Tag: surveying

  • The day GPS went away

    The day started like any other day. The land surveying crew loaded up their vehicle, equipment and marching orders to tackle the next project on the list.

    This field party is like most surveyors across the globe — they are equipped with the latest surveying technology including GPS base and receivers, robotic total station and a UAS for aerial photography. These tools are necessary to be competitive in today’s surveying arena as speed and productivity are paramount to the success of the project and the company.

    But on this day, any device with the ability to determine geographic location via satellite reception was rendered useless.

    Today became known as the day that GPS went away.

    How we  became dependent on GPS

    Let’s back up the story to the introduction of GPS and how our dependency on this technology came to be. With the invention of satellites culminating with the Russian effort to launch Sputnik, the United States became involved in a “race to space.” Our early efforts to use satellites were proven worthy with the successful ability to track submarines by reception of radio signals and trilateration.

    Further enhancements through research resulted in the development and creation of the NAVSTAR satellite in 1978. By 1993, 24 satellites were in orbit to make the GPS system fully functional (NASA.gov).

     

    Meanwhile, the Russians were committed to a satellite network for navigational purposes during the same time period. The first satellite, Kosmos-1413, was launched in 1982 with the full 24 satellite constellation becoming operational in 1995.

    Together, these systems (known as global network satellite systems or GNSS) allowed for location and navigation abilities never thought possible, and the surveying community began its adoption of the technology.

    Early survey adopters of GPS were usually large engineering firms, state departments of transportation (DOTs) and federal agencies that could afford the large financial commitment to the equipment (both GPS and computers), software and computing costs required to use the technology.

    The data-collection times were long, and the software analysis required enormous patience and extensive mathematical knowledge, but the results were beyond what the everyday surveyor had ever before accomplished.

    Significant distances could now be measured with the same or better accuracy than taping or using an electronic distance meter could have provided. The true revolution came when real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS was invented and was affordable to the everyday surveyor (GPS World, May 2016).

    S/A and A-S

    Most GPS users, especially operators of survey-grade receivers, are not aware of the early days of satellite navigation and the military’s use of selective availability, otherwise known as S/A (GPS World, Sept/Oct 1990). This methodology was implemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) on May 25, 1990 to limit accuracies for non-military GPS users.

    This procedure was created to allow erroneous timing at random occurrences throughout transmission of satellite radio signals. These variations in timing more than negatively tripled the normal precision of an autonomous GPS position calculation, all in the name of introducing uncertainty to potential enemy users.

    And if S/A wasn’t enough, the DoD also could implement another deterrent called anti-spoofing (A-S) and encrypt the precision or P-code of the satellite signal. The big factor here is that the general public (in our case, the surveying community) didn’t know if or when A-S was turned on. These factors were frustrating to the GPS user, so data collection and coordinate determination became a tedious operation.

    Early receiver use by surveyors relied on differential GPS data collection for high-accuracy location (<10 cm or better). This method consisted of placing one or more receivers on known positional points (usually on monuments published through the National Geodetic Survey) while simultaneously performing data collection on new points for positional establishment.

    Prior to S/A, the software utilized to analyze and reduce the data collection provided feedback on “bad” data, but there were usually environmental issues causing the problem (such as cycle slips and radio interference.) The software would highlight the suspect data for the reviewer to determine validity and acceptance.

    Because of the nature of differential GPS data collection, error checking remained the same once S/A was implemented. If the software calculated an incorrect coordinate at a known point, the same measurements to the new survey point were dismissed as a false reading.

    Surveyors were mostly left unfazed by S/A as real-time kinematic (RTK) and real-time network (RTN) follow a similar procedure utilizing a correction from a known terrestrial point. Even with the anti-spoofing activated, the surveying profession continued to use this high-tech location system that revolutionized long distance measurement. Things have been running along smoothly with steady improvement of receivers, data collectors, and data coverage until…

    The day it goes away

    …the unthinkable happens. Our national satellite system is no longer available.

    It doesn’t matter why GPS has gone away on this day. It could be for many different reasons: federal budgets; enemy interference such as geomagnetic disturbances (GMD) or electromagnetic pulse (EMP);
    conventional or nuclear war; interference from solar storms, asteroids, or comets; or the system just simply breaks.

    Artist’s rendering of a cross-section of the Earth’s magnetosphere. (IMAGE: NASA)

    Another thing for all users of GNSS to consider in these tumultuous times is how newer systems are integrating other countries’ satellite networks into their navigational observations.

    Our relationship with the Russian government can be on unsteady ground from time to time, so our use of their GLONASS signals must be reviewed for accuracy as well (See GPS World, August 2017).

    It won’t matter whether a spoofed satellite signal originates from a private Russian hacker or from their actual government; it will still lead to incorrect information and bad data. Imagine having to revise a plat because the GLONASS data was purposely corrupted!

    Obviously, the main reason they would allow transmittal of misinformation would be for military reasons, but I can only imagine their joy of messing with professional navigation and the recreational users in the U.S. These opportunities will also apply to the Chinese and Indian constellations, too.

    We’re not ready

    The bottom line is that we, the U.S., aren’t ready for it. Whatever may be the reason for the failure, we do not have a backup plan and have relied much too heavily on satellite navigation. Gone is our ability to navigate through our electronic devices, including smartphones, fitness trackers, in-car mapping and, yes, high-precision surveying equipment. These items have now become door stops and space wasters.

    This new conundrum doesn’t just stop with the surveyor and recreational GPS equipment. A significant amount of construction equipment relies on machine control, from bulldozers and road graders to high-rise cranes.

    This will also affect a large amount of agricultural equipment and processes. Those high-tech tractors with autosteer and computer-guided planters? Back to the drawing boards. So many things in our lives today are guided or controlled by navigational systems designed around GPS use, and the surveyor is squarely in this mix.

    What’s a surveyor to do?

    The first thought on the surveyor’s mind is now having to perform all surveying tasks with instruments that are not based on satellite navigation. Yes, the reason for this GPS shutdown isn’t widespread enough to affect cellphone signals and other radio communications, but it killed off the one navigation system more people rely on than any other.

    Because of this unfortunate shutdown, all GPS-based equipment is now worthless. This means your trusty RTN receiver with cellphone connection, your old base unit for those times when cellphone coverage is lacking, the fancy new UAV for taking orthophotography, and your cellphone or handheld GPS receiver for tracking down NGS monuments — all of them are done. Only your conventional equipment will complete the job.

    Is the surveying profession finished? How do we locate those remote section corners in the middle of nowhere?

    Don’t throw in the towel just yet. Surveyors have been measuring land using these types of instruments for centuries, with today’s versions being electronic and sophisticated. Robotic servos, mini computer-data collectors, efficient radio links and active tracking prisms have turned our forefathers’ simple transit into a sophisticated topographic or construction staking machine.

    Data collection is much easier than writing everything in a field book, and have graphical interfaces and remote connection capability to keep you in touch with the office from nearly anywhere. The reality, however, is that the surveyor will now have to use methods and equipment for traversing, data collections and all staking tasks that will greatly reduce our productivity and profitability.

    Experience could also end up being a big factor here as well. The average age of the professional land surveyor in the United States is 58 and climbing. This means most of these practitioners have been in the business well before GPS technology, so there is still the potential of surveying without the electronic birds in the sky.

    Surveyors can still hang their shingle and practice their craft, but we’ve now lost a big component of our world: geographical location. The key to the success of GPS was the ability to determine geographic location and subsequently convert that information into a data format compatible with one’s local system. From UTM coordinates to State Plane, the world became smaller with this technology.

