MicroSurvey Software, part of Hexagon, has released its new field data-collection software platform for Android users.
FieldGenius for Android, version 1.0, is first release of the company’s new multi-platform field software built on the Android platform. It supports most popular GNSS sensors on the market today.
FieldGenius is third-party, brand-neutral data-collection software used by many surveyors. The new release builds on decades of innovation MicroSurvey has invested into the original FieldGenius software, providing users with an easy-to-use and intuitive mobile data-collection software package for the next generation.
New features include dynamic data panels synchronized with the map views. A fresh user interface provides familiarity for existing FieldGenius users while offering new tools, simplified workflows and readily available data that surveyors require at the point of work to make informed decisions in the field.
“Surveyors, dealers, and distributors from every corner of the world have been demanding an Android based version of MicroSurvey FieldGenius for years,” said Marc Veinotte, global sales and OEM manager at MicroSurvey. “This is the first release of our new multi-platform field data collection software that will provide a consistent user experience across a wide cross section of data collection devices. MicroSurvey continues its hardware neutrality strategy offering support for almost every brand of popular and upcoming GNSS receiver on the market today.”
Early adopters of FieldGenius for Android will receive additional benefits and participate in the newly created MicroSurvey Technology Innovation Group (MTIG).
The surveying profession has come to a crossroads, and is divided amongst itself to boot. A gap exists within the profession, and yes it is a generation gap, based on how technology has evolved and how the different generations experience it differently. In this column I explore the histories both of the generations and the technology to reach conclusions on how best to move forward — together.
Surveyors now have more tools than ever before available to them to perform their tasks. But surveyors of different ages regard these tools differently. Not to put too fine a point on it, the younger porfessionals among us feel their creativity and desire to further the profession is being stifled by the group who is supposed to be leading and mentoring them.
Why is this crucial to consider? Because these are the future users, purchasers and adopters of geospatial equipment and software, and the future setters of industry standards. All involved, from manufacturers to distributors to surveyors themselves, would do well to think deeply upon this.
As we enter the final stretch of the 21st century’s second decade, many things have changed since the Y2K scare and the proliferation of the Interweb. From deregulation of the surveying profession to changing coordinate systems and datums, the surveying profession faces many challenges in 2019. One of the biggest challenges we face has nothing — yet everything — to do with technology.
Talented people are necessary to grow our profession. We are falling well short of having enough to keep up with demand. Sounds like a simple problem; just hire more surveyors and technicians. This sounds easy, but several roadblocks confront us.
A select few still invest in their surveying future by going to college to get a degree and eventually become a licensed surveyor. These individuals find, however, that the road to success has lots of potholes along the way, just as their elder predecessors did.
Recently, I participated in a group discussion with the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) Young Surveyors Network to discuss surveying, technology and the young surveyor’s role in promoting future career opportunities. This discussion was part of Network’s series of meetings and seminars held in parallel with the main NSPS Spring Business Meetings.
It was great to see the higher proportion of women in the young surveyor group than in the typical professional society meeting. Their feedback was consistent with that of the young men in the group. All together, their perspectives led me to write this article.
While I think of myself as still “young-ish” (in my early 50s), being the oldest participant in that group was intimidating, to say the least. These young technicians and surveyors are driven and focused, yet they seek the same feedback and mentoring that I desired when I was their age.
In the weeks after that meeting, some of the items discussed continued to resonate with me and forced me to reflect on my own experiences and career path. To be fair to them and truly understand their views on today’s surveying profession, I needed to look beyond the profession, policies and procedures to which I hold fast in my ethical approach to the craft. These younger generations have been exposed to a completely different world than the one I remember fondly, and the world they grew up in has subjected them to challenges to which I cannot relate. To help explain the conundrum of trying to find a way to relate, we need to take a step back and look at not just generational values but how the many industrial revolutions have affected us as well.
TALKING ‘BOUT MY GENERATION
The first part of my research to help me find a way to step into the shoes of these young surveyors was to look at past generations and how they relate to each other. Going back to the turn of the 19th century, we get the following breakdown:
Traditionalists or Silent Generation: Born before 1945
This timeframe contains sub-groups including the “lost generation of 1914,” the “interbellum” and the “greatest generation.” Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the United States during this period. Most of the country west of the Colonial states was subject to the government Public Land Survey System started in the early 1800s. The Great Depression took its toll on much of the population, and previously rapid expansion slowed to a standstill.
Baby Boomers: Born 1946 – 1964
World War II changed the world. Soldiers returning from military duty to start or resume families accelerated population growth and a departure from traditional social attitudes. Two-income families emerged, and prosperity ruled for many years. Surveyors, teaming with civil engineers, helped fuel an unprecedented explosion of real estate expansion through planned developments across the country.
Generation X: Born 1965 – 1976
The children of the fast and free-living Baby Boomers grew up to become the Gen Xers. They were the first “latchkey” kids, more likely to be raised by divorced or remarried parents. As young adults, in their effort to enhance their lifestyle more than their parents, they did many things to the extreme with no consideration of cost. This led to massive real estate developments, “McMansions” and increased debt. Surveying continued to flourish but most growth was enjoyed by engineering firms who absorbed surveyors to expand their services.
Millennials or Gen Y: Born 1977 – 1995
This group is often labeled as the “Peter Pan” generation for its predisposition to put off typical adulthood norms like marriage, having children and buying real estate. They have a propensity to be more mobile and nomadic, as they take advantage of technology and rapidly changing environmental factors. With this generation we find the slowdown in career choices towards surveying, even though technology and spatial data acquisition have exploded with potential.
Gen Z, iGen, or Centennials: Born 1996 – Current
This generation was born into technology, and it affects everything they do. From infancy they were experienced soothing music, dancing screens, interactive toys, and dolls teaching them new skills. This generation doesn’t know of a world without computers, cellphones, GPS-based maps or high-speed internet. Surveying has also benefitted from the technology explosion but it hasn’t captured the imagination of this generation sufficiently to develop future practitioners.
YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION. WELL, YOU KNOW…
The generational differences only tell part of the story. Each one faced its own challenges when it came to technology (or lack thereof), societal standards, and other facets of their respective eras. A succession of several Industrial Revolutions brought new tools for completing a wide array of tasks and procedures. Here is a summary of each of them in chronological order:
First Industrial Revolution (1784)
Mechanical production via water and steam power led the way during the late 1700s and began a trend of radical changes in the ability to create larger items. The Gunter chain and surveyor’s compass, both invented in the 1600s, were the mainstay of measuring tools during this time period.
Second Industrial Revolution (1870)
Mass production and increases in labor opportunities coupled with the adaptation of electricity in many areas enabled people to flourish like no other time to date. The optical theodolite with horizontal angle measurement was introduced and then mass produced in the late 1800s to help surveyors make more progress westward.
Third Industrial Revolution (1969)
A significant leap forward in technology occurred with the invention of the microprocessor in the late 1950s, followed quickly by rapid development of electronic machines designed to follow manual instructions. Programmable controllers and devices were born from the fast-paced development of sophisticated miniaturized circuitry. These developments were used to create measurement devices for sending infrared and visible light waves across long distances. In the late 1970s, technological advancements led to the development of electronic theodolites or total stations. These instruments were the first to be able to electronically determine the horizontal and vertical angles normally read manually by the operator, and to combine this data with electronic distance measurement. Further development created methods of storing this data electronically for input into computer calculation and drafting programs.
Fourth Industrial Revolution (Current)
Industry experts differ as to when the Fourth Revolution began, but all agree we have turned the corner and are now fully entrenched into a new realm. Further miniaturization of computer chips, advanced sensors and storage, and robotic mechanisms have introduced a new reality for everyone, including the surveyor. Today’s practitioner has many sophisticated tools available for work, including GNSS receivers, laser or LiDAR scanners, UAVs with a multitude of sensors, hydrographic vehicles with single and multi-beam fathometers, and many more instruments currently under development.
