, regardless of which software you use, to download the NGS OPUS User Forum webinar. NGS also has a website that provides training material on the use of OPUS Projects. The more you know about the software you use, the better you will be prepared to address issues associated with your survey results.

    OPUS Projects' training material. (Photo: NGS)
    OPUS Projects’ training material. (Photo: NGS)


  • TRB ADK70 Standing Committee on Geospatial Data Acquisition Technologies summer meeting

    TRB ADK70 Standing Committee on Geospatial Data Acquisition Technologies summer meeting

    My last newsletter highlighted the products on the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Alpha Preliminary Products site. The alpha site provides products that individuals can use to better understand the products that will be distributed as part of the new, modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS).

    This newsletter is going to highlight activities associated with the Transportation Research Board’s ADK70 Standing Committee on Geospatial Data Acquisition Technologies. This committee is concerned with applications of high-accuracy geospatial data acquisition technologies in support of the digital infrastructure for the design and construction of transportation facilities. Members have various backgrounds and expertise and are located in different regions of the United States.

    The committee holds two meetings a year, one at the January TRB Annual Meeting held in Washington, D.C., and a summer meeting in different locations each year in late July.

    This year, the meeting of the Geospatial Acquisition Technologies in Design and Construction Summer Committee was held on July 29-31, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Topics included new technologies on data collection, modeling and plan delivery. There were updates from organizations such as the National Geodetic Survey, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and various state departments of transportation on technology, standards, specifications and industry needs. See the agenda below.

    Photo: NGS schedule 1

    Photo: NGS schedule 2

    Photo: NGS schedule 3

    I first got involved with this committee in 1999, when I worked for NGS. One may ask, why would a geodesist be interested in a committee that focuses on the design and construction of transportation facilities? In my opinion, this is an important committee that addresses geospatial issues that affect all users of geospatial data, not just state Department of Transportation (DOT) surveyors and engineers.

    As anyone who has been reading my GPS World Survey Scene newsletters knows, I remind everyone that “geodesy is the foundation for all geospatial products and services.” As previously stated, this committee is concerned with applications of high-accuracy geospatial data acquisition; therefore, surveyors and geodesists must be involved to address issues associated with positioning. Anyone using or acquiring geospatial data should be interested in this committee’s activities.

    During AKD70 summer workshop meetings, participants talk with technical experts about the latest advancements in geospatial data acquisition technologies. I would encourage anyone interested in high-accuracy geospatial data acquisition technologies to learn more about this TRB committee, which is currently chaired by Wei Johnson, South Carolina DOT.

    Digital delivery geometric consistency concerns

    One session at the meeting discussed concerns with digital delivery geometric consistency. We now live in a world where everything is digital. Today, most surveying and mapping instruments collect and generate data in digital format. This paradigm has affected how surveyors, geodesists, and engineers provide their products and services. So, what is the issue with digital delivery geometric consistency?

    As I previously stated, I am a geodesist, so I think in geodetic coordinates (latitude, longitude, ellipsoid and orthometric height) or cartesian coordinates (X, Y and Z).

    Photo: NGS
    Three-Dimensional Positioning (XYZ). (Photo: NGS)

    From NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS 59. (Photo: NGS)
    Orthometric, Ellipsoid and Geoid Heights from NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS 59. (Photo: NGS)

    Looking at the diagram in the above image, I would like to highlight that the orthometric height is measured from the geoid along a curved line. The curved line is based on an infinite number of geopotential level surfaces that exist between the geoid, which is a geopotential surface, and the mark located on Earth’s surface. This is why gravity plays a part in determining the orthometric height of a mark.

    This means that leveling height differences are not the same as ellipsoid height differences. To compute a GNSS-derived orthometric height, a geoid height is subtracted from the GNSS-derived ellipsoid height. This is only an approximation because of how the two heights are measured but, at this moment, it is accurate enough for surveying and mapping applications.

    What about computing an ellipsoid height from an orthometric height? The ellipsoid height can be computed using the equation h = H + N (ellipsoid height = orthometric height + geoid height). Once you have an ellipsoid height, you can compute the X, Y, and Z coordinates of the mark. Orthometric heights derived from leveling data are one-dimensional (orthometric height only), whereas GNSS-derived coordinates are three-dimensional (XYZ or latitude, longitude, ellipsoid height). Therefore, to compute a cartesian coordinate (XYZ), from a leveling-derived height users must generate a latitude and longitude of the mark. It is important to use the appropriate geoid height and to record that information in a metadata file.

    NGS has developed web-based applications to convert coordinates between different coordinate systems and transform between different reference frames and/or datums. See the box titled “NGS NCAT Web Tool.” I described the NCAT web tool in my October 2019 and September 2023 GPS World newsletters.

    NGS NCAT web tool. (Photo: NGS)
    NGS NCAT web tool. (Photo: NGS)

    Photo: NGS o:
    Photo: NGS

    So, from a geodesist’s point of view, there is no issue with digital delivery geometric consistency if the appropriate tools are correctly used to convert coordinates between different coordinate systems and transform them between different reference frames and/or datums. That said, unique coordinate systems may be used by engineers to create 2D and 3D as-built drawings, such as blueprints and models. This should not be a problem for developing a transformation model if the appropriate information is available.

    The AutoCAD Map 3D website states that users can combine data from maps using different coordinate systems (see the box titled “Excerpt from AutoCAD Map 3D Site”).  The site states that “AutoCAD Map 3D toolset automatically converts them to the coordinate system of the current drawing.”  This is an indication that CAD routines are working on handling different coordinate systems.