    The surveyor can still determine latitude and longitude using manual surveying methods for specifically observing the sun and Polaris. The mathematics and procedures are complicated, but they still allow for determining a geographical location with high accuracy.

    We can also utilize the extensive geodetic monumentation networks established nationwide, all started around the formidable effort by the Coastal and Geodetic Survey. This key federal agency, later to become the National Geodetic Survey, laid the groundwork and set the monuments for the backbone of our national horizontal network system. This system has been augmented over the years by their own programs, as well as state and local authorities, to expand our coverage to all portions of the United States.

    By incorporating these monuments into a survey, a relationship to geographical datums is still easily obtained. While these methods of establishing geographical coordinates through use of conventional equipment sounds time consuming, without GPS and other satellite-based navigational aids, it will become much more cumbersome.

    So, what do we do next?

    Depending on which industry you are in or your necessary level of accuracy, several alternatives are being developed. For those in the shipping industry (including the trucking sector, which numbers more than 15 million vehicles), accuracy may only need to be nominal — for instance, 5 meters, give or take.

    Several systems are in development with the biggest priority on enhanced loran (short for “long range navigation”) or eLoran (also see GPS World April 2014 and GPS World Nov 2015). Several bills are currently being reviewed in the U.S. House and Senate for consideration of funding this technology.

    Differential eLoran operation concept (graphic courtesy Ursanav).

    Another government agency, the U.S.Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been exploring backup technologies for GPS for many years. Among the systems being considered are Adaptable Navigation Systems (ANS), Microtechnology for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (Micro-PNT), Quantum-Assisted Sensing and Readout (QuASAR), Program in Ultrafast Laser Science and Engineering (PULSE) and Spatial, Temporal and Orientation Information in Contested Environments (STOIC) (love the government and their overuse of acronyms).

    These programs are still under development, but DARPA has been tasked with finding another system so our dependence on GPS will not cripple our defense in a time of war.

    Abraham Lincoln, the county surveyor — a statue at Lincoln’s New Salem State Historic Site, Illinois.

    Another alternative will be private satellite networks. With programs like SpaceX and Blue Origin, vehicles to carry new satellites into orbit are now a viable option. It will be possible for companies to create their own networks for private or commercial use.

    With the large number of construction, shipping and automobile sales, the day may come when the navigation system within each of these is proprietary. However, if we are faced with geomagnetic disturbances (GMD) or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) as mentioned earlier, it won’t matter whose network it is — they will all be rendered useless.

    Until another viable option is created, the surveyor will be forced to take a step back in productivity and technology with conventional instruments. While not the most ideal thing, it will force the profession to retrain its entire workforce on procedures and methods that haven’t been regularly utilized for many years.

    For some, it will be like throwing away the computer for a typewriter or the remote control for the television set. For others, it will be an opportunity to truly “follow in the footsteps” of past surveyors. They will understand exactly how their predecessors went about “running the lines” and completing a true boundary survey.

    I, however, hope we don’t find ourselves in this situation, and that a suitable backup system or even a more advanced replacement for our antiquated GPS is invented soon.

    But if the day comes and our GPS goes away, I’m guessing that surveyors not having their favorite locating device will be the least of our society’s worries. It will truly be a day that will live in infamy.

  • TerraGo partners with Western Data Systems for data collection

    terrago-logoTerraGo partnered with Western Data Systems (WDS), a provider of field data collection solutions to the surveying, construction and other infrastructure industries.

    In alignment with the partnership, WDS will launch P.L.A.N.I.T. (Points, Lines, Areas, Navigation, Information, Tasks), a mobile data collection platform built entirely using TerraGo Magic.

    “WDS has the experience and expertise to give customers the smartest, most cost-effective solution to meet their needs,” said John Timar, vice president of worldwide sales for TerraGo. “The combination of the best positioning technology and a fully customizable app will help their customers get field work done faster, better and cheaper than ever before.”

    Earlier this year, TerraGo released a new version of Magic. In addition, TerraGo will be hosting a webinar on Aug. 30, where the company will provide a live demonstration of the WDS P.L.A.N.I.T. mobile data collection platform.

  • What to expect from ION GNSS+ and Intergeo 2017

    What to expect from ION GNSS+ and Intergeo 2017

    Intergeo 2016

    It’s almost September. For the GPS World staff, this means scramble time. We have two important industry events to attend: The venerable ION GNSS+ conference and the huge Intergeo trade show.

    ION GNSS+ is the Institute of Navigation’s largest technical meeting and showcase of GNSS technology, products and services. Hundreds of papers are shared by experts in the field, in presentations and panels.

    The show has changed over the years to broaden its focus to applications, and added a “+” to its name to incorporate all the positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) technology that aids GNSS in location, much as we have also done in providing a new subtitle to our magazine.

    New this year are Short Courses, aimed at bringing your non-technical staff up to speed on the technology behind the industry, no matter their background. For instance, one course is “GNSS 101: An Introduction.”

    Intergeo, which is held each year in different city in Germany, comes to Berlin. The huge show, attended by about 17,000 people, is a conference and trade fair (emphasis on trade fair) for the fields of geodesy, spatial data, surveying, UAVs and land management.

    A hot topic at Intergeo continues to be Geospatial 4.0, the massive transformation where big data, mobility and cloud solutions are driving a new global digital economy.

    Other buzzed-about topics include photogrammetry, building information modeling (BIM) and smart cities.

    One important and timely topic is the need for infrastructure that ensures data security and protection. Once again, the Interaerial Solutions show for UAVs will take place as part of Intergeo.

  • Intergeo preview: Photogrammetry heads for new markets

    We’ve entered a new golden age for photogrammetry, powered by the ease of digitizing images and their ubiquitous availability.

    Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs. While science drives the process, business is driving a wealth of associated applications.

    “Photogrammetry is ahead of its time because everything is already fully digital in this discipline,” said Heinz-Jürgen Przybilla, professor of Geodesy at Bochum University of Applied Sciences.

    UAVs, digital cameras and image sensors on the Internet of Things, in aircraft or on satellites are opening up applications that only the world of science was predicting a few years ago.

    Intergeo Show. The developments that photogrammetry is setting in motion will be on display at Intergeo 2017, Sept. 26–28 in Berlin.

    The art of using photographs for surveying, which laid the foundation for present-day photogrammetry, dates back 150 years and involves developing processes to derive information from images that go far beyond simply viewing them. In recent years, the discipline has made huge progress, with businesses discovering new application areas.

    The high level of automation makes it possible to interpret huge volumes of data from sources such as large-scale satellite imagery. The process also works in real time — a prerequisite in applications such as autonomous navigation.

    “Automation in image evaluation makes people incredibly flexible. We’re no longer restricted to viewing the world from our own height,” said Christian Heipke, president of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS).

    Photogrammetry applications are moving into numerous sectors and tackling a host of challenges. Global change is being documented using images from space. Image data is being used to forecast crop sizes. Inaccessible structures are being monitored with the help of images from UAVs.

    As Przybilla said, image evaluations from UAVs are already being used for high-precision land register surveys. What took days manually can now be accomplished in minutes.

    Disaster Prevention. Other applications include disaster prevention and monitoring refugee movements. In many cases, drones provide a rapid overview, while satellites offer the large-scale basis for evaluating a situation.

    In architecture, 3D models from aerial images complement computer-aided design (CAD) plans.  In conjunction with virtual reality, 3D models enable design variants for a building to be depicted in the actual environment.

    Information is also being shared with disciplines such as computer vision and robotics, with “seeing robots” increasingly recording and mapping their surroundings.