Surveyors now have more tools than ever available to perform their tasks. Now we must cross-reference these revolutions with the practitioners from the various generations to help us understand upon which road the profession is headed.
TECHNOLOGY MEETS GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES; WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
One thing that stood out in my aforementioned discussion with the young surveyors’ group was how much they were embracing technology not just in their every day lives and communication, but how they understood the enhanced abilities of the latest tech and instruments for surveying. They see the value in large data, point clouds and BIM (building information modeling) needed for industry use.
The general consensus from this group was that my generation (Gen X) and earlier (Baby Boomers) are easily dismissive of their enthusiasm for incorporating these new technologies into our workflow simply as ways to shortcut old methods done by more labor-intensive means. While I initially tried, myself, to dismiss this suggestion, further research has only proven their point: their creativity and desire to further the profession is indeed being stifled by the group that should be leading and mentoring them.
Cross-correlating the generations with their various personalities and quirks with the amalgamations of industrial revolutions turns up some interesting results. Gen Xers and earlier surveyors were strictly taught by their managers and mentors that both historical data and original monuments are sacred and not to be denied. This information was derived from the most basic of survey instruments and measuring equipment, with accuracy that is not acceptable by today’s standards.
But the tradition remained: if it was good enough for our forefathers to establish the early frontier, then more accurate measuring devices are simply overkill. New sophisticated robotic total stations, GNSS receivers and robust data collectors available as a result of the Third Industrial Revolution are shiny objects that stand in the way of “good surveying,” in the opinion of the elder surveyors.
Millennial surveyors, meanwhile, look at the world with a different vision and much different solutions. Most of them were not exposed to televisions with just three channels, telephones mounted on walls, or kitchens without microwave ovens, to just to name a few “antiquities.” Their families have always owned a computer and the library is a place where you go to study. Research isn’t looking in an encyclopedia; you Google. They embracw cellphones with a multitude of apps and functions, including location services within a few feet, practically as extensions of themselves.
The equipment produced for surveyors today is well within their wheelhouse as it maps a multitude of points and features in a blink of an eye. Accuracy and detail are no longer an issue — but adapting that data to legacy deeds and maps is where us old timers can help bridge the gap.
Another problem that has proven to be a yawning void between the generations is the remnants of the economic slowdown of 2007-2012. Many Baby Boomer and Gen X surveyors learned to do more with less. Times were tough and we couldn’t afford to upgrade to the latest versions of total stations, GNSS, software, or invest in new technologies like laser scanning. There was also an exodus of technicians simply because there was no work in surveying for the time period, and they found employment in other professions. That left a void in who was doing the work (now being completed by upper level surveyors with older skill sets), and having no younger personnel to train and groom for future career growth.
There were many technological advancements during that time frame but overall the industry suffered because of the economic downturn. The Millennials, most of whom were too young to be employed during this period, now are faced with working for an older profession that couldn’t afford to stay current with technology and who have trouble relating to the motivations of the younger generation.
CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
I believe the surveying profession is at a crossroads, one based upon the gap caused by the generation / technology combination described above. Steps must be taken to rectify this. Here are a few of the pathways to closing the gap and becoming a solid profession for the future:
Embrace the mentor/mentee relationship, but be open to reversing the roles. The younger generations have a handle on the latest technology, so us old timers need to be more willing to close our mouths and open our ears and minds.
Create more opportunities for younger surveyors to participate in organizations so they can also be influencers. Keep in mind that they don’t typically like to “belong” to an organization, so adapt our professional groups and keep their interests in mind.
Change the way we communicate. Many Baby Boomers / Gen X members are critical of the younger generations and social media, yet this trend shows no sign, at all, of stopping. Smartphones are here to stay, so let’s learn to adapt, to remain in step with the youngsters.
Be willing to invest in new and emerging technology. Who know where the next radical survey technique will come from if you don’t have an open mind and checkbook? Invest not only in equipment but your young staff’s future.
Encourage younger staff to get involved in something. Anything. Social interaction can lead to better communication skills and expose them to more business situations. Don’t push them in over their head,s but get them to be “uncomfortable” occasionally. They will thank you for it.
Many professions and occupations will suffer in the next 3–5 years because of attrition through retirement, incapacitation and death. These workforces will lose 20–40% of their workers. Those left will have to pick up the slack and then some. We need to either
A) hire a lot more surveyors, or
B) figure out how to make it work with less bodies.
The conversation that took place in that meeting room with the young surveyors has made a deep impression on me and has changed my focus on the future of surveying. How does this apply to an article in a geospatial publication? Simple: these are the future users, purchasers and adopters of geospatial equipment and software, and the setters of industry standards.
The younger generation understands how to use today’s technology, and the surveying profession overall needs to embrace that fact. The technology won’t mean a thing if we don’t have the bright minds to use it to its full potential.
So I ask you again to embrace, encourage and listen to the young surveyors; they will thank you for it.
The survey team set up the base station in Everest base camp. (Photo: Tshiring Jangbu Sherpa via Nepal24hours.com)
A Nepali survey team made a successful ascent of Mount Everest to measure its official height.
This is the first height survey conducted by the government of Nepal. The precise height of Mount Everest — now listed as 29,029 feet, or 8,848 meters — has been contested since the first survey by British officers in 1849.
Nepal plans to end the controversy and declare both snow and rock height of the world’s tallest mountain.
Chief Survey Officer Khimlal Gautam and surveyor Rabin Karki reached the peak of Mt. Everest on May 22 at 3 a.m. local time and collected data from a Trimble R10 GNSS receiver gifted from New Zealand.
The surveyors stayed atop the peak for about 1 hour, 16 minutes, according to Nepal24hours.com.
The final result of the official height measurement of Mt.Everest is expected within the next six months.
“To make the observation of data on GNSS we spent one hour and 16 minutes in the summit which was a very challenging and trying time for us,” Gautam said. “We faced extreme difficulty mainly while descending from the summit.”
According to Tshering Janbu Sherpa, guide leader of the survey team, the team faced difficulties because of the exhaustion of oxygen of one member, who was rescued during the descent.
Besides a GNSS survey at the summit, teams conducted precise leveling, trigonometric leveling and gravity surveys. The GNSS survey will cover 285 points with 12 different observation stations, nine of which are in hills of Sankhuwasava, Bhojpur and Solukhumbu districts.
Sokkia introduced the latest addition to its GNSS integrated receiver line — the GRX3. According to the company, the GRX3 is designed to provide a smaller, lighter and fully integrated GNSS solution.
Photo: Sokkia
“The multi-constellation GRX3 receiver is built to offer a complete and versatile solution to provide best-in-class positioning performance for a wide variety of precision applications,” said Alok Srivastava, director of product management.
“Whether using the receiver for GNSS post-processed surveying, or RTK using wireless technologies including network RTK option with a cellular-equipped field computer, a SiteComm RTK rover, or paired with a Sokkia total station for fusion positioning, the GRX3 provides the most advanced and powerful GNSS technology available in a more compact and lightweight housing that can withstand the harshest of environmental conditions. Combine it with one of Sokkia’s data collectors and field software for maximum versatility and convenience, increasing fieldwork efficiency from start to finish.”
The receiver features Sokkia Tilt technology, which includes a 9-axis inertial measurement unit and ultra-compact eCompass designed to compensate for mis-leveled field measurements by as much as 15 degrees.
“The GRX3 is designed as a ‘future-proof’ solution with an advanced GNSS chipset with Universal Tracking Channels technology that automatically tracks signals from all available and planned constellations — including GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou, IRNSS, QZSS, SBAS,” Srivastava said.
The receiver has been tested to meet IP67 certification for protection against harsh environmental weather conditions.