    That said, users should make sure that the conversions and transformations are using the correct formulas and parameters. For example, I would like to know what defines the Latitude-Longitude 84 coordinate system that is highlighted in the box. I am not suggesting that anything is incorrect in the definition of the coordinate system. I am just saying that I do not know what the statement means; I would need more information before I can use the data.

    Excerpt from AutoCAD Map 3D 2025 site.
    Excerpt from AutoCAD Map 3D 2025 site.

    That said, ESRI and Autodesk, two industry leaders, have created a partnership to integrate GIS and Building Information Models (BIM), which seeks to create an integrated and collaborative workflow that connects data sources. ESRI denotes this as ArcGIS GeoBIM.

    Representatives from ESRI and Autodesk participated in the meeting. During the meeting, Linda Foster, ESRI and President-Elect of the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS), gave a presentation that included a discussion of the ArcGIS GeoBIM web-based tool. Linda highlighted how geodesy and surveying provide the foundation for Digital Twin products. Her presentation included a diagram that I have recreated below.

    Notice that geodesy is at the base and digital twin is at the top of the inverted triangle. See the box titled “Geodesy Provides the Foundation for all Geospatial Products and Services.” The diagram is like the one I highlighted in my February 2022 GPS World Newsletter to emphasize the geodesy crisis. Both diagrams emphasize the importance of geodesy and surveying in creating geospatial products and services. It is encouraging to see that ESRI and Autodesk are working together to understand the needs of both communities. This will lead to the development of an improved system.

    Photo:
    Image: Dave Zilkoski — based on Linda Foster’s presentation at the TRB AKD70 summer meeting on July 30, 2024.

    From a geodesist’s viewpoint, there does not seem to be a problem with digital delivery geometric consistency. Of course, I know that it is not as simple as I am making it. I realize that the “devil is in the details,” which means that something that appears to be simple will identify issues that will have to be dealt with during development and implementation. During the meeting, it was announced that the TRB AKD70 Committee is developing a webinar titled “Resolving ambiguities between 3D virtual models and the real world” to make people aware of the issues.


    Proposed Webinar

    Proposed title: “Resolving ambiguities between 3D virtual models and the real world”
    Proposed description: The transportation industry is rapidly moving towards achieving digital product delivery and digital as-built objectives in the Civil Infrastructure sector. They are doing this by adopting a 100% end-to-end digital, asset-centric, interoperable data flow. However, the current methodologies being discussed use outdated concepts that rely on 2D/1D plans and profile/cross-section sheets as part of physical construction reality. These methodologies are not in line with current construction objectives, which require the use of Open BIM and Digital Twin concepts. Therefore, it’s crucial to address the current geospatial and geodesic ambiguity between the real world and BIM (virtual 3D models) to ensure a clear understanding of the proposed solution and its efficient implementation. This is especially important considering the industry’s reliance on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement methodologies. There is an imperative need to resolve this geospatial and geodesic ambiguity by adopting sound geodetic methodologies. The webinar will present the basic tenets of geodetic engineering from three points of view: the Department of Transportation (DOT) perspective, the digital product delivery perspective and the Survey/Geodesy perspective.
    Proposed purpose: To raise awareness among the DOT community, which is intent on achieving the 100% digital end-to-end asset-centric interoperable flow objectives, of the need to resolve the ambiguities between virtual 3D models and the real world.


    I always learn something new at these meetings and continue to build new relationships expanding my professional network. These meetings are open to anyone, so I would encourage everyone to learn more about the TRB ADK70 Standing Committee on Geospatial Data Acquisition Technologies. Please contact Wei Johnson for more information about getting involved with the committee.

  • NGS new alpha preliminary products in support of the modernized NSRS

    NGS new alpha preliminary products in support of the modernized NSRS

    Photo: SonjaBK / iStock / Getty Images Plus / Getty Images
    Photo: SonjaBK / iStock / Getty Images Plus / Getty Images

    In my last newsletter, I highlighted the release of a beta version of a new NOAA CORS Network (NCN) Station Web Page. As demonstrated in my newsletter, each CORS in the NCN has its own page with data, metadata, maps and photos for that station displayed in a modular layout so information is easily found all in one location. This past month, I had the privilege of participating in a meeting with representatives from the American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS), the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) and the National Geodetic Survey (NGS). As a Past President of AAGS and the current Chair of the AAGS Membership Committee, I participate in these quarterly meetings.

    AAGS aims to lead the community of geodetic, surveying, and land information data users through the 21st century. AAGS members develop new educational programs, including presentations, seminars, and workshops on topics related to geodetic surveying; and articles and papers that inform the membership of the latest scientific and technological developments and how to implement them in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

    In my previous newsletters, I have reminded everyone that time is running out to obtain a working knowledge of the new, modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). The release of the new, modernized NSRS is only about a year away. As of July 2024, NGS plans to have a beta version of the new, modernized NSRS available around the summer of 2025 for users to test and evaluate new products and services. After enough testing has been performed, the new, modernized NSRS will be officially published – probably in early to mid-2026.

    At the meeting, NGS highlighted some new products on its Alpha Preliminary Products site. The alpha site provides products that are useful for individuals who want to obtain a better understanding of the products that will be distributed as part of the new, modernized NSRS.

    Photo:

    Some of my previous newsletters have discussed the Alpha product concept.  My September 2023 newsletter highlighted the first two Alpha products; that is, State Plane Coordinate System of 2022 (SPCS2022) and NGS Coordinate Conversion and Transformation Tool (NCAT).  As of June 2024, two more products have been added to the Alpha Preliminary Products site – “GEOID2022 Alpha” and “Alpha Values for EPP.”  The State Plane Coordinate System of 2022 (SPCS2022) is probably the most important to land surveyors.  There are significant changes between the SPCS2022 and the State Plane Coordinate System of 1983 (SPCS83). I will highlight the latest options in the alpha site later in this newsletter.