    Industrial site in 3D: A digital elevation model from a series of overlapping photos taken from a UAV at 300 feet above ground level.
    Industrial site in 3D: A digital elevation model from a series of overlapping photos taken from a UAV at 300 feet above ground level. (Image: Eric Gakstatter)

    More and more, the processes and algorithms on which image evaluations are based are becoming like a “black box” for users — hard to understand from the outside. While the black box is getting bigger, scientists are refining their methods.

    “We’re increasingly combining existing data and this will leverage a huge amount of new potential,” explained Heipke. The black box for photogrammetry will be discussed at Intergeo.

    Once the process of image content recognition is automated, applications are limitless.

    Several sessions organized by the German Society for Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation (DGPF) at Intergeo will be looking at topical issues in photogrammetry. The contents of the presentations range from new sensors and remote sensing to “engineering geodesy meets photogrammetry.” Numerous companies will also be showcasing their image-evaluation solutions at Intergeo’s specialist exhibition.

  • How Galileo benefits high-precision RTK

    How Galileo benefits high-precision RTK

    Figure 1. Galileo constellation and occupation status of orbital slots (RAAN: right ascension of the ascending node, May 9, 2017). (Source: ESA)

    What to Expect with the Current Constellation

    This article demonstrates the benefits of Galileo integration for high-precision real-time kinematic (RTK) through representative case studies, considering baseline length, multipath impact and tree canopy.

    The results confirm usability of the current Galileo constellation in high-precision RTK applications and show improved availability, accuracy, reliability and time-to-fix in difficult measuring environments.

    Plus, Galileo-only RTK positions are compared with GPS-only and GLONASS-only solutions.

    By Xiaoguang Luo, Jun Chen and Bernhard Richter, Leica Geosystems AG

    Until now, based on simulated and observed data, the benefits of Galileo (FIGURE 1) for high-precision RTK have been investigated in single-base RTK and network RTK solutions. Building on the results of previous studies that frequently employed theoretic analysis and simulation, we present the benefits of Galileo for high-precision RTK based on real observations from the current Initial Operational Capability (IOC) satellite constellation. Using up-to-date real-time corrections including Galileo, we analyze the performance of network RTK under different measuring conditions with respect to availability, accuracy, reliability and time-to-fix.

    To achieve the maximum inter-operability with other GNSS con-stellations, all the Galileo signals in the E1 and E5 band, i.e. E1, E5a, E5b and AltBOC (alternative binary offset carrier), are used for positioning in the latest proprietary firmware and receivers (see “Manufacturers” section for details).

    The Galileo E1 signal is overlapped with the GPS L1 signal at a center frequency of 1575.420 MHz, whereas the Galileo E5a and GPS L5 signals are overlapped at 1176.450 MHz. As far as BeiDou is concerned, the E5b frequency of Galileo corresponds to the B2 frequency of BeiDou-2 at 1207.140 MHz.

    The AltBOC signal is also supported in order to benefit from its superior performance in multipath suppression. The availability of more than two frequencies is beneficial for ionospheric modeling, which plays an important role in ambiguity resolution on the fly.

    In addition, multi-frequency RTK provides more immunity to temporary interruption of GNSS signals caused by interference or by site-specific effects like multipath. When forming linear combinations, the incorporation of multi-frequency signals enhances flexibility and robustness, where the mathematical correlations introduced by including the same signal in different linear combinations of the same type need to be handled properly in RTK algorithms.

    By enabling the tracking of Galileo satellites in the aforementioned firmware, the Galileo signals will be used in different RTK position types by default, including navigation position, phase-aided differential code position, extended RTK (xRTK) position and RTK fixed position. When compared to a standard RTK fix, an xRTK fix is provided at a slightly lower accuracy level, but with higher availability in difficult environments such as urban canyons and dense canopy.

    In terms of RTK correction data formats, Galileo is included in the standardized RTCM v3 MSM format and in the proprietary 4G format. To use Galileo in network RTK, the real-time products provided by network correction services need to include Galileo as well. In the latest version of a proprietary GNSS network software, Galileo is used in network processing to provide RTK corrections via the individualized master-auxiliary (iMAX) method and the virtual reference station (VRS) method in the RTCM 3.2 MSM formats.

    RTK PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS

    Multi-constellation and multi-frequency GNSS RTK is a complex real-time process, aiming to provide cm-level positioning accuracy with as few as possible data epochs for variable user kinematics and even in difficult measuring environments. Therefore, RTK performance characteristics need to be carefully selected to be able to evaluate the system as a whole and to address users’ concerns in their applications.

    The following parameters are used in this article to assess the benefits of Galileo for high-precision RTK:

    • Satellite usage. Number of satellites used in RTK fixed solutions with an elevation cut-off angle of 10°;
    • Availability. Percentage of RTK fixed positions relative to all positions obtained during a time period;
    • Accuracy. Deviation of RTK fixed positions from ground truth with a higher degree of accuracy, where the ground truth can be determined by means of a total station or by post-processing long-term GNSS data;
    • Reliability. Percentage that the position error (with respect to ground truth) is less than 3 x coordinate quality (CQ) indicator;
    • Time to Fix. Time needed to regain an RTK fixed solution after losing ambiguity fix provided that GNSS signal tracking is not interrupted.

    OPEN-SKY CASE STUDY

    The open-sky case study was performed in the Heerbrugg testbed. Two receivers were connected to a single antenna via a four-way antenna splitter. One receiver received four-system iMAX corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format over a short baseline of 2 km, whereas the other received RTK data of the same type over a long baseline of 116 km. By considering different baseline lengths, the open-sky experiment focused on the usability of the current Galileo constellation in GNSS RTK under normal conditions. Two days of 1-Hz GNSS data were investigated with respect to satellite usage and positioning accuracy.

    Using different combinations of GNSS to analyze the short baseline data — GPS+GLO (GG), GPS+GLO+BDS (GGB) and GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS (GGGB) — the mean numbers of used satellites are 15, 17 and 20, respectively, where the elevation cut-off angle was set to 10°. On average, three Galileo satellites contribute to RTK fixed solutions.

    For the four-system combination GGGB, Figure 2 shows the satellite usage for each individual system over the two-day period. It can be seen that for a short baseline of 2 km, a maximum number of four Galileo satellites can be used for positioning. In fact, during 80.3% of the whole test period, the number of Galileo satellites used in RTK fixed solutions is equal to or greater than the number of BeiDou satellites used.

    Figure 2. Number of satellites used in RTK fixed positions with GGGB under open sky (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 2 km, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS, DOY: day of year).

    Table 1 provides statistics on Galileo satellite usage in case of GGGB for different baseline lengths. As would be expected, the number of Galileo satellites used decreases with an increasing baseline length. In approximately 41% of the cases, three Galileo satellites are used in the short baseline test, whereas two Galileo satellites are used in the long baseline test.

    Moreover, the probability that no Galileo satellites are involved in a four-system combined solution grows significantly from 1.9% to 15.0% as the baseline length increases from 2 km to 116 km. The probability that only one Galileo satellite is used under open sky is relatively small, amounting to around 0.5%. This is reasonable since no benefits for high-precision RTK are expected in this particular situation. Regarding the short baseline case, there is a 97.7% probability that at least two Galileo satellites are used for positioning, whereas this probability decreases to 84.4% in the long baseline case.