Mountainous areas present special problems for surveyors, overcome by the expanded availability of multi-GNSS. (Photo: Trimble)
Today’s GNSS satellites transmit on three or more carrier frequencies. The quality of the data in these signals from GPS, BeiDou, Galileo, GLONASS and QZSS reveals the expected measurement precisions. This article explores the noise of the range residual and ionospheric residual to indicate the oncoming capabilities.
Today, four GNSSs transmit various codes on various carrier frequencies: the USA’s GPS, Russia’s GLONASS, Europe’s Galileo and China’s BeiDou. Most of the carrier phase and pseudorange data are available using civilian GNSS receivers. Improvements in signal quality as well as reliability of the satellites are foreseen through the generations, as well as the introduction of new signals, such as L1C, L2C, L5 carrier and codes, and M-codes, on top of the existing L1-C/A code and the P(Y) code on both L1 and L2. Improvements are also seen in boosting the transmitting power.
This article investigates the use of two approaches to analyze the relative noise in the various carrier phase and pseudorange observable for GPS, BeiDou, Galileo, GLONASS and Japan’s Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) augmentation. Two approaches analyze the relative noise in the observables: the range residual and the ionospheric residual. Both techniques can also be used to detect cycle slips.
Range Residual
UAV survey operations benefit from multi-GNSS receivers. (Photo: Septentrio)
The range residual is simply the change from one epoch to the next in the difference in the range calculated using the pseudorange and the range calculated by the carrier phase on a specific frequency. The pseudorange values are scaled using the wavelength to an equivalent range in units of the carrier’s cycles rather than meters. Equation 1 illustrates the range residual between the pseudorange ρ on a specific carrier frequency and the carrier phase observable φ, using the wavelength λ of the carrier to scale the pseudorange. The values of these observables are compared between adjacent epochs.
RR = (p/λ) – φ (1)
Two adjacent epochs are used, as then the integer ambiguity value, as well as the ionospheric and tropospheric errors, and satellite and receiver clock errors are the same, or negligibly different at such small (<1 s) epoch intervals. Therefore, these are all canceled out, and the resulting value is the measurement receiver and observable noise. The pseudorange observable will be significantly noisier than the carrier phase observable, therefore this method is a good way to calculate the measurement noise for the pseudoranges.
Ionospheric Residual
Surveyors work the Berezitovy mine in the North Amur region of Russia. (Photo: Javad GNSS)
If the carrier waves traveled only through a vacuum, then a phase observation from a specific satellite to a specific GNSS receiver could be scaled and converted to an equivalent phase measurement on another frequency using the frequencies of the carrier waves. However, as the signal passes through the ionosphere, systematic errors that are frequency dependent are introduced, so it is not possible to directly convert from one carrier phase value to another for a specific range measurement. The error is known as the ionospheric residual, and this will change slowly over time as the satellite passes overhead and the ionosphere being passed through changes, and also as the ionosphere slowly changes its characteristics over time, mainly due to the sun’s activities.
Equation 2 shows the calculation, using L1 and L2 carrier phase readings and corresponding frequencies, used to calculate the ionospheric residual. Again, the difference in the ionospheric residual values between adjacent epochs is used, as in the same way as the range residual values, external noise sources are eliminated.
(2)
Results
The results presented here are a subset of a much larger set. Figure 1 illustrates the range residuals for L1 and L2 as well as the L1L2 ionospheric residual for PRN32 (Block IIA satellite).
Figure 1. L1 range residual (left) L2 range residual (center) and L1L2 ionospheric residual (right) for GPS PRN32 (Block IIA) satellite. (Charts: Authors)
Figure 2 illustrates the L1 and L5 range residuals and the L2 (C-code) L5 ionospheric residual for PRN01 (Block IIF satellite).Both figures’ data are for the complete passing of the satellites from horizon over and back down again.The data for PRN32 is all that exists in the datafile, as this satellite only transmits L1 CA code and P(Y) code, as well as L2 P(Y) code, and corresponding carrier values.
Figure 2. L1 range residual (left) L5 range residual (center) and L2 (C code) L5 ionospheric residual (right) for GPS PRN01 (Block IIF) satellite. (Charts: Authors)
PRN01 is a block IIF satellite, and data for L1 CA code, L2 P(Y) code as well as L2 C-code, L5 code, and corresponding carrier phase values are recorded in the datafile.The block IIF satellites can result in four range residual values and five ionospheric residual combinations.Figure 2 only illustrates three of these combinations.The data were obtained from the Curtin University GNSS repository on Sept. 1, 2015, gathered at a 1-Hz epoch interval; 29,908 epoch of data were gathered for PRN32, and 26,073 epochs for PRN01.
It can be seen from these figures that the L1 range residuals are similar in characteristics for both PRN01 and PRN32.The values are noisy at the start and the end of the time series, indicating that the CA code is more prone to noise at low elevations.Comparing these to the L2 (PRN32) and L5 (PRN01) range residuals, we can see that both the L2 and L5 range residuals are not as prone to low elevation noise. Also, the two L2 and L5 range residuals are visually similar in characteristcs.By comparing the L1L2 and L2L5 ionospheric residuals (Figure 1, right, and Figure 2, right), we can see that the L1L2 combination is slightly noisier than the L2L5, in particular at low elevation angles.
If we compare BeiDou ionospheric residual results, we can see the comparison of noise on the three ionospheric residual combinations, B1B2, B1B3 and B2B3, as well as the results from the three types of satellite orbits, ie MEO, IGSO and GEO. Figure 3 illustrates the ionospheric residual results for PRN07 (IGSO) for the three frequency combinations, from data gathered on a static pillar located on top of the University of Nottingham Ningbo China’s Science and Engineering Building.
Figure 3. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN07 (IGSO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Chart: Authors)
Figure 4 illustrates the ionospheric residual results for PRN01 (GEO) for the three frequency combinations.
Figure 4. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN01 (GEO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Chart: Authors)
Figure 5 illustrates the ionospheric residual results for PRN12 (MEO) for the three frequency combinations. Here it can be seen that the B2B3 combination is generally less noisy than the B1B2 and B1B3. In addition to this, it can be seen that when the MEO and IGSO satellites are at lower elevation angles, the observables also become noisier. The GEO satellites have a constant elevation angle, and do not experience this phenomenon.
Figure 5. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN12 (MEO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Charts: Authors)
Detailed Results
The data, gathered on a single GNSS receiver located at the University of Curtin’s GNSS research center, was downloaded in BINEX format and converted into RINEX 3.02 format using RTKLIB software. Software was developed by the authors in Matlab in order to interrogate the data files and implement the range residual and ionospheric residual algorithms. RINEX 3.02 format was chosen due to its compatibility with multi-GNSS and multi-frequencies.
Industrial UAV applications such as construction draw benefits from multi-GNSS receivers’ capabilities. (Photo: Skycatch, Swift Navigation)
Results are presented for both ionospheric residual and range residual results for various GNSS. These results have been calculated with varying elevation mask angles, ranging from 0° to 55° at 5° intervals. The RMS values of the resulting ionospheric residuals and range residuals were calculated and plotted against the respective elevation mask angle for each satellite and frequency combinations. This illustrates the influence of the elevation mask angle used on the results.
Typically, tens of thousands of epochs of data were used for every plotted point in the following figures. Further to this, not only are the results for the various frequencies and frequency combinations for the various GNSS illustrated, but also the various satellite types, MEO, GEO and IGSO, and various satellite Blocks for GNSS. GPS Block IIA (PRN04 and PRN32), Block IIR (PRN14), Block IIR-M (PRN31) and Block IIF (PRN01, PRN26, PRN25) data were all analyzed. Thus, the comparison of the various frequencies within each satellite system are illustrated, as well as the variations by comparing the various satellite constellation types and the various generations of GPS satellites.
Surveying accuracy is critical to roadway construction. (Photo: Leica Geosystems)
The BeiDou data illustrated are MEO (C12, C14, C11), IGSO (C09, C10, C07) and GEO (C01, C02). The data used were gathered on Sept. 1, 2015, in order to include GPS Block IIA satellites (PRN04 and PRN32). PRN32 was retired in June 2016, and PRN04 was taken out of active service in November 2015, but the satellite was reactivated in March 2018, this time broadcasting PRN18.