    First, I want to bring attention to the importance of ensuring that the state’s legislation is modified or rewritten, if required, to include that the current horizontal and vertical datums are being replaced with the new, modernized NSRS. The “Learn More” button on the SPCS2022 Alpha site provides information about legislation.

    Photo:

    On the “Learn More” site, NGS provides an SPCS legislation template.

    Per personal communication with Michael Dennis, Ph.D., NGS SPCS2022 Manager, as of June 26, 2024, the following 12 states have have enacted into law NSRS modernization: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.

    Users can download examples of actual new state legislation here.

    Photo:
    Examples of legislation.

    During the joint AAGS/NSPS/NGS meeting, Tim Birch, the executive director of NSPS, said that anyone who has questions about updating legislation for the new, modernized NSRS, including SPCS2022, can contact him directly. NSPS has experience working with agencies and individuals to develop legislation as indicated in the following statement on the NSPS website.

    “We are the voice of the professional surveying community in the US and its territories. Through its affiliation agreements with the respective state surveying societies, NSPS has a strong constituency base through which it communicates directly with lawmakers, agencies, & regulators at both the national and state level. NSPS monitors and comments on legislation, regulation, & policies that have potential impact on the activities of its members and their clients, and collaborates with a multitude of other organizations within the geospatial community on issues of mutual interest.”

    Tim’s contact information is provided on the NSPS home webpage: Staff List – National Society of Professional Surveyors (nsps.us.com).

    As previously stated, the two latest alpha products are the “GEOID2022 Alpha” and “Alpha Values for EPP.” My December 2017 newsletter discussed GEOID 2022 and the North American-Pacific Geopotential Datum of 2022 (NAPGD2022), and my February 2022 newsletter discussed the Euler Pole Parameters process and use in the new, modernized NSRS.

    The GEOID2022 Alpha page provides a version of GEOID2022, which is the most recent prototype of the geoid models. The reference ellipsoid is Geodetic Reference System 1980 (GRS 80, but the geometric reference frame is ITRF2020). The Alpha GEOID2022 prototype data is available for download in two formats, “ASCII” and “.b.” There is a static component (SGEOID2022) and a dynamic component (DGEOID2022). These grids will be useful to programmers who want to develop and test their systems. Additional grids and tools will be available in the future.


    Technical Details of the Alpha prototype of GEOID2022

    GEOID2022 alpha is the last prototype of GEOID2022. It covers three regions: the North America–Pacific region, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The spatial resolution of the geoid model is 1 arcminute. The geoid heights, which are in the tide-free system, are with respect to the reference ellipsoid of the Geodetic Reference System 1980 (GRS80) in the ITRF2020 geometric reference frame. GEOID2022 alpha includes static and dynamic components for the geoid heights. For detailed fundamental parameters of the geoid model, refer to NOAA Technical Report 78.


    Photo:
    GEOID2022 Alpha

     

    The Alpha EPP site provides the Euler Pole Parameters (EPP) that are needed to define the relationship between the ITRF2020 and models on the North America, Caribbean, Pacific and Mariana plates as discussed in NGS’s Blueprint Part 1 document.

    Photo:
    Alpha Values for EPP

    As stated in Blueprint Part 1, NGS will define the official relationship between ITRF2020 and the four NSRS TRFs through equation 59, using the rotation matrix in equation 58 resulting in equation 60.

    I programmed this using a simple Excel spreadsheet to compute some of the potential changes between epochs for North Carolina. They were very similar to the ones that I depicted in my February 2022 newsletter that discussed the Euler Pole Parameters process and provided plots depicting the movement.

    Photo:

    I would like to highlight the latest information available on the State Plane Coordinate System of 2022 alpha site. As previously stated, in about a year, the new, modernized NSRS will be available as a beta product. Users must get prepared by accessing NGS’s alpha products as well as taking the opportunity to provide feedback to NGS to improve their products and services. The Online Interactive Maps page provides information about the zones for every U.S. state and territory.

    Photo:

    Clicking on the Online Interactive Maps link opens a NOAA ArcGIS online website that provides information about the Alpha State Plane Coordinate System 2022 preliminary zone designs. I have highlighted a few items that may be of interest to users.

    The site provides a description of the site, links to various types of zones, links to data sources and information about distortion.

    SPCS2022 online interactive maps
    SPCS2022 online interactive maps.

     

    Clicking on the link for zone definitions provides a list of zones and their parameters. This same information is also provided when users click on a zone on the map. I will demonstrate this later in this newsletter.

    Per personal communication with Dennis, as of June 26, 2024, seven states have some or all their SPCS2022 zone definitions formally finalized, consisting of 205 out of the 965 zones (the total number of zones is still preliminary):

    • Alaska (partial coverage multizone layer)
    • Arizona (both multizone layers)
    • Idaho (both multizone and statewide)
    • Kentucky (both multizone and statewide)
    • North Carolina (statewide zone; it has no other zones)
    • South Dakota (both multizone and statewide)
    • Wisconsin (multizone)

    Dennis informed me that the information on the alpha SPCS2022 Experience has been updated. He told me that the total number of zones decreased from 967 to 965, but based on coordination with the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) Geodesy Subcommittee the number may eventually increase to 972 (more about that in a future newsletter).

    He stated that his goal is to finalize the zone definitions by the end of this calendar year or early 2025. Users should keep checking the alpha site.

    Dennis mentioned that the website now offers a new feature that provides the distortion value when users click on the map. A nice thing about that is the site can be used on a smartphone, allowing users to obtain real-time distortion information from their location.

    Clicking on the link titled “View” in the upper right corner of the box brings up a map that depicts the SPCS2022 zones.