    Table 1. Probability [%] that n Galileo satellites are used in RTK fixed positions with GGGB during the two-day period of the open-sky experiment (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).
    In terms of positioning accuracy, Figure 3 compares the 3D errors from analyzing the long baseline data with different GNSS constellations. Regarding the entire two-day period illustrated in Figure 3a, the integration of BeiDou (GG vs. GGB) and Galileo (GGB vs. GGGB) results in higher position repeatability with more consistent errors. For a selected period of 12 hours, Figure 3b highlights the advantages of Galileo in reducing large 3D errors from 6–8 cm to 3–4 cm, where two or three Galileo satellites are used in case of GGGB.

    Figure 3. 3D errors of RTK fixed positions under open sky (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GG: GPS+GLO in green, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS in blue, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS in red, DOY: day of year) (a) Entire two-day period, (b) Selected 12-hour period (28–40 h).

    MULTIPATH CASE STUDY

    In this case study, a GNSS smart antenna was set up in a location with strong multipath effects, where GNSS signals were obstructed and reflected by the surrounding buildings (Figure 4). This test setup simulates the use case that a user measures a point near a building with degraded GNSS signal reception, even at high elevation angels.

    Figure 4. Test setup in a strong multipath environment in Heerbrugg (rover: GS16, antenna height: 1.8 m) (a) View from the south, (b) View from the north.

    The default elevation cut-off angle of 10° was applied. The receiver received four-system VRS corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format, where the distance to the physical reference station was approximately 200 m. Three hours of 1-Hz GNSS data were analyzed with respect to accuracy, reliability and time to fix.

    Figure 5 illustrates the 3D errors from multi-GNSS RTK with and without Galileo (GGGB vs. GGB), along with the number of used satellites. Regarding the periods marked with dashed rectangles, the inclusion of two or three Galileo satellites (Figure 5b) leads to significant improvements in positioning accuracy at the few cm to dm level (Figure 5a). By comparing the empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the 3D errors, the probability that 3D error is within 5 cm increases from 70% to 85% if Galileo is used, even with a maximum number of three satellites.

    Figure 5. Impact of Galileo integration on RTK positioning accuracy under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS in blue, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS in red, DOY: day of year) (a) 3D errors of RTK fixed positions, (b) Number of used satellites (Galileo in green).

    Tables 2 and 3 provide the root mean square (RMS) errors and reliability of RTK fixed positions from the multipath experiment, respectively. By using Galileo in high-precision RTK, the 3D RMS error is significantly reduced by 56.3% in this case study, from 0.080 m (GGB) to 0.035 m (GGGB). When compared to the horizontal components, the height RMS error shows a larger relative improvement of 58.7% due to Galileo integration. The reliability reflects the consistency between the actual position error with respect to ground truth and the CQ indicator estimated based on mathematical models in RTK algorithms. As shown in Table 3, the 3D reliability improves by 7.3%, from 88.2% (GGB) to 95.5% (GGGB), where the increases for the horizontal components and height are comparable.

    Table 2. Root mean square errors [m] of RTK fixed positions under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).
    Table 3. Reliability [%] of RTK fixed positions under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).
    The time to fix (TTF) was determined by constantly re-initializing RTK once an ambiguity fix was gained. During the whole period of repeatedly resetting the RTK filter, the GNSS signals were tracked continuously without interruption. A total of 765 TTF values were obtained with GGB, whereas 1,128 TTF estimates were available with GGGB. The significantly larger number of the TTF samples from GGGB indicates higher availability of RTK fix if Galileo is used.

    Figure 6 shows the statistical distribution of TTF with respect to Galileo integration. As can be seen in the empirical CDF in Figure 6a, it takes shorter time for GGGB to regain an ambiguity fix. As an example, GGGB allows ambiguity resolution within 5 s (10 s) with 46% (87%) probability, which is 29% (16%) higher than GGB. Regarding the boxplots of TTF in Figure 6b, GGGB shows a smaller median (by 25% from 8 s to 6 s) and a smaller interquartile range (IQR; by 50% from 4 s to 2 s) than GGB, where the IQR is the length of the box. This indicates that the integration of Galileo enables a faster ambiguity resolution with more consistent fixing performance.

    Figure 6. Impact of Galileo integration on time to fix (TTF) statistics under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM) (a) Empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of TTF, (b) Boxplot of TTF with median and interquartile range (IQR).

    CANOPY CASE STUDY

    In this case study, a receiver was connected to an antenna under tree canopy (Figure 7), where GNSS signals are blocked, attenuated and reflected, leading to decreased number of observations, low data quality and degraded RTK performance.

    Under these circumstances, the inclusion of Galileo satellites transmitting multi-frequency signals could be particularly beneficial for high-precision RTK. Using an elevation cut-off angle of 10°, the receiver received four-system iMAX corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format, where the baseline length was 116 km. A long baseline was intentionally selected as an additional challenge for the RTK system. About seven hours of 1-Hz GNSS data were investigated regarding availability, accuracy and reliability.

    Figure 7. Test setup under canopy in Heerbrugg (rover: GS10, antenna: AS10).

    Figure 8 illustrates the impact of Galileo integration on RTK availability and accuracy under canopy, along with the number of used satellites. As can be seen in Figure 8a, the inclusion of Galileo improves the availability of RTK fixed positions by 12.2%, from 65.7% (GGB) to 77.9% (GGGB). Moreover, dm-level position errors are largely reduced, as shown in FigURE 8c. The improvements in availability and accuracy are achieved by using up to three Galileo satellites (Figure 8b). This demonstrates that the current Galileo constellation in the IOC phase brings considerable benefits to high-precision RTK under canopy conditions.

    Figure 8. Impact of Galileo integration on RTK availability and accuracy under canopy (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS in blue, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS in red, DOY: day of year) (a) Availability of RTK fixed positions over time, (b) Number of used satellites (Galileo in green), (c) 3D errors of RTK fixed positions.

    Tables 4 and 5 provide the RMS errors and reliability of RTK fixed positions from the canopy experiment, respectively. The main factors degrading the RTK accuracy in this case study are not only the canopy environment, but also the long baseline length of 116 km. It can be seen in Table 4 that the integration of Galileo leads to a significant reduction of 3D RMS error by 23.7%, from 0.114 m (GGB) to 0.087 m (GGGB).

    By comparing the 2D and 1D RMS errors, the benefits of Galileo for the height are more dominant than for the horizontal components, which was also observed in the multipath experiment (Table 2). In terms of reliability, only slight (below 2%) increases are visible in Table 5. 116km baseline length and heavy canopy are considered extreme conditions and beyond the standard conditions relevant for specifications. Considering reliability together with availability (Figure 8a), it is encouraging to see that both the RTK performance characteristics are improved in this case study.

    Table 4. Root mean square errors [m] of RTK fixed positions under canopy (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).
    Table 5. Reliability [%] of RTK fixed positions under canopy (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).

    GALILEO-ONLY RTK

    To optimize the performance of multi-GNSS RTK positioning, the individual systems need to be fully understood and mastered. With a previous firmware release in August 2014, mass-market devices were able to perform GLONASS-only and BeiDou-only high-precision RTK. In 2014 tests, we compared the performance of GPS-only, GLONASS-only and BeiDou-only RTK at different accuracy levels. Considering that Galileo has reached the IOC phase, it is reasonable to assess the Galileo-only RTK performance with the latest firmware.

    Due to the limited number of usable Galileo satellites, Galileo-only RTK positioning was carried out in the Heerbrugg open-sky testbed over a very short baseline of 1 m. In addition, the elevation cut-off angle was set to 0° in order to track as many Galileo satellites as possible simultaneously. Two receivers were connected to two choke-ring antennas with good low-elevation tracking ability. Single-base RTK positioning was performed with four-system corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format. About one hour of 1-Hz GNSS data was analyzed with a special focus on positioning accuracy.