Figure 6 illustrates RMS of the range residual results for GPS (a), BeiDou (b), Galileo (c), GLONASS (d) and QZSS (e) respectively. These figures have been drawn so that the y-axis ranges are the same for each, hence illustrating the relative values.
Figure 6A illustrates the range residual results for GPS. It can be seen that the L1 CA code results are the noisiest, with PRN14 being the noisiest, followed by PRN31, PRN26, PRN01, PRN04, PRN25 and PRN32. It can also be seen with these results that lower elevation angle mask increases the noise level. Both the L2 and L5 code results are less noisy.
Figure 6A. RMS range residual results for GPS. (Chart: Authors)
Looking at the detail, the L5 code results is less noisy than the L2 and affected less than the L1 results by the changes in elevation mask angles used. Interestingly enough, the data file includes both the L2 P(Y) code and L2C code results. L2C only exists on the Block IIR-M and Block IIF satellites. The L2C code results are generally noisier than the L2 P(Y) code.
Figure 6B illustrates the results for the range residuals for the BeiDou satellites. Here it can be seen that the B1 code is affected more by low elevation mask angles than B2 and B3. It can also be seen that both the geostationary satellites’ B1 results stand out, with satellite C02 being noisier than C01. The B2 and B3 values for both these GEO satellites are bunched up with the majority of the other results towards the middle of the figure. The pairs of B2 and B3 results for the GEO satellites are close to each other in values, and the pairs of B2 and B3 results for the other satellites are also close to each other.
Figure 6B. RMS range residual results for BeiDou. (Chart: Authors)
It can also be seen that the range residual results for BeiDou are generally less noisy than than GPS, in units of cycles.
Similarly, for Galileo, Figure 6C, the E1 results are worst, and affected more by low elevation masks. Again, generally the Galileo results are seen to be improved over GPS. The GLONASS results, Figure 6D, illustrate that the L1C results are generally noisier, and then the L1P, followed by L2C and L2P. PRN09 is also consistently generally noisier than PRN10. Finally, Figure 6E illustrates the results for QZSS. Again, L1C is the noisiest and affected most by low elevation mask angles.
Figure 6C. RMS range residual results for Galileo. (Chart: Authors)Figure 6D. RMS range residual results for GLONASS. (Chart: Authors)Figure 6E. RMS range residual results for QZSS. (Chart: Authors)
Figure 7 illustrates the ionspheric residual results for the same satellites as Figure 6. This time, however, the resulting ionospheric residual values are calculated using pairs of data from the same satellite on different carrier frequencies. The range residual results compare the code and carrier from specific satellites and frequencies.
Figure 7(a) shows that the ionospheric residual results are affected by low elevation masks, and that the L1L2CW (L1 CA code and L2 P(Y) code available on all the satellites) combinations are the noisiest, followed by L2L5WX (L2 P(Y) code and L5 code available on Block IIF satellites, PRN 26, PRN01, PRN25), followed by L1L2CX (L1 CA code and L2 C code available on Block IIF and Block IIR-M satellites, PRN31, PRN26, PRN01 and PRN25), followed by L1L5CX (L1 CA code and L5 code, Block IIF satellites, PRN01, PRN25, PRN26) and finally the least noisy were the L2L5XX results (L2 C code and L5 code available on Block IIF satellites, PRN26, PRN25 and PRN01).
Figure 7A. Ionospheric residual results for GPS. (Chart: Authors)
Figure 7(b) illustrates the BeiDou ionospheric residual plots, illustrating that satellite C14 is much noisier for all three combinations of B1B3, BB1B2 and B2B3 in that order. The B1B2 combinations for the satellites are generally the noisiest, and then the B1B3 and B2B3 combinations are intertwined. The Galileo results again illustrate that the E1 combinations are generally noisier, and again we see the effect of low elevation angle masks, Figure 7(c). Generally, however, the Galileo results are less noisy than GPS, as are the BeiDou results.
Figure 7B. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou. (Chart: Authors)Figure 7C. Ionospheric residual results for Galileo. (Chart: Authors)
The GLONASS results are again generally the noisiest, and again PRN09 is noisier than PRN10, with the L1P combinations being noisier, Figure 7(d). Figure 7(e) for QZSS shows that there are generally two groups of results. The upper set consists of L1L2ZX, L1L5ZX, L1L2XX, L1L5XX, L1L6ZX and L1L6XX from highest to lowest noise respectively. The lower, less noisy, group consists of L1L2CX, L1L5CX, L2L5XX, L2L6XX, L1L6CX and L5L6XX from highest to lowest noise respectively. Further details about the various codes and carrier values can be found in the RINEX 3.02 manual produced by the IGS.
Figure 7D. Ionospheric residual results for GLONASS. (Chart: Authors)Figure 7E. Ionospheric residual results for QZSS.(Chart: Authors)
Conclusions
A surveyor checks an urban construction project. (Photo: Topcon)
These preliminary results illustrate that there are differences in the noise values for various GNSS, frequencies as well as satellite generations and orbit types. It can be seen that generally L1, B1 and E1 have noisier results, and are affected moreso by low elevation mask data, and hence multipath. It can also be seen that newer generations of satellites do indeed produce better quality data.
Some specific satellites produce lower quality data such as GLONASS PRN09 and BeiDou C14. This could be due to multipath produced at the satellite.
Today roughly 100 GNSS transmit data, and typically users can gather data from 30 to 50 at any time. Positioning requires nowhere near this number of satellites, therefore decisions are needed as to which satellites and which data to use in a positioning solution. Our findings imply that our approach could be used in such decision-making in GNSS processing software, helping the software to choose the optimum satellites to draw from in a positioning solution.
Acknowledgments
This work described in this article was first presented at the FIG 2018 conference held in Istanbul, Turkey. The authors acknowledge the use of data supplied from the Curtin University GNSS Centre.
Manufacturers
The GNSS receiver used is a Trimble NET R9, and the antenna is a Trimble TRM 59800.00 SCIS choke ring antenna. A ComNav K508 GNSS receiver supplied some of the BeiDou results.
GETHIN WYN ROBERTS is an associate professor at Fróðskaparsetur, the University of the Faroe Islands. He is past Chairman of the FIG’s Commission 6, Engineering Surveys, and previously held posts at the University of Nottingham both in the UK and in China. He holds a Ph.D. in engineering surveying and geodesy from the University of Nottingham.
CRAIG M. HANCOCK is an associate professor in Geodesy and Surveying Engineering and the head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China as well as the head of the Geospatial and Geohazards Research Group. He holds a PhD from the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
XU TANG is a research fellow at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China. He holds a PhD from Nanjing University.
A roundup of recent products in the GNSS and inertial positioning industry from the November 2018 issue of GPS World magazine.
OEM
Simulator signals
GPS L5 and Galileo E5 added to simulator
Photo: Rohde & Schwarz
Rohde & Schwarz has added GPS L5 and Galileo E5 simulation capabilities to its R&S SMW200A GNSS simulator. The R&S SMW200A GNSS simulator is designed for efficient test and characterization of multi-constellation and multi-frequency GNSS receivers. It now enables generation of complex and highly realistic test scenarios with up to 144 channels in the GNSS frequency bands L1, L2 and L5. In addition to GPS (L1/L2/L5), GLONASS (L1/L2), Galileo (E1/E5) and BeiDou (L1/L2), the R&S SMW200A also supports signal generation for QZSS and SBAS on L1. Channels can be routed to up to four RF outputs, so that even multi-antenna systems can be tested. The R&S SMW200A can generate complex coexistence and interference scenarios with multiple interferers.