    View of ALPHA (preliminary) SPCS2022 zone designs.
    View of ALPHA (preliminary) SPCS2022 zone designs.

    When you click on the note about the ALPHA being preliminary, the map underneath appears where the user can select the type of maps they wish to review.

    The following options are available: All Zone Layers, Statewide Zone Layers, Multizone Complete Layers, Multizone Partial Layers, and Special Use Zone Layers.

    Users can use their mouses or the “+” button on the left-hand side” to zoom to a particular region, or use the search button on the right-hand side to select a State or zone.

    Photo:

    Using the search box.
    Using the search box.

    Information about a particular zone pops up by clicking on a point on the map.

    Detailed information provided for a zone.
    Detailed information provided for a zone.

    Each zone provides links to other features based on the location of the point selected on the map.

    The image below provides the distortion in ppm for the point selected on the map.

    Photo:

    Photo:

    The Alpha NCAT site can be used to obtain an estimate of the changes between SPCS83 and SPCS2022. It should be noted that all values will be in meters (m) and international feet (ft).

    International feet may be new to some surveyors who were previously using the U.S. survey feet in SPCS83. The U.S. survey foot will not be used with the NSRS, including SPCS2022 coordinates. NGS and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have taken action to deprecate the U.S. survey foot. What does that mean?. NIST has the following statement on its website: “Beginning on January 1, 2023, the U.S. survey foot should be avoided, except for historic and legacy applications, and has been superseded by the international foot.” This means that NGS will not be publishing SPCS2022 in U.S. survey feet but all historic products and services such as SPCS83 will still be provided in U.S. survey feet (sft) and international feet (ift).

    More information and resources about the deprecation of the sft are listed below (personal communication from Dennis):

    • The official announcement is the final determinationFederal Register Notice (FRN) on deprecation of the sft issued on 10/5/2020. It was jointly issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and NGS. I encourage everyone concerned about this topic to read it closely and in its entirety; it can likely answer most questions. The FRN includes information on the continued use of sft for legacy applications (such as SPCS 83). That is stated in the last paragraph of the “Notice of Final Determination” section; in items #1 and #2 in the “Counterpoints to Feedback Expressing Opposition”section; and in the second paragraph of the “Implementation Summary and Actions” section.
    • The legacy issue is also addressed in the 10th FAQon the NIST website and in the 11th FAQon our “new datums” FAQs web page.
    • The 40 states that officially adopted the sft for SPCS 83 are listed in Table C.1 of Appendix C of NOAA Special Publication NOS NGS 13, “The State Plane Coordinate System History, Policy, and Future Directions.”
    • Although the final determination FRN is itself not a law, Congress has passed several laws giving NIST the authority to maintain national standards of measurement. These and other related federal laws are given in the initial sft FRNissued on 10/17/2019.
    • An NGS webinar given on 11/10/2022 addresses the deprecation of the sft in the context of state plane. Two previous NGS webinars also provide additional background and historical information on the sft, one given on 4/25/2019 and the other on 12/12/2019.

    Input to Alpha NCAT.
    Input to Alpha NCAT.

    Photo:
    Photo:Output from Alpha NCAT.

    This newsletter highlighted the products on NGS’s Alpha Preliminary Products site. The alpha site provides products that can be useful for individuals to obtain a better understanding of the products that will be distributed as part of the new, modernized National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). NGS is providing these products on an alpha site so that they can get feedback from users. I would encourage all users to access the alpha sites and provide comments to NGS so that their products and services better meet the needs of the surveying and mapping community.


    Alpha Preliminary Products

    Welcome to the NGS National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) Modernization Alpha Product Release Site. This site provides examples of the content, format, and structure of data and products that NGS plans to release as a part of the Modernized NSRS.

    Products found on this page are for illustrative purposes only and do not contain any authoritative NGS data or tools. They are under active development and are subject to change without notice.

    To provide feedback on any of the content on this site, please email [email protected].

  • NGS beta version of a new NOAA CORS Network station web page

    NGS beta version of a new NOAA CORS Network station web page

    My past GPS World newsletters (February 2024, March 2024, April 2024 and May 2024)  highlighted the NGS Geospatial Modeling grantees which included creating a CORS Dashboard that will be very useful to NGS employees monitoring the CORSs and evaluating the Intra-Frame Deformation Model (IFDM).

    I mentioned in the May 2024 newsletter that NGS announced the release of a beta version of a new NOAA CORS Network (NCN) Station Web Page. Each CORS station in the NCN will have its own page with data, metadata, maps and photos displayed in a modular layout so information is easily found in one location. This newsletter will describe some features of the new beta site.

    The beta site is located here.

    I will highlight some of the information provided by the routine, but I would encourage others to access the beta site and provide feedback to NGS. NGS states on the site that “This is a Beta product. We are interested in your feedback. Please email us at: [email protected] and indicate the subject as “NCN Station Pages Feedback.”

    When you access the website, it defaults to the CORS station GODE. The user has the option to enter their own CORS station in the box located on the right-hand side of the webpage.

    Texas CORS Station TXLV
    Texas CORS Station TXLV.

    A nice feature of the site is that the CORS data availability for the last seven days is provided under the Station Information section. For those interested in downloading data, there is a button titled “Quick Data Download,” on the top left corner. The site allows users to download daily data from the past 30, seven or two days.

    In my example, I downloaded the last seven days of data for CORS TXLV. It only took a few seconds to download and provide the data in a zipped file. If a user includes this process in their standard operating procedure, they can easily download all the CORS data required for their project.

    Downloading TXLV GNSS data
    Downloading TXLV GNSS data.