    Figure 9 shows the 3D errors from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK positioning, where the numbers of used satellites are 8–11, 7–9 and 5–6, respectively. During the test period, only three or four BeiDou satellites were tracked with poor geometry, making BeiDou-only RTK impossible. As the figure shows, the 3D errors from GPS-only and Galileo-only RTK are at a comparable level with similar RMS values, whereas the 3D RMS error from GLONASS-only RTK is almost twice as large as the GPS/Galileo-only case. Note that when compared to GPS-only RTK, almost half as many satellites are used in Galileo-only RTK.

    Figure 9. 3D errors of RTK fixed positions from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK under open sky (single-base RTK, baseline length: 1 m, RTCM v3 MSM, DOY: day of year, RMS: root mean square).

    Figure 10 displays the statistical distribution of the 3D errors from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK positioning. Regarding the empirical CDF in Figure 10a, GPS/Galileo-only RTK shows a clearly more favorable error distribution than the GLONASS-only case. Using only GPS or Galileo, the probability that 3D error is within 1 cm is above 80%, which is approximately 30% higher than using only GLONASS. For 3D errors ranging between 5 mm and 1.7 cm, Galileo-only RTK even provides a slightly higher cumulative probability than the GPS-only case. The 3D error boxplots in Figure 10b illustrate a similar pattern between GPS-only and Galileo-only RTK, which is superior to GLONASS-only RTK due to the significantly smaller median and IQR.

    Figure 10. 3D error statistics from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK under open sky (single-base RTK, baseline length: 1 m, RTCM v3 MSM). (a) Empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of 3D errors, (b) Boxplot of 3D errors (IQR: interquartile range).

    CONCLUSIONS

    With the declaration of Galileo Initial Services in December 2016, for the first time ever all GNSS users worldwide are able to use the positioning, navigation and timing information provided by Galileo’s global satellite constellation. Upon full system completion by 2020, Galileo will play an important role in high-precision GNSS applications for users around the world. This article showed representative case studies to understand the benefits of the current Galileo constellation for high-precision RTK. In addition to a multi-GNSS solution, the performance of Galileo-only RTK was presented. The main findings from the case studies can be summarized as follows:

    • In the open-sky test, with an elevation cut-off angle of 10°, on average three Galileo satellites can be used for high-precision multi-GNSS RTK. This leads to cm-level improvements in coordinate repeatability over a long baseline of 116 km.
    • In the multipath case study, the additional use of two or three Galileo satellites produces significant enhancements in positioning accuracy at the few cm to dm level, where the benefits for the height component are more significant. Moreover, the integration of Galileo increases the 3D reliability of RTK fixed positions by 7.3% and reduces the median time to fix by 2 s (25%).
    • In the canopy experiment, the inclusion of Galileo improves the availability of RTK fixed solutions by 12.2%. Furthermore, dm-level position errors are largely reduced.
    • When compared to GPS-only RTK, Galileo-only RTK provides a similar positioning accuracy over a 1-m baseline under open sky, where almost half as many satellites are used. The 3D RMS error from GLONASS-only RTK is approximately twice as large as the GPS/Galileo-only case.

    The promising results achieved through Galileo integration already indicate the very important role of the European GNSS in high-precision, multi-frequency and multi-constellation RTK positioning. During the deployment of the Galileo system, more benefits can be expected in the near future.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    The staffs of Leica Geosystems AG (Heerbrugg/Switzerland), Christian Waese and Youssef Tawk, are gratefully acknowledged for support in setting up the variety of RTK network streams.

    MANUFACTURERS

    SmartWorx 6.16 of Leica Viva GNSS is the latest firmware cited and used in these high-precision RTK tests. Leica GNSS Spider 7.0.0 furnished the GNSS real-time corrections. The open-sky case study used two Leica Viva GS10 units connected to a Leica Viva AS10 antenna via a four-way antenna splitter. The multipath case study used a Leica Viva GS16 GNSS smart antenna. The canopy case study used a Leica Viva GS10 receiver and a Leica Viva AS10 antenna. The Galileo-only RTK test used two Leica Viva GS10 receivers and two Leica AR25 choke ring antennas.

  • TerraGo adds advanced features to Magic apps

    TerraGo adds advanced features to Magic apps

    New features are now available for TerraGo Magic, including laser-rangefinder integration, offset data capture, Apple and Google turn-by-turn navigation, and proximity alerts. Also new is extended waypoint guidance for finding off-road assets and infrastructure.

    TerraGo Magic is a zero-code platform-as-a-service that enables customers to build their own custom mobile apps without writing any code by choosing from a menu of available, field-tested features.

    TerraGo Magic is also the underlying platform used to build TerraGo Edge, which includes these latest features in version 4.1, available for download from the iTunes App Store and Google Play.

    “With the addition of laser positioning and offsets for remote data collection, TerraGo helps us rapidly capture high-accuracy data for more assets and infrastructure, even those in difficult to reach locations,” said Fernando Mutia, IS supervisor for San Jose Water Company.

    Partnership with Laser Technology

    TerraGo is now partnering with Laser Technology Inc. (LTI) to enable all custom apps built by TerraGo Magic to seamlessly utilize LTI’s professional-grade laser rangefinders.

    TerraGo Magic partners and customers can now add TruPulse rangefinder support to their custom iOS and Android apps with the click of a button using the TerraGo Magic zero-code app platform.

    Also, Seiler Instrument – Geospatial, a partner of both LTI and TerraGo, will now add TruPulse support to its new Field2GIS app, which was built using TerraGo Magic and is now available from iTunes and Google Play.

    “We’re very happy to launch this partnership that we feel responds directly to our customers’ goals and the industry’s demand for improving the quality and productivity of their field data collection work,” said Derrick Reish, senior product manager at LTI. “By leveraging laser precision and cloud-based mobility, we can help our joint customers collect the accurate data they need at a level of efficiency that wasn’t possible just a few years ago.”

    “With TerraGo Magic, we totally change the traditional way of thinking about how custom mobile app versions get built, released and upgraded,” said Dave Basil, vice president of product development at TerraGo. “When we publish a new feature in Magic, it’s immediately available to all customer apps but doesn’t force it on all customers or require an upgrade beyond their control.”

    “With TerraGo Magic’s platform-as-a-service, customers can evaluate and include features based on their priorities, timeline, business requirements and users’ needs, giving them the flexibility and control of a custom solution  without the cost of custom app development,” Basil said.

    Webinars

    TerraGo is hosting a webinar on Aug. 15 at 12 p.m. ET with a live demonstration of the latest features in TerraGo Magic Apps and TerraGo Edge.

    To learn more about the technical details and operational benefits, join TerraGo and LTI in the webinar Advanced Mobile Data Collection Finds the Range with Laser-Precision, on Aug. 22 at 12 p.m. ET.

  • GeoCue’s GNSS kit for drones provides survey-level accuracy

    GeoCue’s GNSS kit for drones provides survey-level accuracy

    GeoCue Group has released a GNSS positioning system that will allow users of DJI Phantom 4 Pros and Inspire 2 drones, as well as most drones using higher end cameras, to achieve survey-level accuracy with minimum ground control.

    Loki, GeoCue’s new direct geopositioning system for small unmanned aerial systems, solves the two fundamental problems associated with this technology:

    • Positioning Accuracy. Loki uses the new AsteRx-m2 multi-frequency, multi-constellation GNSS engine from Septentrio, which has 448 hardware channels.
    • Camera Events. GeoCue has invented a patent-pending method of detecting camera events from Phantoms/Inspires and synchronizing those events to GNSS positioning. No modifications to the drone are necessary; the adapter cable is “plug and play.”
    GeoCue’s Loki positioning kit uses the Septentrio AsteRx-m2 GNSS engine.