The BlueSky GNSS Firewall enables critical infrastructure providers to harden the security of their operations from GPS threats and deliver a more reliable and secure service. The security-hardened system provides protection against GPS threats such as jamming, spoofing and complete outage. It also supports a range of precision timing technologies, including atomic clocks, to enable continuous operation when GPS may be completely denied for extended periods. The TimePictra software management suite provides centralized control and visibility of GPS reception across regional, national and global geographic areas. It can incorporate an optional internal miniature atomic clock.
For reference deployments, CORS networks and monitoring
The VeraChoke GNSS antenna. (Photo: Tallysman)
The VeraChoke is a high-accuracy choke ring antenna with a choice in form factor for reference and monitoring applications. The VC6100, the first model variant of the VeraChoke, shares a common high-efficiency element design with its counterpart VeraPhase. With the choke-style form-factor, however, the rings have been optimized for all GNSS signals and are slightly pyramidal in shape to improve reception of low-elevation satellites. The VC6100 offers a tight phase center variation (PCV) of no more than ±1 mm for every frequency. It is capable of receiving all GNSS signals, and achieves a very low axial ratio. The antenna also supports large and small SCIGN radomes.
Duro Inertial is a ruggedized version of Swift Navigation’s Piksi Multi dual-frequency real-time kinematic (RTK) GNSS receiver combined with Carnegie Robotics’ SmoothPose sensor fusion algorithm, which fuses GNSS and inertial measurements into a combined solution. The blending of GNSS and inertial measurements provides a dead-reckoning capability that allows Duro Inertial to provide a highly accurate, continuous position solution during brief GNSS outages and to deliver a robust precision navigation solution in harsh GNSS environments.
The durable Instinct has GNSS; three-axis compass; barometric altimeter; and wrist-based heart-rate sensor. The watch includes a built-in sports apps, smart connectivity and wellness data. It is built to endure challenging environments, and is constructed to military standards for thermal, shock and water resistance. The multi-GNSS feature helps users track their location in challenging environments, while the Garmin Explore app helps plan and track a trip.
The Navsight Land & Air Solution provides high-performance inertial navigation to make surveyors’ mobile data collection easier, whether for mobile mapping, GIS or road inspection. The solution consists of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), available at two different performance levels, connected to Navsight, a rugged processing unit embedding fusion intelligence and a GNSS receiver. It also has connections for external equipment such as lidar, cameras or computer. SBG’s fusion algorithms allow the company to get the best performance from inertial, odometer and GNSS technologies; exclude false GNSS fixes; and improve the trajectory in complicated areas such as urban canyons, forests and tunnels. The solution supports all GNSS constellations, and real-time kinematic (RTK) and precise point positioning services such as Omnistar and TerraStar.
iSTAR Pulsar is designed to capture 360-degree data while mounted on a vehicle, drone or on foot. An upcoming feature in cloud-based processing software VR.WORLD uses artificial intelligence and image recognition to analyze the images captured by iSTAR Pulsar so that objects like cars, trucks, traffic lights, road signs, pedestrians and cyclists can be automatically identified in images. Handheld 3D mobile mapping company GeoSLAM and mobile mapping software company Orbit GT have introduced integration with iSTAR Pulsar.
The SMART7 family features NovAtel’s GNSS + inertial navigation system (INS) SPAN technology; future-ready GNSS; Wi-Fi and internet protocol connectivity; superior tracking performance; and TerraStar-C PRO corrections. It is designed to increase GNSS availability, accuracy and reliability for major precision-agriculture equipment manufacturers. The SMART7-S includes SPAN technology, the SMART7-W includes Wi-Fi and an integrated NTRIP client, and the SMART7-I model also incorporates Ethernet. All SMART7 models provide exceptional positioning availability using signals from all constellations and frequencies to deliver assured positioning anywhere.
The DT301X rugged military-grade tablet is purpose-built to enhance the precision of 3D surveying, crime and crash scene reconstruction, and bridge and other construction inspections. An option is a dual-frequency GNSS module for real-time mapping and positioning. The tablet integrates the Intel RealSense depth camera, which provides real-time 3D imaging providing accurate measurements for CAD, engineering, design, utility management and crime-scene forensics. A high brightness 10.1-inch touchscreen offers flexible viewing in a wide range of lighting, and an Intel eighth-generation Core i5 or i7 processor offers high-performance while still being energy efficient. With high-capacity 60- or 90-watt hot-swappable batteries, the DT301X keeps working continuously, complemented with a variety of battery chargers so fully charged batteries are always available.
The Cedar CP3 rugged smartphone is capable of data collection and communication. It has a high-visibility 5.5-inch AMOLED display; 14- to 16-hour battery life operating at full brightness and running GPS; 16-megapixel user-facing camera and dual 12-megapixel rear camera; and 6 gigabytes of RAM with 64 gigabytes of internal storage.
Parachute rescue system DRS-5 is designed for multicopters up to 8 kg; the DRS-10 for multicopters weighing 5–20 kg. The system consists of a carbon cage in which the parachute is stored as well as associated electronics. The electronics, including the sensors, monitor the flight status of a drone independent of the flight controller. A sophisticated algorithm merges this sensor data, enabling automatic crash detection and parachute ejection. All flight data and movements are recorded in a black box.
PrecisionPass assesses UAV data collected in the field. The toolkit lets pilots quickly determine if a data-collection job meets the required criteria or if it needs to be collected again. PrecisionPass assesses coverage, assesses image resolution and quality, reviews required metadata, speeds upload and processing times, and packages data for processing. The immediate feedback reduces the risk of failures during the analysis stage, all but eliminating the need to re-fly a mission, so customer needs are met in a timely and cost-efficient manner.
The Skyfish computing platform fully automates crucial infrastructure inspection and measurement tasks. It supports DJI and PixHawk flight controllers and other drone architectures, as well as 3D modeling software from companies such as Bentley Systems. Its easy-to-use interface enables anyone to fly, inspect and model complex infrastructure. The platform also pre-processes the collected infrastructure data and metadata to help create impeccable 3D models.
OpenIMU is a professionally supported, open-source GPS/GNSS-aided inertial navigation software stack for low-cost precise navigation applications. Integrating an inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based sensor network improves navigation and self-location capabilities. It is aimed at developing autonomously guided vehicles for industrial applications, autonomous cars, industrial robots and drones. OpenIMU enables advanced localization and navigation algorithm solutions; its extensible software infrastructure provides the code needed for algorithm development. A hardware development kit includes JTAG-pod, precision mount fixture, EVB and an OpenIMU300 module that features Aceinna’s 5 deg/hr, 9-Axis gyro, accelerometer and magnetometer sensor suite with an onboard 180-MHz ARM Coretex floating-point CPU.
The Teseo-LIV3F module incorporates the Teseo III receiver. It speeds application development and adds up to 16 MB of Flash memory for firmware updating or data logging without a backup battery. Used by automotive and industrial sectors, the Teseo III multi-constellation receiver combines high accuracy with fast response time and low power consumption. The Teseo-LIV3F module enables makers and small engineering teams to leverage the Teseo III advantages in creating new products in the industrial and consumer market segments such as vehicle trackers, drones, anti-theft devices and pet locators, and systems for services such as fleet-management, tolling, vehicle sharing or public transportation.
Audi’s latest e-tron electric car will launch in Europe with a digital rear-view system. Developed by Ficosa, the camera monitoring system is made up of cameras and displays that replace traditional external side mirrors to increase safety and comfort. The vision system is comprised of two cameras, integrated into the sides of the car’s chassis, and two tactile displays inside the doors.
The UAV inspection industry continues to grow, as evidenced by these photos of actual end-user application. Unmanned systems follow precise flight paths to gather the data needed for inspection missions in the fields of insurance (home roof inspection), mining, construction and the pulp paper industry.
A free webinar on Thursday, Oct. 25 will show more of these applications and cover the requirements and challenges for positioning technology in commercial applications in urban and remote areas, including those generated by concerns about interference and spoofing.