    Another planning tool available is the weather information for a week. Today, most users can get the weather information on their phone. However, this is a convenient option to have when you are looking at available CORS on the day of occupying marks. It can help in managing schedule changes.

    Photo: USGS

    There is an option to show the five nearest CORS relative to your selected CORS by clicking on the button titled “Show Closest 5 on Map.”

    CORS Located near TXLV.
    CORS Located near TXLV.

    Clicking on the button labeled “Show Legend” provides information about the CORS depicted on the map. This is a useful feature especially if selecting CORS that provide GNSS data other than GPS and/or data at different sampling rates.

    Photo:

    If a user clicks on the button “Open NGS Map,” the site will access the NGS Map website and provide information about the selected CORS. This allows users to get information about the CORS. I found that the beta site provided most of the same information using the various options on the NGS Map website.

     

    NGS Map depicting CORS TXLV
    NGS Map depicting CORS TXLV.

    The site provides photos and equipment history that may help in troubleshooting an issue associated with processing sessions or during the analysis of the adjustment results. I have highlighted that a new antenna was installed at the TXLV CORS on August 5, 2021. I will explain later in this newsletter how this information helped me during my analysis of a GNSS project.

    Photos and equipment history of TXLV.
    Photos and equipment history of TXLV.

    Under the Coordinates and Velocities section, the site provides information about the latest coordinates and velocities along with superseded values for the selected CORS. The superseded values may not be of interest to most users, but I am always looking at the changes in CORS coordinates. It is my nature to try to understand the reason why something has changed; especially for CORS that I am including in a GNSS project.

    Coordinates and velocities.
    Coordinates and velocities.

    Clicking on the link titled “Position and Velocity” under the Coordinates and Velocities section provides the coordinate and velocity information for your selected CORS. I have highlighted the ITRF2014 velocities, the NAD 83 (2011) velocities, the latest antenna type, installation date and the dates the positions and velocities were revised.

    Photo:Photo:

    As shown in the image above, the position and velocity sheet provide the dates that the position was revised. Clicking on the link titled “Datasheet with GRP/MON included (if available)” in the Coordinates and Velocities section provides the datasheet that lists the NAD 83 (2011) superseded survey control values. The superseded ellipsoid heights from the datasheet are provided in the box titled “Excerpt from TXLV Datasheet.”

    When you are trying to estimate heights to the 2 cm level, changes in published NAD 83 (2011) CORS heights at the 2 cm level are significant and should be investigated and understood. This beta CORS website offers useful information that can help understand some of these changes. I will explain later in the newsletter how this information and other data from the beta site helped me in the analysis of my GNSS project.

    Excerpt from TXLV data sheet.
    Excerpt from TXLV data sheet.

    The beta site provides plots that depict the daily positions and residuals for a CORS. In my May 2024 newsletter, I stated that NGS has developed a Beta CORS Time Series Tool that provides information that assists users in selecting appropriate CORS for a project. The Beta CORS Time Series Tool provides the residual differences from the daily NGS OPUS-NET solutions with the coordinates from the official CORS’ coordinate functions. The excerpt below explains the plots and residuals:


    NCN Residual Time Series Comparison Tool (NCN PloTS)

    This tool computes and displays the residuals for up to 50 CORS stations within the NCN. The mean, standard deviation, and root-mean-square error of the residuals are also provided in a summary table that is available for download. This tool is informational, not authoritative.

    The residuals are calculated as the difference between the daily observation at a station and the official daily coordinates for a station. The daily observation is processed from the GPS L1 and L2 signals only, using a network adjustment program. There must be a minimum of 8 hours of data present in a 24 hour file for a solution to be generated. The network adjustment program is an internal application developed by NGS for monitoring the position of the CORS stations in the NCN (Gillins et al., 2019). The official daily coordinates for a station are calculated using the reference epoch (2010.0) position and velocity published as the station coordinate function in the Position and Velocity File. An example of a Position and Velocity File for NCN station GODE can be found here. To obtain Position and Velocity Files for NCN stations please visit the NCN Station Pages and navigate to the Coordinates and Velocities section.

    This tool is optimized for plotting data extending between 30 to 90 days in length but can be customized to other time frames. The earliest start date currently available is October 27, 2018, which is the completion date of the MYCS2 and the end date can be as recent as 3 days before the present day. This three-day time lag is so that the final orbits can be used in the network adjustment to create the daily solutions. Then, please enter the 4-character station ID for at least one and up to 50 CORS stations in the NCN and submit this request to obtain a map, summary table of comparative statistics, and residual plots during the date range.


    The beta NGS NCN station pages show similar plots to the Beta CORS Time Series Tool. the station pages also allow users to create position and residual plots at different periods. I find these plots very useful when selecting CORS to be included in a GNSS project. The latest plots are of interest to users when selecting CORS to be included in their GNSS project but there are reasons to look at plots depicting older time periods.

    Position and residual plots for TXLV
    Position and residual plots for TXLV.

    I previously mentioned that the antenna of CORS TXLV was changed on August 5, 2021, so I used the option to plot the last five years to include data before and after the date the antenna was changed. I highlighted August 7, 2021, on both plots. This was two days after the antenna was changed on CORS TXLV.

    There appears to be a 2 cm upward shift in the up component after the new antenna was installed. There was also a change of about 1 cm in the north component. Something else to notice in the position plot is that the east component has a significant tilt during the five years. The below provides the ITRF2014 velocities — the eastward component velocity is —1.21 cm/year. In 5 years, one could expect to see about a 6 cm change.

    Position and Residual Plots for TXLV
    Position and residual plots for TXLV.

    Five-year position plot of TXLV.
    Five-year position plot of TXLV.

    Five year residual plot of TXLV.
    Five-year residual plot of TXLV.