    Loki is a self-contained kit that provides all of the hardware and software needed to equip a drone with a post-processed kinematic (PPK) multifrequency, multi-constellation, differential, carrier-phase GNSS.

    Using a local base station (not included), Loki provides centimeter-level positioning with minimal, and in some cases, no ground-control points (though GCPs are always recommended for quality assurance).

    “GeoCue has been a long-time Septentrio OEM development partner,” said Neil Vancans, vice president of Septentrio Americas. “They have offered our previous generation sUAS board on their high-end AV-900, achieving remarkable results in both accuracy and reliability. By solving the problem of connecting the virtual camera trigger on DJI drones to our AsteRx-m2 GNSS engine, they can achieve professional mapping accuracies with consumer-grade UAVs.”

    DroneDeploy of San Francisco has become a leader in cloud-based processing for DJI, as well as other drones. DroneDeploy has enabled users of Phantom and Inspire drones to easily upload drone images, work online with analytics, and download point clouds and orthophotos to desktops for advanced processing.

    Without Loki, achieving acceptable network accuracy requires the time-consuming placement of ground-control targets throughout the mapping site.

    GeoCue and DroneDeploy have been working together to ensure a smooth Loki-DroneDeploy workflow from field to finish.

    “The GeoCue Loki system is an exciting product for anyone using drones to make maps with high accuracy,” said Mike Winn, CEO and co-founder of DroneDeploy. “The Loki’s combination of high-end GNSS positioning and DJI camera synchronization enables survey-grade accuracy with the simplest workflow that we’ve seen — making the Loki a great fit for the DroneDeploy platform.”

    “I am very excited to be working with industry leaders such as DroneDeploy on our Loki project,” said Lewis Graham, president and CTO of GeoCue Group. “Loki provides high accuracy positional data to downstream processing solutions. More significantly, it does this for DJI Phantom 4 Pro and Inspire 2 drones. Combining DJI, Loki and cloud processing solutions such as DroneDeploy provides a very streamlined and cost effective solution for high accuracy site surveys.”

    The Loki kit includes:

    • Loki PPK Controller using the Septentrio AsteRx-m2 GNSS engine (GPS L1, L2, L5 and GLONASS L1, L2, L3, 448 hardware channels).
    • Maxtena M1227HCT-A2-SMA high performance, active, multiband GNSS antenna
    • Antenna ground plane with mounting kit
    • Antenna to controller cable
    • USB cable for data transfer and Loki controller charging
    • Personality cable (user selects either DJI or DSLR)
    • AirGon ASP software suite
    • Mounting kits for DJI Inspire 2 and Phantom 4 Pro
    • 1 year of maintenance and technical support

    Loki requires a local multifrequency base station (not included but available from GeoCue). Loki is shipping to early adopter customers in August 2017. It will be available for the general market in September 2017.

    It will release with direct support for DroneDeploy and AirGon’s Bring Your Own Drone (BYOD) Mapping Kit. Loki’s introductory price will be USD $4,995. GeoCue is currently accepting preorders.

    Loki will be on display September 6-8 at the InterDrone 2017 conference in Las Vegas and at Commercial UAV Expo, also in Las Vegas, October 24-26. A workshop dedicated to high accuracy mapping with DJI drones using Loki is being held in conjunction with the Commercial UAV Expo. Register at www.expouav.com.

  • Harxon releases rover radio for RTK surveying and GNSS positioning

    Harxon releases rover radio for RTK surveying and GNSS positioning

    Harxon has introduced an advanced, high-speed, Bluetooth-enabled wireless rover radio.

    The HX-DU1603D, designed for GNSS/RTK surveying and precise positioning, will be showcased this September at the Intergeo trade show in Berlin, Germany.

    The HX-DU1603D is a lightweight, ruggedized UHF receiver designed for data communications between 410 MHz and 470 MHz in either 12.5 KHz or 25 KHz channels, which can be widely used in GNSS/RTK surveying and GNSS precise positioning fields.

    It is equipped with a Bluetooth transceiver for wireless communications with external devices. It features a 6800 mAh rechargeable internal battery and configurable transmit power between 0.5W and 2W. Its IP67 waterproof capability allows long operating hours outdoors, the company said.

    The HX-DU1603D rover radio is easy to operate and use. It is equipped with a 1.9-inch display screen that supports frequency, protocols, power display, serial port baud rate and air baud rate. By deploying these technologies, users can instantly communicate with GNSS precise positioning receivers with the same protocols throughout the world.

    The rover radio HX-DU1603D has joint Harxon product lines, including 25W base radio HX-DU8602T with simplex and 35W base radio HX-DU8608D with duplex.

  • A&M-Corpus Christi institute to provide UN with GIS expertise

    The Conrad Blucher Institute for Surveying and Science (CBI) at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi has officially joined the United Nations-Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) Academic Network. Texas A&M-Corpus Christi is one of three Universities in the nation, including Harvard University and the University of Maine, who are part of this network.

    The primary goal of the UN-GGIM Academic Network is to make accurate, reliable geospatial information readily available in support of national, regional and global development. As a member of the UN-GGIM Academic Network, CBI will work alongside the United Nations to provide research and education expertise to international governments.

    “Blucher’s inclusion in this prestigious academic network is a direct reflection of the quality of our researchers at A&M-Corpus Christi,” said Dr. Kelly Quintanilla, Interim President and CEO of A&M-Corpus Christi.

    To be accepted to the UN-GGIM Academic Network, applicants must meet certain criteria. Requirements included an established track record in Geographic Information Science (GIS), a description of current programs and future GIS education and research plans. Most notably, the CBI was chosen based on their ability to positively impact the UN-GGIM Academic Network.

    “Dr. Richard Smith, CBI Research Scientist, has already assisted the United Nations by providing online geospatial education to UN staff. We are now formally linked in with a worldwide network of academics and scientists to assist the UN take advantage of recent advances in geospatial technologies we are developing here in Corpus Christi,” said Gary Jeffress, R.P.L.S., CBI director and professor of geographic information science.

    According to the Department of Labor, GIS, Geospatial Surveying and Engineering are the fastest growing fields in the United States. Researchers in this scientific discipline study data and computational techniques that are used to capture and analyze geographic information. For example, it’s with this information Google Earth and Bing Maps can function the way they do. Those who can use this system properly and find relationships within the data are in high demand.

    With this in mind, experienced professors at A&M-Corpus Christi help Island University students get hands-on experience with the latest GIS technology. The CBI has been recognized for their Free Online Curriculum for GIS and Geospatial Surveying and has worked together with United Nations staff to expand UN operations involving GIS technology. The CBI offers a Bachelor of Science in Geographic Information Science, a Master of Science in Geospatial Surveying Engineering and a Doctoral Program in Geospatial Computing Sciences.

  • Trimble Penmap for Android designed for field surveying

    Trimble has introduced Penmap for Android, a cloud-connected application for field surveying and high-accuracy geographic information system (GIS) data collection that works on mobile handhelds, smartphones and tablets.

    Trimble Penmap for Android focuses on core survey and mapping tasks such as cadastral and boundary surveys, as well as establishing local control, stake-outs, quality checks and asset management for utilities. It provides both professional surveyors and field workers with an intuitive, easy-to-use map-based interface to manage features and attributes for high-accuracy GIS and complete survey documentation.