Latest trends and challenges for drone-based aerial intelligence platforms for insurance and roofing applications
GNSS technology requirements for safe UAV BVLOS operations and a view of the regulatory frameworks
Importance of UAS traffic management systems (UTM)
Use cases in linear infrastructure inspection (railways, roads, power lines and others)
Challenges for GNSS systems in autonomous aerial vehicles and growing concerns about safety
Robustness of multi-GNSS receivers to jamming and spoofing
Latest innovation in GNSS technology concerning inspection applications and real-time accuracy/reliability
Earthworks contractors use this drone technology to perform detailed topographic surveys of project sites throughout all phases of construction. The new survey tool is reducing costs and time, allowing earthworks contractors to increase their profitability and ensure project success. (Photo: Paul Ross/Kespry)
In addition to a tailored application for roof inspections, targeted at insurance companies, UAV manufacturer Kespry provides a complete solution for construction and engineering companies to manage proposed and active earthwork operations. Without using multiple, cumbersome ground control points, survey-grade field data can be collected for an entire site in as little as 30 minutes.
In the webinar, attendees will learn how drone technology is being used to:
Validate proposed earthwork – reduce rework and extra earthmoving costs before the job begins
Safely measure earthwork activity – ensure subcontractor work and delivered material are constantly measured
Further application examples in construction projects will show how drones are providing construction companies with a new method for accurate survey work throughout their entire worksite that can:
Reduce up to 20 percent of total project costs by eliminating rework through regular cut and fill analysis of drone data
Eliminate up to 10 percent of earth moving costs through more accurate volumetric analysis
Perform more frequent surveys in-house with drones, reducing traditional survey equipment and service costs.
Kespry provides a complete solution for construction and engineering companies to better manage proposed and active earthwork operations. Without using multiple, cumbersome ground control points, survey-grade field data can be collected for an entire site in as little as 30 minutes. (Photo: Nathan Stump/Kespry)
In the first example show above, insurance claims for roof damage, the fully-autonomous system improves safety, reduces loss adjustment expenses, and delivers more accurate risk assessments, while reducing overall costs. For commercial property, the UAV solution helps prevent losses and informs underwriting decisions with high-resolution aerial and thermal imagery to identify exposures. Accurate, unbiased reports are easily prepared and shared with all parties. Mobile tools are provided to review inspection quality imagery within minutes of flight; artificial intelligence (AI) technology generates fully-dimensioned wireframes and 3D roof models
Drones for the pulp and paper industry
The drone and analytics platform enables companies to improve profitability through quick, cost-effective, and accurate surveying of chip and roundwood sites.
UAV applications in pulp and paper industry will be demo’d in the Oct 25 webinar (Photo: Jason Nichols/Kespry)
Kespry enables production plant and production managers to analyze stockpile inventories, better manage supply chain activity, and improve site operations — maximizing profitability across production and supply chain operations.
The company also supplies a drone-based AI platform for the aggregates and mining industry supplies accurate inventory management and mine planning. It will be demonstrated in the free October 25 webinar.
DT Research has launched the DT372AP-TR rugged real-time kinematic (RTK) tablet, a lightweight military-grade tablet that offers RTK to enhance the precision of position data derived from satellite-based positioning systems.
The tablet enables 3D point cloud creation with centimeter-level accuracy to meet the high standards required for scientific-grade evidence in court, the company said.
The DT372AP-TR RTK tablet is military-grade with an IP65 rating, yet lightweight — offering the versatility to be used in the field, office and vehicles.
A dual-frequency GNSS module is built into the tablet, which uses real-time reference points within 1- to 2-centimeter accuracy to position 3D point clouds created from aerial photogrammetry, using GPS, GLONASS and Galileo satellites. Users can measure with the RTK GNSS positioning directly using an external antenna for better survey-grade precision.
“We designed a more compact tablet that still offers all the functionality of a rugged RTK tablet, to give ultra-mobility to law enforcement and first responders who are already weighed down with heavy equipment,” said Daw Tsai Sc.D., president of DT Research. “With programmable side buttons and directional pad, this tablet combines ease of use with a small form factor and centimeter level accuracy, there is nothing in the market now in the same category that can offer this combination.”
The DT372AP-TR RTK tablet is compatible with existing survey and GIS software for mapping applications and brings together an advanced workflow for data capture, accurate positioning and data transmitting.
The tablet can be used in a variety of scenarios, including:
Forensic mapping. Public safety teams, investigators and crash reconstructionists can use the DT372AP-TR to accurately collect measurements that are scientifically and legally defensible by using the real-time centimeter reference points to position 3D point clouds created from aerial photogrammetry or take stand-alone measurements. By using the tablet with a drone for crime and crash scene investigation, cost goes down while accuracy and speed improve, helping to clear areas faster, thereby improving overall public safety.
Land surveying. Surveyors can use the DT372AP-TR RTK tablet to measure the altitudes, angles and distances on the land surface so that they can be accurately plotted on a map to determine property boundaries, construction layout and mapmaking.
E-construction. Construction workers can manage the collection, review, approval and distribution of highway construction contract documents in a paperless environment using the DT372AP-TR RTK tablet.
The tablet has been purpose-built for precision mapping in a variety of environments and includes the following features and capabilities:
Dual-frequency GNSS module. GNSS L1 and L2 RTK that receives GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou and QZSS signals up to 372 channels
High-performance CPU and Windows OS. Intel Pentium processor with Microsoft Windows 10 IoT Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM.
Brilliant sunlight-readable display. A 7-inch LED-backlight, high-brightness (800 nits) sunlight-readable screen with capacitive touch and 1280 x 800 resolution.
Superior wireless connectivity. Long-range Class 1 Bluetooth option powers connectivity up to 1,000 feet.
Mobile broadband option. For best field connectivity, there is an option for 4G mobile broadband for LTE, HESPA+, GMS/GPRS/EDGE, EV-DO, Rev A and 1xRTT.
Military standards. For use in harsh environments, the tablet is fully ruggedized to meet the highest durability standards with an IP65 rating, MIL-STD-810G for vibration and shock resistance and MIL-STD-461F for EMI and EMC tolerance.
High-capacity hot-swappable battery pack. Delivers 60 or 90 watts for up to 15 hours of continuous mobile communications.
Camera option. The optional back camera offers 5 megapixels, CMOS sensor and auto focus to capture project progress or record crash and crime scene details.
Accessories. External antennas, pole mount cradles, battery charging kits and digital pens.
Leica Geosystems has selected Getac’s fully rugged ZX70 Android tablet for the new Leica Zeno GG04 Plus Tablet package, designed for utilities, public services, transportation and construction.
The new partnership will allow Leica Geosystems to bring comprehensive geospatial data-collection capabilities to its customers in all terrains and weather conditions, according to a Getac news release.
Leica Geosystems selects Getac’s ZX70 tablet To power its new Zeno GG04 Plus Tablet solution. (PRNewsfoto/Getac)
The Zeno Mobile data collection app and Zeno GG04 plus smart antenna are designed to help customers capture highly accurate geospatial data quickly and effectively in the field.
By combining these products with Getac’s ZX70 Android tablet, Leica Geosystems has created a solution that offers measurement accuracy, connectivity and durability in a single, comprehensive package, Getac said.
Compact and powerful, the Getac ZX70 is comfortable to use with one hand, making it suitable for demanding field surveying work.
Its Android operating system supports Leica’s Zeno Mobile software, allowing for high-accuracy GNSS positions to be utilized and rich attribute data to be collected easily in the field.
Any authorized Android app can also be installed on the device, depending on the required workflow or back office systems used, bringing a high level of usability and familiarity out of the box, Getac said.
Additional key features include the 7-inch IPS display, which is easy to read in all environments, including direct sunlight. The LumiBond 2.0 touchscreen allows for full operation of the tablet in the rain and with gloves on, essential for outdoor surveying work.