    Position plot of TXLV for selected time interval
    Position plot of TXLV for selected time interval.

    These small changes affected my analysis and network adjustment results. During the past several years, I have participated in several Harris-Galveston Subsidence District (HGSD) GNSS projects performed in the Houston-Galveston, Texas, region. I have been involved with estimating subsidence in the Houston-Galveston, Texas, region for about 40 years so when I see changes in height values indicating an apparent uplift it makes me question my results. Therefore, I started investigating the CORS involved in the GNSS project. I looked at the Texas CORS surrounding the GNSS project: WHARTON CORS, COLUMBUS CORS, HEMPSTEAD CORS, LIVINGSTON CORS, and LIBERTY CORS.

    The table below provides the differences between the published ellipsoid height and the previous superseded height for the five CORS. As the table indicates, the published ellipsoid height of the CORS increased by about 2 cm from the superseded height. This led me to use the NGS NCN Station Pages to investigate these CORSs. I found that all five of these CORSs had new antennas installed in 2021 and their position plots depicted a similar shift.

    I want to emphasis that I am not saying that anyone did anything wrong or incorrect.  The CORS manager of these sites provided the appropriate metadata to the NGS CORS team so the site information could be updated and correctly reported. What this indicates to me is that the installation of the new antenna and setup may have affected the height component of these CORS, that is, it may have changed the official position of the monument’s reference point. Again, I want to emphasize that I am not saying that anyone did anything wrong or incorrect.  NGS’s process includes monitoring all CORS that are part of the NOAA CORS Network (NCN). The NGS CORS Team noticed the significant change in the up component comparing it to its expected value, so they computed a new coordinate and published the new coordinate in 2022. In my opinion, anyone using these CORSs as constraints in their GNSS projects after the date that the new antenna was installed and before the new coordinate was published could have generated adjusted heights that are in error by 2 cm. As previously stated, when you are estimating heights to the 2 cm level, changes in published NAD 83 (2011) CORS heights at the 2 cm level are significant. In my opinion, this type of analysis should be performed by all users that are incorporating CORS in their GNSS processing.

    CORS ID PID Station Name Published Ellipsoid Height (m) Published Date Date the New Antenna was Installed Date Station Coordinates Superseded Superseded Ellipsoid height (m) Difference Between Published and Superseded Heights (cm)
    txwh DL9086 WHARTON 8.615 04/22 4/28/2021 06/19 8.595 2.0
    txcm DL9812 COLUMBUS 45.481 04/22 3/17/2021 06/19 45.459 2.2
    txhe DH3608 HEMPSTEAD 48.823 04/22 5/06/2021 06/19 48.803 2.0
    txlv DN4508 LIVINGSTON 29.100 04/22 8/05/2021 06/19 29.075 2.5
    txli DH3612 LIBERTY -9.782 02/22 5/06/2021 06/19 -9.802 2.0

    Keep checking NGS beta site because NGS makes changes based on user feedback. As I previously stated, I would encourage everyone to access the beta site and provide your feedback to NGS. NGS states on the site that “This is a Beta product. We are interested in your feedback. Please email us at: [email protected] and indicate the subject as “NCN Station Pages Feedback.”  I have talked to the CORS team and they really would like feedback. The team will make changes to the website based on feedback from users.

  • MSU developing CORS dashboard and geodetic program

    MSU developing CORS dashboard and geodetic program

    Photo: Dana Caccamise II
    Photo: Dana Caccamise II

    In my November 2023 GPS World newsletter, I highlighted the announcement made by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) of the recipients of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) FY 23 Geospatial Modeling Competition awards. The primary objectives of these projects are to modernize geodetic tools and models and to develop a geodetic workforce for the future. My last three GPS World newsletters — February 2024, March 2024 and April 2024 — highlighted three of the grantees, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, The Ohio State University, and Oregon State University that included developing models to address what NGS denotes as the Intra-Frame Deformation Model (IFDM) and creating geodesy curriculums that will help address the geodesy crisis. Changes in these geomatic programs will provide students with the skills in geospatial systems that will make available opportunities for employment in the public and private sectors. This newsletter will address the proposal by the fourth NGS geospatial modeling grant awardee, Michigan State University (MSU).

    First, it should be noted that this award is denoted as the MSU geospatial modeling award; that said, the execution of the project will be led by MSU, along with two sub-awardees — University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and Michigan Tech University (MTU). Jeffrey Freymueller and Julie Elliott are the MSU grant’s principal investigators (PI). They provided me with information about the goals and objectives of their grant proposal.

    The MSU proposal includes enhancing software and monitoring capabilities for NGS, enhancing graduate-level geodetic education and providing opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students to be exposed to geodetic science. Again, focusing on geodesy curriculums will help address the geodesy crisis and will provide students with the skills in geospatial systems that will increase their opportunities for employment in the public and private sectors. The proposal has two main goals and objectives.

    Goals and objectives

    CORS Dashboard 

    • Build an online, web-based CORS dashboard that will support monitoring of the continuously operating reference station (CORS) network.
    • Making it easier to continually validate the current position of CORS sites to the existing motion models (IFDM).
    • To validate and correct the motion models themselves in the presence of time-dependent tectonic and volcanic activity.

    Education

    • Work with partner universities toward developing and establishing a consortium model for future distributed geodetic degree programs that leverage the capabilities and capacity of multiple universities.
    • Develop new course material for graduate level geodetic education that is intended for hybrid or asynchronous remote delivery and the establishment of a formal degree program.
    • Host summer undergraduate interns who will work on a variety of geodetic projects including the CORS dashboard.
    • Two graduate students will be supported to work on various aspects of the proposed work at MSU and MTU.

    Anyone using NGS’s “user-friendly” software knows that they are working on improving their web-based services. However, NGS still needs help from outside users.