    The application is also ideal for use in the energy distribution industry for locating infrastructure and recording critical information on encroachments, clearways and existing monuments, the company said.

    The application runs on a variety of Android devices, including the rugged Trimble TDC100 handheld, and supports full-featured Trimble GNSS receivers such as the Trimble R10, R8s and R2 receivers.

    Trimble Penmap for Android is optimized to integrate with the new Trimble Catalyst service, a software-defined GNSS receiver that connects to the small, inexpensive plug-and-play DA1 antenna, and allows surveyors to choose an accuracy level from meter to centimeters to suit their application needs.

    Together, Penmap and Trimble Catalyst — both purchased through a fixed monthly subscription — offer an on-demand, lightweight and low-cost professional surveying system that provides value, convenience and flexibility, the company added.

    “The addition of Penmap expands our portfolio to address the needs of organizations that require a value-packed, flexible survey system,” said Matt Delano, general manager of Trimble’s Land Administration solutions. “Surveyors using the Penmap application with Trimble Catalyst can easily manage seasonal shifts in survey activity by scaling up or down without a capital investment. Survey managers will find it an efficient way to carry out field checks without tying up expensive equipment used by their field crews. They can simply use a phone, the Penmap application, a Catalyst subscription and the DA1 antenna.”

    Trimble Penmap for Android includes the Penmap Project Manager, which is used to set up projects, create templates and add team members.

    Penmap Project Manager works with the Trimble Connect platform for storing and transferring data between the field and office.

    Trimble Connect, which is also included in the Penmap subscription, is a collaborative cloud-based platform that enables organizations to set up and deploy projects to their field users. Information collected in the field is synced back to the office in real-time where it is stored, managed and communicated to team members.

    Data can also be exported from Penmap Project Manager into back-office systems in a variety of file formats for viewing and sharing.

  • Tersus launches a ‘new generation’ NeoRTK system

    Tersus launches a ‘new generation’ NeoRTK system

    Tersus GNSS has launched what it calls a new generation GNSS RTK system with multi-technology integrated for surveyors: the NeoRTK System.

    NeoRTK System is a high-performing GNSS RTK system applied with a multi-constellation and multi-frequency GNSS engine and various communication protocols. It aims at providing high performance and stable signal reception satisfying surveyors’ demands.

    With a high-end GNSS antenna inside, NeoRTK can speed up the time to first fix (TTFF) and improve the capability of anti-jamming.

    The 16G internal storage and up to 32G external SD card, along with the built-in large capacity battery for 10-hour field work, unleash surveyors’ productivity in their daily practice. The radio module in the package makes long distance operation more convenient, Tersus said.

    With a smart personal digital assistant, which offers high readability, access to essential functions and modes becomes easier and faster. An adjustable measurement rod with automatic tilt compensation ensures efficiency in working.

    With all the features, the NeoRTK System enables surveyors to keep up with the latest advancements, leading to a more convenient working mode, which will enhance surveying experience providing exceptional productivity, Tersus said.

  • Accuracy, precision and boundary retracement in surveying

    Accuracy, precision and boundary retracement in surveying

    Technology has improved the scientific community’s ability to measure in many ways that our ancestors would have trouble believing. From obtaining measurements across galaxies down to the tiniest of atom splitting, our ability to measure is exceedingly robust. The land surveying profession has benefitted from this ongoing technological revolution in many ways (GPS World March 2017) and has advanced our work in many new directions never thought possible. Substantial increases in precision through these advancements allows the land surveyor to perform various tasks, including topographic surveys, construction layout and volumetric surveys with increased confidence.

    Graphic: https://sites.google.com/a/apaches.k12.in.us/mr-evans-science-website/home

    Accuracy and precision are two factors that go into our measurement procedures. While accuracy and precision are considered to be the same thing by a large portion of the population, it couldn’t be more from the truth. Accuracy is defined on how well a measurement or reading is in relation to a known value or benchmark. Precision, on the other hand, is how closely a measurement is repeated yet has no relation to any given value or benchmark.

    The introduction of GNSS technology along with total stations with locking electronic distance measuring (EDM) mechanisms in the 1980’s brought more precision into the hands of the surveyor. These innovations reduced the amount of human error in our measuring procedures when used in an appropriate manner as well as allowing greater distances to be covered. The implementation of various real-time networks (RTN) on several continents also continues to increase our range of high-precision location and measurements worldwide. However, as we develop our next generation of surveyors through educational programs and apprenticeships, we are making a terrible mistake in replacing many fundamental land surveying principles and legal precedents with more emphasis on precision and less on legal accuracy based upon precedents.

    Surveyors and the role of measurement

    In ancient civilization, the primary role of the land surveyor was to help establish and maintain property boundaries. Measurement devices included knotted rope, the Gunter chain and the compass, all used is varying manners and precisions. Paramount to the surveyor’s effort was the establish of monuments at corner points of the tracts they were measuring. These points were held as the ultimate dividing point and superior to associated measurements and secondary tie points. This simple guide for all surveyors has been a core principle of property owner’s rights and upholding those rights in the name of the law. By placing of monuments, the landowner has relied on the surveyor to physically define the property being established and conveyed.

    Let’s ask Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln…

    For example, in early days of the United States during the late 1700’s/early 1800’s, once an original survey was completed, notes of each survey were preserved by various means. Most governmental surveys of the early 1800’s were transcribed onto large township sheets in order to perpetuate and preserve the work performed by the Land Office surveyors. The establishment of states and local governments brought forward land and records offices in which these government patent lands were further subdivided for conveyance to settlers of the new lands. In each of these cases, corners of various types were set to distinguish boundaries between property ownership. Wooden posts, rock mounds, and other materials were used to physically mark the locations of the corners, with notes, documentation and deeds for conveyance coming after the determination of the property. Regardless of any variation from the notes/plats/deed descriptions, property rights were held to the physical locations of the markers set during the course of the survey.

    The American dream of land ownership

    As more people moved westward and parcel subdivisions became more prevalent, planned developments began to be based upon pre-calculated figures. Before calculators and computers, the surveyor would determine the location of new parcel corners by hand derived calculations (usually in the field) and use a transit and chain to stake each parcel corner. Notes were carefully kept during the lot creation process and transferred to a final plat for filing at the county recorder’s office. These plats were typically post-survey with the detailed notes being drawn on the plat with specific dimensions to all points set.

    As plane geometry and coordinate systems caught on (GPS World November 2016), the movement toward pre-calculated subdivisions became more common. Couple this method of calculation with increased capability of high precision theodolites and the World War 2 postwar boom, the economy and environment was ready for more time efficient surveys. Now large parent parcels were being subdivided on paper before any additional surveying was performed to establish the new lotting configuration. Surveyors began to stake parcel corners by means other than “running the lines”, i.e. physically occupying the outer boundary and setting internal points for new parcels. Add to this environment of “faster” surveying the invention of the EDM, digital total station, computer programming and analysis along with GNSS, and now we have a recipe for the most precise and accurate surveying ever performed. Or do we?