The Getac ZX70’s integrated 4G modem can transmit large data files quickly and easily, even from remote locations.
The fast, stable and reliable data connection allows users to effectively utilize Hexagon Geosystems’ HxGN SmartNet correction service, enabling accurate GNSS measurement to within one centimeter.
The ZX70 offers durability, connectivity and usability, and has been designed to withstand shocks, drops, rain and vibration, the company added.
2018 State of the GNSS Industry survey respondents who identified themselves as from the survey sector constituted 30% of the total, corresponding to the percentage of the magazine’s readership.
What is the most promising and practical way to gain the increased accuracy that survey and other high-precision applications continue to demand? (Source: GPS World 2018 State of the Industry survey)
Higher Accuracy. Regarding the most promising technology to get the increased accuracy that surveying continues to demand, the outright choice was “dual-frequency, dual- or multi-constellation GNSS,” with “real-time kinematic” coming in second. Surprisingly, the newest technology to be introduced to GNSS receivers, inertial correction, lagged at just over 5%.
Inertial correction devices, which contain gyroscope and accelerometer technology, are now being installed in survey-grade receivers to increase accuracy and productivity. It’s a gamechanger in GNSS data collection for surveyors, so I am surprised by the survey results. These sensors work in conjunction with the receiver to more accurately collect positional information in relation to the point being acquired. While RTK positions are normally collected at 1-20 Hz, the inertial device works in tandem to further refine a more accurate location. As this technology becomes more publicized in phones and other devices, the surveying community will begin to take notice.
What role will drones (UAVs) play during the next three years in the survey sector? (Source: GPS World 2018 State of the Industry survey)
Drones. Concerning the role that drones (UAVs) will play in the next three years, by a slim margin — 47% to 42% — respondents state that up to 20% of their work will be completed by UAVs vs. those who feel less than 10% of their work will be done by a drone. Only1.3% answered that UAVs will take over most of their work and displace surveyors in the field for specific survey tasks.
I see UAVs becoming a standard equipment much like the EDM/total station and GNSS receivers, as it is clearly a unique tool for not just collecting visual images but as a remote sensing device. While it won’t replace workers in the field, it will allow crews to become more efficient, tech-savvy and valuable for human-only types of data collection.
Business. A whopping 85% of the survey sector found this market either “very healthy, with strong growth” (37%) or “relatively healthy, with moderate growth” (48%). This compares with total of 79% across all GNSS industry sectors. So we’re on top! That is, we are doing comparatively well amid the rest of the GNSS industry — which itself is in very good shape indeed.
Poll results reflect the positive nature of the surveying profession in relation to technology, specifically GNSS and the utilization of UAVs, in our every day work. Previously, introduction of new technology has been historically unreliable, less than user-friendly, and expensive. The trend with newer technologies, however, has been quite the opposite with shorter, easier learning curves and lower cost of entry. These factors have led more surveyors to upgrade their equipment, implementing newer technologies and thus creating more efficiency in the profession.
For more results from the 2018 State of the GNSS Industry, see this page.
TIM BURCH is a professional land surveyor and secretary, Board of Directors, National Society of Professional Surveyors.
A survey consulting firm accustomed to using drones to capture data in the field recently found that data gathering was taking too long, and after just one day, the field manager knew the project wasn’t going to meet budget.
“Some of the areas were more congested than we originally planned, and we had to consider other tools to do it better and faster,” said Mike George of Downtown Design Services Inc. (DDSI).
The company turned to an laser rangefinder and got the job back on track.
To learn more about the exact processes involved in Integrating a professional measurement and mapping laser to your GIS toolbox, both saving time and enabling collection of additional attribute data attend GPS World’s free webinar on Thursday, Aug. 16: LaserGIS: Your Gateway to Collect More GIS Data in Less Time.
George used the Laser Technology TruPulse 360 rangefinder as a first walk-around to obtain site data for the company’s drone, identifying the peak above ground level, establishing ground control points, and setting the pre-programmed grid for the flight. The laser rangefinder significantly sped up the process without sacrificing any measurement accuracy.
“As the project went along and we started processing data,” George added, “we realized that the drone didn’t capture everything, and that some data wasn’t as high-quality as we had hoped.” Many of the smaller trees in the area were difficult for the drone camera to pick up. “We needed to know they were there. We could shoot them using the LTI laser, mark them in the field notes, and have the drafters add them in later when creating the plats for review.”
After the drone mission, the field team used the laser to quickly survey the remaining landscape. With the appropriate heights and widths, DDSI could use the missing line routine with the built-in compass as well as the height routine to get the additional measurements they needed.
“The laser rangefinder was a huge time-saver because some of these sites had up to 100 trees, and trying to identify some of these smaller ones from the drone imagery proved very tough.”
The company also saved time from not having to make a second trip to each site. “You don’t know what you’re going to get until you get back to the office. It often takes four to six hours to process the drone imagery. But after processing and analyzing data for this project, we didn’t have to go back and fill in the gaps, because we knew we had what we needed.”
After surveying only 1.5 sites on the first day, switching to a laser rangefinder brought the team up to four sites a day, and the project was completed on time and on budget. DDSI also delivered comprehensive, high-quality documentation to its client, an architectural and engineering firm.
“When we turned our imagery over to the A&E team, they had high-resolution ortho-imagery instead of only the typical black-and-white deliverables,” George said. “The team found that invaluable.”
In the not-too-distant future, the following scenario may take place.
Image: Stockvault
A corporation owns an improved property in a large metropolitan city and has decided to sell it to a prospective buyer. Through a series of electronic messages and high-tech operations, the seller, buyer, their respective counsels, lending institutions and a title company are provided with documentation stating the condition of the site along with holograms and 3D digital models worthy of a science-fiction movie. In a matter of minutes, the deal is closed with monies and titles silently swapping places out in the ether.
Behind the scenes, the surveyor is a big part of this transaction. But how will the operation of the land title survey look in the future? Like everything else, artificial intelligence (A.I.) and blockchain technology will play a substantial role in surveying. I don’t profess to be the next Carnac the Magnificent, but it could look like this…
HOW IT ALL STARTS
The seller contacts their corporate attorneys to begin the contractual process. Requirements for the sale include acceptable and insurable conditions of the site and a clean title policy from a title insurance company, so the latest land title survey requirements will be held for site and title review. Once the seller and buyer are committed to a sale of the subject property, a blockchain is established in a transactional database to track every step of the sale.
Image: GSA
The attorney will consult with “Sheldon,” an artificial intelligence system built by a leading e-commerce company and designed to assist with business-to-business commerce. Sheldon will be used to secure the services of a land surveyor for the transaction. By researching available consultants based upon the information for the parcel contained within the blockchain, Sheldon contacts firms that could meet the criteria for this part of the transaction.
Once an appropriate firm is chosen by Sheldon, the data for the survey within the blockchain is uploaded to “Thomas,” a digital assistant designed specifically for surveyors. Thomas works with Sheldon and the blockchain to formalize an agreement, secure the necessary insurance requirements, and finalize a payment schedule for services.
ENTER THE SURVEYOR
Once the project is secured, Thomas creates a project file, downloads current satellite images, GIS data (including parcel, building and utility information), and recorded documents for the subject parcel. Among the information is parcel data for the project site. This data is based upon historical land surveys and converted into an accurate dataset in which most of the property and land corners are now included in the GIS database. All corners within the database have been installed or upgraded to contain an RFID chip imbedded within the top of the marker.
Image: NOAA
These GIS databases also take advantage of ongoing advancements of the North American Terrestrial Reference Frame of 2022 (NATRF2022). Beyond the initial implementation, the National Geodetic Survey has incorporated additional precision gained by improved L5 satellite reception and other nations’ satellite constellations in sub-centimeter location with most survey-grade receivers. Thomas compiles all site data into a comprehensive package for submission to the surveyor.