    I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing NGS’s products and services. I worked for NGS for over three decades, and I personally know that NGS has limited resources to accomplish too many tasks. NGS needs to focus on the science and get help with the development of models, tools and the dissemination of results and data. That is one of the reasons that these geospatial modeling grants are important to all users of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS).

    The proposed CORS Dashboard will be very useful to NGS employees monitoring the CORS and evaluating the IFDM. The proposal highlights that users of NGS products and services have various precision and accuracy requirements and that all users expect that NGS products will be sufficiently precise and accurate to meet their positioning needs. Their design of the CORS Dashboard will provide a tool for effectively monitoring and assessing a CORS site status and the validity of its coordinates. The first phase of this tool is being developed for internal use at NGS. However, in my opinion, after all the bugs have been identified and dealt with, NGS will release a version for the user.

    Not all CORS are created equal. So, having a CORS Dashboard that quickly identifies and notifies CORS users of a systematic deviation at a site, regardless of cause, will avoid promulgating erroneous positions to users. In addition, providing statistical information about a CORS site such as short- and long-term plots and their residuals would provide users with helpful information for planning a GNSS project. The metadata of CORS is extremely important since most of the CORS included in the NOAA CORS Network are not maintained by NGS.

    CORS managers are supposed to notify NGS when they make any change to their CORS site such as an antenna change and any changes surrounding the CORS site, including new vegetation or construction that could cause potential obstructions. The CORS Dashboard will help identify issues with CORS before users include them in their projects.

    NGS’s OPUS Project online user guide provides information on selecting the best CORS.  The following is from the user guide:

    • Using the centered time-series plots, select the candidates with RMS (in northing, easting, and up) less than 2 cm. Candidates with large spikes, data gaps or discontinuities should be rejected. Selecting candidates in this manner will provide some assurance that the published coordinates and velocities at the CORS agree with the daily solutions for the CORS.
    • The best CORSs should have “consistent” data depicted in 90-day short-term time-series plots. NGS processes each day of GNSS data collected at each CORS and plots the differences between the resulting coordinates and the published coordinates on short-term time-series plots (in terms of delta northing, easting, and up). These plots can be accessed for every CORS at https://geodesy.noaa.gov/corsdata/Plots/. CORS with plots that depict significant biases from the published coordinates (more than 2 cm in northing, easting, or more than 4 cm), spikes or data gaps should be avoided.

    NGS has developed a Beta CORS Time Series Tool that provides information that assists users in the selection of appropriate CORS for a project. The tool computes and displays the residual differences from the daily NGS OPUS-NET solutions with the coordinates from the official CORS’ coordinate functions. The tool also generates a summary table with the mean, standard deviation, and root-mean-square error of the residuals. On April 24, 2024, NGS announced the release of a beta version of a new NOAA CORS Network (NCN) Station Web Page. According to the announcement, each CORS in the NCN will have its own page with data, metadata, maps and photos for that station displayed in a modular layout so information is easily found all in one location. I will describe this new beta site in a future newsletter.

    The new, modernized NSRS will offer time-dependent coordinates based on an IFDM. This has been described in previous GPS World newsletters (February 2022 and August 2022). The MSU proposal includes developing a model that accounts for crustal movements — such as earthquakes, slow slip events, and volcanic eruptions, — as well as slower, cumulative growth of error due to post-seismic deformation, surface loading (ice or water changes) and changes in rates of human-induced subsidence due to fluid withdrawal. Like any model, the IFDM model will have uncertainties. Being able to provide a realistic estimate of the uncertainties of the IFDM is very important. The PIs of the proposal have extensive knowledge and experience in generating models and uncertainties. As noted in their proposal, the “problem” may not be an issue with the site or the equipment but with the model. See the box titled “Excerpt from the MSU Proposal.”  I have highlighted several sections that I believe are important to the users of the new, modernized NSRS.

    Excerpt from the MSU ProposalExcerpt from the MSU Proposal (2)

    As anyone who has been following my newsletters knows, I have been highlighting the geodesy crisis and programs that advance the science of geodesy — July 2020, November 2022, and December 2022. The proposal includes developing geodetic science courses that will be optimized for hybrid or asynchronous online courses that address advanced technical topics on GNSS, InSAR, map projections, reference frames, and adjustment theory. This will build on existing programs at MSU, UAF and MTU that will provide an online graduate degree in geodesy. MSU envisions this to be a step toward a consortium-based enhanced graduate-level education that provides a range of course options and flexibility. The university believes that there will be opportunities to expand the consortium in the future. The courses have not been finalized yet,  but below are some of the topics and concepts that are being considered for the program.

    Topics and Concepts
     

    Map Projections

    Map projections, geodetic datums, grid systems and transformations. Use of mapping software including GMT.
     

     

    Geodetic Models

    Course provides solid geospatial background in geodetic reference frames, datums, geoids and reference ellipsoids. 2D and 3D geodetic network adjustments are considered based on 3D spherical models.
     

     

    Modern Geodesy and Applications

    Modern geodetic methods including GPS, measuring steady or time-variable motions, the physical models that are used to interpret these observations and applications to active geological processes, the cryosphere and hydrology.
     

     

     

    Geodetic Methods and Applications

    Theory and application of modern geodetic tools to measure Earth’s surface deformation with emphasis on GPS and InSAR. Basics of data processing; evaluation of signals and modeling of their sources; applications include magma systems, earthquake cycle and hydro- and cryosphere. Labs in Python require programming experience
     

     

    Geodetic Data Processing and Analysis

    Course provides students hands-on experience in the selection, processing and analysis of geodetic data sets, particularly InSAR and GNSS. Selection of data from diverse sources, evaluation of data strengths and weaknesses, processing and analysis of data and application to the investigation of geological problems.
     