    These are not your father’s (or grandfather’s) survey methods anymore

    Regarding topographic, volumetric, bathymetric and aerial surveys, I would agree that technology has advanced our profession to greater heights. These tasks have benefited greatly by increased data collection, remote location and sensing and computing power. The surveyor’s ability to provide an extremely detailed set of data for varying surfaces and site conditions is at an all-time high with more technology continually being developed. But how has technology affected our primary role of boundary line expert? While in many ways as technology has helped the boundary survey, it has also taken away from the surveyor’s responsibility and duty as expert measurer. The intent of the surveyor is mostly clear when retracing a prior survey or creating new parcels from existing ones but execution, along with mistakes/errors/blunders, throw ambiguity into the fold. Not knowing where to find a random error within a prior survey leads many practitioners down a long and frustrating path. In a perfect world, the math would all work out and everything fits together like a glove. However, due to many variables and errors that randomly and systematically happen during our work, this condition is near impossible to attain. This quote is from the “Illinois Boundary Law” book written by land surveyor/attorney Jeff Lucas in 2012 sums it up well:

    “There is an irresistible urge on the part of many surveyors to trust math and measurements over their understanding of boundary law principles. When this misplaced trust is coupled with the confusion over the land surveyor’s duties and responsibilities, the land surveyor is free to ignore clear-cut doctrines of law when precision expectations come into conflict with the realities that are found on the ground.”

    So, what does this mean? Many of the legal descriptions surveyors have been charged with to perform a boundary survey were created using equipment, techniques and simple math far inferior to today’s standards. For example, a survey in downtown Chicago may be based upon a plat from the early 1800’s, (if the record happened to survive the Great Fire of 1871) and was depicted in chains and links. We now have surveyor who show all dimensions to the 1/1000th of a foot on these boundary and land title surveys. Considering that most of the surveys from that era only had a precision of one link (0.66 ft.), it could be considered overkill to need to be that precise. I’m in agreement that the survey must depict the current conditions and properly define where boundary rights are physically located, but to show that many significant figures is careless and unnecessary.

    For surveys on larger parcels and in rural areas, GNSS use (and abuse) now comes into play much more often. As I’ve written previously (GPS World May 2016) GNSS implementation is the single greatest advancement of surveying technology in my opinion. The ability to survey significant areas with great precision still impresses me and I wouldn’t trade it for anything. But notice I stated “precision” and not accuracy and this is where many surveyors get off track; hence, the statement from Mr. Lucas.

    You’re not the original; you’re the retracement

    While a small proportion of surveys completed today are for government lands and follow the Bureau of Land Management’s Manual of Surveying Instructions (2009 Edition), the remaining surveys are broken into two categories by whom they are performed by: the original surveyor or the retracement surveyor. This is best described from the text of the well-known Florida court case of Rivers v. Lozeau (539 So.2d 1147 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 1989):

    “First, the surveyor can, in the first instance, lay out or establish boundary lines with an original division of a tract of land which has theretofore existed as one unit or parcel. In performing this function, he is known as the “original surveyor” and when his survey results in a property description used by the owner to transfer title to property that survey has a certain special authority in that the monuments set by the original surveyor on the ground control over discrepancies within the total parcel description and, more importantly, control over all subsequent surveys attempting to locate the same line.

    Second, a surveyor can be retained to locate on the ground a boundary line which has theretofore been established. When he does this, he “traces the footsteps” of the “original surveyor” and locating existing boundaries. Correctly stated, this is a “retracement” survey, not a resurvey, and in performing this function, the second and each succeeding surveyor is a “following” or “tracing” surveyor and his sole duty, function and power is to locate on the ground the boundaries corners and the boundary line or lines established by the original survey; he cannot establish a new corner or new line terminal point, nor may he correct errors of the original surveyor. He must only track the footsteps of the original surveyor. The following surveyor, rather than being the creator of the boundary line, is only its discoverer and is only that when he correctly locates it.”

    The surveyor’s role in boundaries, period

    To further illustrate the surveyor’s role in each type of survey, let’s examine the recent publication of “Boundary Retracement Processes and Procedures” by Donald A. Wilson, a long-time land surveyor and prolific writer of surveying manuals. Don’s book delves deep into all things concerning the role of the land surveyor in completing a property retracement survey. While surveying does rely heavily on good measurement techniques, it goes along with a handful of other talents as well. Don’s book revisits a 1985 Vermont Society of Land Surveyor’s publication “Cornerpost” (VSLS Cornerpost) that contained an article titled “What does a land surveyor do?” written by George F. Butts. In the article, George lists in detail that besides the prerequisite surveying knowledge, the surveyor must also have some aspect of skills for the following disciplines: archaeologist, astronomer, cartographer, computer specialist, dendrologist, detective, engineer, farmer, forester, geologist, handwriting expert, historian, hydrologist, lawyer, logger, judge, juror, photogrammetrist, writer, and expert witness. Notice that George didn’t include mathematician or statistician, both disciplines that rely heavily on the study of formulas, figures and data. While surveying computations relies heavily on geometry and trigonometry, the first order of business in data analyzation is how it relates back to the “original survey.” This brings us back to the primary role of the land surveyor – “following the footsteps.” As Don quotes; “…following the footsteps of the original surveyor is the legal standard adopted by the courts in all jurisdictions, and for very good reason.” The intent of the retracement surveyor is to uncover the past through all necessary information and bring to life the original survey. How the surveyor gets there, through the muddied use of technology, often leads us down the wrong path. He also adds from the 1818 South Carolina court case of Bradford v. Pitts (2 Mills. Const. Rep 115); “Blind devotion to a rule may lead to infinite failure.”

    Back to the Stone Age?

    So, what is the answer? Do we throw out all the electronic tech and time-saving methods in order to retrace all surveys with compass and/or transit and chain? Of course not. I do ask that all surveyors look at what the profession has charged them with and how they use their tools to get there. For instance, I am thankful for all the medical breakthroughs in the past 100 years, especially when it comes to technology. Imaging machines, robotic laser procedures for internal surgeries and more come to mind, but let’s remember that doctors still look at the human element and not just what a computer spits out as a diagnosis. How many times have you looked up your symptoms on WedMD and decided you were dying from that rash? Surveyors are doing the same thing with analyzing data from the mathematics view and not from the boundary law principles view.

    It’s not all just about the location data

    High-precision GNSS locations (and conventional data) we collect as surveyors needs to be included with the analyzation of the historical data from the legal side of the survey. If we didn’t find the original points, did we find ones that were substantially close to where the originals were? Were any of the original conditions at the time of the survey still intact? Bearing trees? Buildings? Any reference ties? What most surveyors tend to forget well is that all measuring devices (and I do mean ALL) are not the same, no matter how close they are manufactured and calibrated. Couple that with mistakes/errors/blunders I spoke of earlier, and here is your recipe of inconsistencies between surveys. You will say your instruments and devices are in top condition, so your data is right and the previous surveyors obviously messed something up. The unfortunate thing is that almost every surveyor makes that statement and we all are wrong to some degree. The bottom line is that while we may collect a ton of data with the upmost precision, it may not be accurate with the intent of the project, which is to retrace the original survey to the best of your ability. I’m not advocating that we dump our fancy robots, our very handy RTN networks or my shiny new UAV; instead, let’s get back to the basics. As Don Wilson notes in his preface of the new book; “One of the biggest differences between the surveyor relying on principles and court relying on precedent is that courts continually revisit the reason for the rule, or the decision in the previous case, to ensure that it applies, and fits the issue.” What I am advocating is that we remember the duties of our role and utilize the necessary tools to perform and deliver to the best of our abilities. I’ve had mentors and teachers that relied heavily on the math and not so much the true legal definitions. That means we need to brush up on the law and precedents that have been established for various situations and reasons. It will be through continuing education of our everchanging profession that will open more surveyor’s eyes to what the role of the surveyor was truly meant to be. With no disrespect to the GIS world, surveyors don’t aspire to be a map makers or database managers. We are professional land surveyors and our duty to our clients includes professionalism and the completion of an accurate land survey through precision measurement and analysis. Just as long as we follow those footsteps…