Because of the advancements with instrumentation and sensors in locating improvements both above and below the surface of the ground, the latest land title survey standard has moved all optional Table A items into required information to be provided on the plat. The standard also now requires a drainage analysis to be prepared to determine how the subject property relates to the adjacent parcels.
Thomas reviews the current backlog of project managers and assigns/transmits the project to the first available team. The chosen survey project manager receives the project information and creates an Ethereum blockchain file to work with the master blockchain and begin the survey process. By creating additional survey programming working in conjunction with the project blockchain, all parties involved in the transaction can monitor progress every step of the way.
The first responsibility of the survey PM is to work with Thomas to evaluate the existing data available for the project location. Current conditions from satellite imagery, improvement and utility information from existing governmental GIS databases, and parcel/easement information from recorded document sources are used to determine flight paths for UAVs utilizing multiple sensors, avoiding substantial obstacles. This process will also establish areas to be surveyed/verified by mobile methods where aerial data cannot be obtained.
All available information is processed by Thomas to establish the most efficient routes and methods of data collection for the parcel through software designed to compile and review spatial datasets. This software is specifically designed to review existing information for potential conflicts in flight and on-the-ground obstacles. Once completed, a flight plan for the UAV and route plan for the autonomous mobile vehicle will be reported with missed areas identified for manual data collection.
FIELD WORK ON STEROIDS
When the time arrives for field work to begin, a technician is dispatched in an autonomous electric truck pre-programmed to go directly to the site. The truck is loaded with various survey-grade instruments and equipment (all GNSS equipped): vertical take-off fixed wing and multi-rotor UAVs (both with lidar, photo, hyper-spectral, and GPR sensors), an autonomous mobile ground robot (with GPR/lidar sensors), and an RFID reader for boundary location.
The technician works with the equipment through a universal tablet computer controlling both aerial and ground data collection simultaneously, depicting the progress of the work in real time. This gives the technician time to locate the boundary points with the handheld GNSS receiver/RFID reader to verify the limits of the property.
Once the autonomous work is finished, the technician processes the data on site, and software compares collection coverage versus the initial site review. When processing is complete, the technician will utilize a handheld GNSS receiver with lidar sensor to obtain remote areas not collected by the other methods.
The remaining data is compiled with autonomous data and re-analyzed for overall coverage and approved by the software for completeness. Once the computer determines everything has been collected, the technician checks the complete box and leaves the site.
OFFICE WORK AND WRAP-UP
The final field data is uploaded to cloud servers as the technician leaves the site and the survey PM is notified by electronic message of the field task completion. Thomas, the digital surveying assistant, takes the lead and begins the final processing. The data is reviewed for completeness, parsed for any anomalies within the downloads, and compiled into one database for building a 3D model of the site.
Photo and lidar data are compared for accuracy, utilities are verified against existing records and easements, and building characteristics are matched against governmental records for zoning code compliance.
Once this analysis is complete, the final drafting takes place to create the final deliverable. While the data within the model contains attributes of each entity, labels are placed interactively throughout the site to help depict the site information. This model is also suitable for use by architects and planners to utilize in their B.I.M. design programs, so the quality in the modeling output is top notch.
The final deliverable contains an overall report documenting site conditions, drainage characteristics and physical conditions of various entities. This report will also detail potential site encroachments, possible drainage issues, and zoning/parking red flags. Thomas will report back to the survey PM that all final checks have been made and deliverables made for submittal to the client, leaving only the final transmittal left to do.
Once the deliverable is received by the client, Sheldon (the B2B automated assistant) recognizes the delivery and begins the process of payment to the surveyor. With standardized surveys, automated assistant/analyzation systems, and trackable processes through blockchain, the client gets a quality product at a market rate in an acceptable timeframe and the surveyor gets paid in a reasonable period.
THEN WE ALL WOKE UP TO REALITY…
Maybe this fictional situation for land surveyors won’t be a reality in my lifetime, but I’m not willing to bet against it. I look back at my short 30+ year career and still marvel at the technological advancements yet I acknowledge we are still turning a corner in computing power (see May’s column). I remember the introduction of laser scanners and lidar sensors as future data-collector saviors, gathering multitudes of precise and accurate data much faster than any mortal. Now we have UAVs that can soar above us with little interference and provide images and data at a reasonable cost, so technology does benefit us.
But what about data that is automated to the point it is beyond the control of the surveyor? And what does this do to our shrinking surveying workforce?
Some may say it is a godsend on both accounts. I personally won’t turn out a product or survey in which I don’t have a good understanding of what the data represents or how it was collected; that violates a code of ethics of practicing beyond my expertise. I also don’t think automation will eliminate our technicians, but the surveying profession will need to provide adequate training for our next generation.
“I’M SORRY, DAVE. I’M AFRAID I CAN’T DO THAT.”
We live in a world in which so many things are automated (Alexa, Siri and “Hey, Google”) to assist us with even the most mundane of tasks. Amazon recently introduced a store where the customer doesn’t stop at a cashier; just grab the items off the shelf and walk out. Apple introduced its latest iPhone that opens by recognizing your face. Automation is here to stay, whether we like it or not.
Image: MGM
An article by the Pew Research Center (“Automation is Everyday Life“) described in detail the amount of anxiety that automation instilled in Americans. Many felt that while there are opportunities to increase productivity and profitability in many sectors, that will be offset by lost jobs replaced by automation. Others were also troubled by automation becoming more prevalent in medical treatment of senior citizens.
For many, the thought of automation isn’t nearly as scary as the concept of “artificial intelligence.” While most of the processes involve machine learning (ML) and refining results based upon increasing datasets, computing power is increasing and introducing new methods including “deep learning.” The algorithms being produced by deep learning through neural networks are making smarter decisions as they use larger and more complicated datasets.
From a June article for The Atlantic, Henry Kissinger (yes, that Henry Kissinger) offered these thoughts on A.I.:
Henry Kissinger (Photo: The Atlantic)
Ultimately, the term artificial intelligence may be a misnomer. To be sure, these machines can solve complex, seemingly abstract problems that had previously yielded only to human cognition. But what they do uniquely is not thinking as heretofore conceived and experienced. Rather, it is unprecedented memorization and computation. Because of its inherent superiority in these fields, AI is likely to win any game assigned to it. But for our purposes as humans, the games are not only about winning; they are about thinking. By treating a mathematical process as if it were a thought process, and either trying to mimic that process ourselves or merely accepting the results, we are in danger of losing the capacity that has been the essence of human cognition. (June 2018)
He also makes a strong statement that the United States needs to develop a national vision for AI like other countries (i.e. China, Russia, India) to stay competitive in computing power.
TRANSLATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INTO SURVEYING
The point of this discussion wasn’t to be “doom and gloom” of technology. I look forward to enjoying many of the advancements of AI and blockchain advancements. Many of the advantages of both technologies have not been brought to the surveying forefront yet, but it will only be a matter of time.
My one big fear to automation attempting to overtake and regulate some functions of surveying leads back to boundary determination and the increasing use of holding technology/mathematics over monumentation, hence Kissinger’s comment regarding human cognition. The rules of construction will always hold true in my boundary analysis until there is a time and place where all parcels (original and retracement) are created in a mathematical vacuum.
I also don’t see a timeframe yet that reduces the amount of measurement error between survey practitioners utilizing differing methods and technologies. Survey equipment manufacturers are still refining ways to get more precision from their GNSS receivers, yet still put them on a pole with a bullseye bubble that needs constant checking. Even tribrachs and total stations aren’t checked as often as recommended, but we always seem willing to argue over who measures better.
Until we get more consistent in our overall measuring as a profession, I’ll hold off on worrying about artificial intelligence taking over.
In the meantime, let’s back off calling a corner monument off by 0.03’ just yet. Let’s hope that when A.I. does become more prevalent, the surveying profession will have its collective heads wrapped around our own intellect as well.