    Solid Earth Geophysics and Geodynamics

    Theory and applications of solid-Earth geophysics including geochronology, geothermics, geomagnetism and paleomagnetism, geodesy and gravity, rheology and seismology.
     

     

     

     

    Foundations of Geophysics

    Applications of continuum mechanics, heat flow theory and potential theory to geophysical, geologic and glaciological problems. Topics such as postglacial rebound, non-Newtonian fluid flow, thermal convection, stress-relaxation, rheology of Earth materials, gravity and magnetics will be discussed. Emphasis will be placed on methods and tools for solving a variety of problems in global and regional geophysics and the geophysical interpretation of solutions.
     

    Positioning with GNSS

    In-depth study of GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, COMPASS satellite systems; theory and processing of global positioning measurements.
     

    Intro Numerical Tools for Earth and Environmental Sciences

    Introduction to Linux and C including numerical methods, integration, curve-fitting and differential equations with an emphasis on applications to the geological sciences.
     

     

     

    Programming and Automation for Geoscientists

    Basic concepts of computer programming and effective task automation for computers, with an emphasis on tools and problems common to the geosciences and other physical sciences. Use of Python, Jupyter Notebooks, shell scripting and command line tools, making scientific figures, maps and visualizations.
     

     

     

    Data Analysis and Adjustments

    Course explores fundamentals of mathematical error propagation theory, including various observation equations, least squares adjustment and Kalman filter methods. Blunder detection, decorrelation and inversion of patterned large matrices processes are considered. Involves analysis of position estimation deploying geospatial measurements.
     

     

     

    Inverse Problems and Parameter Estimation

    An inverse problem uses observations to infer properties of an unknown physical model. This course covers methods for solving inverse problems, including numerous examples arising in the natural sciences. Topics include linear regression, method of least squares, estimation of uncertainties, iterative optimization and probabilistic (Bayesian) and sampling approaches.
     

    Numerical Analysis

    Direct and iterative solutions of systems of equations, interpolation, numerical differentiation and integration, numerical solutions of ordinary differential equations and error analysis.
     

    3D Surveying and Modeling with Laser Scanning Data

    Theory and application of terrestrial lidar scanning. Typical application scenarios are also included. Intensive lab component provides hands-on experience in lidar point cloud processing and visualization.
     

     

    Advanced Photogrammetry – Satellite Photogrammetry

    Fundamentals of spaceborne imaging systems relevant to topographic mapping. Imagery products —preprocessing levels and metadata. Specific methods of space photogrammetry. Review of contemporary spaceborne imaging systems and imagery products available. Airborne non-frame sensors and photogrammetric processing of the imagery.
     

     

     

    Microwave Remote Sensing

    The principles and applications of active and passive microwave remote sensing with emphasis on spaceborne remote sensing of the Earth’s atmosphere, land and oceans. The laboratory section will provide hands-on experience on special processing techniques and the possibility of using these techniques for a student-defined term project in areas of geology, volcanology, glaciology, hydrology and environmental sciences
     

     

    InSAR and its Applications

    Introduction to the concepts of repeat-pass spaceborne SAR interferometry. Practical use of the technique to derive displacements of the solid Earth, glaciers and ice sheets to a precision of a few centimeters and accurate digital elevation models of the Earth’s surface.

    As previously stated, these courses have not been finalized. An important aspect of the courses is that they contain content that will provide students with the skills and knowledge in geodetic concepts to help address the geodesy crisis in the United States.

    I first mentioned the need for more trained geodesists in my July 2020 article for the “First Fix” column of GPS World, where I stated that the shortage of U.S.-trained geodesists poses a significant economic risk for the United States. In that column, I mentioned how geodetic science and technology now underpin many sciences, large areas of engineering such as driverless vehicles, UAVs, navigation, precision agriculture, smart cities and location-based services.

    My November 2022 GPS World Newsletter highlighted “The inverted geospatial pyramid” graphic, which depicts how the entire $1 trillion geospatial economy is supported and dependent on geodesy. A lack of geodetic expertise in the United States presents a significant challenge, with future impacts on positioning, navigation, mapping and dependent geospatial technologies. These changes in the geomatic programs at the universities being funded by NGS’s geospatial modeling grants will provide students with the skills in geodetic concepts that will provide opportunities for employment in the public and private sectors involved with geospatial technology.

    This newsletter and my past three GPS World newsletters highlighted the four NGS Geospatial Modeling grantees, which included creating geodesy curriculums that will help address the geodesy crisis. The MSU proposal describes a consortium-based enhanced graduate-level education program that will provide a range of course options and flexibility. I believe their proposed hybrid or asynchronous online program will provide more opportunities for individuals to study geodesy and advance the science of geodesy.

    One final note about the NGS Geospatial Modeling Grants. On June 4, 2024, Brad Kearse, director of NGS, will moderate a session at the UESI Surveying and Geomatics 2024 Conference held in Corvallis, Oregon, on June 4 to 5, 2024. This will be a good opportunity for participants to obtain a better understanding of the geospatial modeling grants.

    Lunch & panel discussion: NGS Geospatial Modeling Grants panel session

    Moderator: Brad Kearse, Acting Director, NGS

    The NGS Geospatial Modeling grant program is focused on modernizing and improving the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) and address emerging research problems in the field of geodesy. A secondary objective of this funding opportunity is to support a geodesy community of practice in collaboration with federal and nonfederal stakeholders to address the nationwide deficiency of geodesists and improve the coordination and use of geospatial data. This panel session will explore the research and other activities underway from recipients of the most recent round of the NGS Geospatial Modeling Grant Program.