Conventional wisdom holds that smartphone users will tolerate diluted privacy — specifically, privacy of their own location — in return for the many advantages delivered by the location-based services on their devices. This conventional wisdom, I put it to you, has been disseminated over the years by conventional wise men, that is, those selling the services and the devices. Users themselves have not, in the full awareness of their situation, been sounded or heard from. Now murmurs bubble to the surface.
Five researchers at Rutgers University recently published a paper, “A Field Study of Run-Time Location Access Disclosures on Android Smartphones,” based on work supported by the National Science Foundation. The paper describes how they created an application to inform users which other apps are mining their GPS location data, and then asked users how they felt about this.
Participants took various actions to manage their privacy. These included uninstalling apps, stopping the use of some apps, reducing the time using some apps, and searching through apps’ setups to disable location accesses.
“[They] appreciated the transparency brought by our run-time disclosure method,” the researchers state. “They wanted to continue receiving the notifications after completing the study. Most participants reported having trade-offs between location privacy and the convenience of using their apps. We observed that some participants would rather give up the convenience to protect their location privacy.”
First, the researchers had to figure out how to provide the information to project participants; in other words, how to let them know who was watching them and tracking their movements?
“[Although] there is no obvious way for a normal Android app to monitor whether other apps are accessing location, we discovered we could exploit the method getLastKnownLocation available in the Android Location API for this purpose.”
Participants — those in the know, at least — described the study as “an eye opener.” In one of the most telling details, delivered in the paper’s last sentence, we find out why. The study encompassed two groups: one was shown that other apps accessed their data, and the other group was only informed of this after the project was completed. “The No Disclosure group were generally not aware of what was happening on their own phones.”
Caveat orator.
Steve Copley, GPS World publisher.
In other news, I am happy and proud to announce that former associate publisher Steve Copley is now full-on publisher of this magazine. After a year in the traces (or should that be trenches?), Steve has ably reinvigorated business aspects of the operation, cleaned house, kicked buttstock, and taken names. It is due and fitting that he now tackle further challenges.
As I shall also, in my new role of group publisher. While continuing to do what I do, my purlieu extends more fully over geographic information systems and Earth observation, as well as new initiatives in the European market. Specifically, the new EAGER newsletter, the EuropeAn GNSS and Earth Observation Report.
By Sarang Thombre, Jussi Raasakka, Tommi Paakki, Francescantonio Della Rosa, Mikko Valkama, Laura Ruotsalainen, Heidi Kuusniemi, and Jari Nurmi
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
WE HAVE A CAT. My wife and I do, that is. One with a voracious appetite. She likes to be fed on demand, even at the most inopportune times. Like three o’clock in the morning. No, it doesn’t help to close the bedroom door. Her squeaking (yes, some cats squeak) still wakes us up. I was designated as the one to get up in the night to feed her. Sometimes twice. Each night, every night. That got tiresome (literally) very quickly. Automation came to the rescue. We now have a microprocessor-controlled cat feeder, which rotates food compartments into the feeding position at pre-programmed times. Just fill up one or two of the compartments with “crunchies” before retiring, set the activation time to 3:00 a.m., say, and no more middle-of-the-night squeaking interrupting blissful sleep.
This is just one example of how automation — machines replacing (or supplementing) human activity to perform repetitive, difficult, undesirable, or even humanly-impossible tasks — can affect (and benefit) our everyday lives.
As noted on Wikipedia, two common types of automation are ones that involve feedback control, which is usually continuous and involves making measurements using one or more sensors and computing adjustments to keep the measured variables within a set range, and those that involve sequence control, in which a programmed sequence of discrete operations is performed, often based on system logic. An aircraft autopilot is an example of the former while our cat-feeding machine is an example of the latter. Some systems, such as Earth-orbiting satellites, can involve both types.
Automation applications range from the (now) mundane (such as point-and-shoot cameras, smart phones, home control, and factory assembly lines) to the (now) exotic (such as robots to assist the elderly and the infirm and robots to explore space). Laboratories have also benefited from increasing automation, making rapid clinical and analytical testing, for example, possible.
The testing of GNSS receivers can also benefit from automation. This work typically requires the active participation of humans to initiate, control, monitor, and terminate test cases. These manual operations are often inefficient and inaccurate, rendering the test results unreliable. Furthermore, accessing the internal signals of a receiver at different stages of processing is necessary to pinpoint the exact location of any anomalies. Using traditional black-box testing techniques, it is only possible to test the final outputs of a receiver. In this month’s column, we take a look at an automated test bench for analyzing the overall performance of multi-frequency, multi-constellation GNSS receivers. The system includes a data-capture tool to extract internal process information and controlling software, called the Automated Performance Evaluation Tool or AutoPET, which is able to communicate between all modules of the system for hands-free, one-button-click testing of GNSS receivers. Would my cat appreciate the benefit? Likely not, but GNSS engineers and scientists certainly will.
“Innovation” is a regular feature that discusses advances in GPS technology and its applications as well as the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley of the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. He welcomes comments and topic ideas.
The prototype GNSS receiver developed at the Department of Electronics and Communications Engineering of Tampere University of Technology (TUT), called TUTGNSS, is now in the performance-testing phase. TUTGNSS is a GPS L1/L5 + Galileo E1/E5a dual-frequency dual-constellation receiver jointly developed by TUT and its international partners under two European Union Framework Programme research grants.
During the manual testing of the receiver, it was noticed that the results were often contaminated with errors due to imprecise time-keeping and inconsistent test environments.
It was also strenuous and time consuming to perform repetitive tests over multiple iterations, with decreasing personnel efficiency as the number of iterations increased. The aforementioned problems led to the results being deemed unreliable and unrepeatable. There was thus a need to innovate and automate the testing process and environment. In addition, there was also the need to study the signals as they flowed through the internal signal processing chain, so that the exact location of anomalies could be detected.
Currently, few solutions are available in the commercial and academic domains, which can perform end-to-end fully automated, yet customizable testing of GNSS receivers. A couple of commercial testing tools were recently unveiled, which claim to perform similar automated testing of GNSS receivers. However, these are not fully customizable by the end-user, having the limitation that they can be used only with their parent company’s proprietary signal simulators. Other commercial automated testing tools are available nowadays. However, they are targeted towards electronic systems other than GNSS receivers. It was due to these reasons that we decided to implement an in-house solution. Consequently, we devised the Automated Performance Evaluation Tool (AutoPET), along with a data capture tool.
AutoPET is implemented completely in software (Qt, with C++) and communicates with the receiver under test (RUT) via RS-232 and a National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) protocol and with a commercial GNSS signal simulator via an RS-232 link. It handles the GNSS test cases with user-defined iterations and other system settings. AutoPET has already been used for making test runs on the TUTGNSS receiver with positive results. It is possible to initiate the overall testing of the receiver with a single button-click and the results are stored in the computer without any human intervention. Test scenarios currently included in the tool’s library are: time-to-first-fix (TTFF), position accuracy, acquisition sensitivity, tracking sensitivity, and reacquisition time. By changing the scenarios in this library, the tool can be used with different simulator models. Another innovative aspect of AutoPET is that it uses multi-threading to perform the receiver testing. Multiple software processing threads are necessary to keep track of the receiver operations and simulator feeds simultaneously, so that an appropriate interrupt can be generated when the receiver has performed the desired operation. This feature is explained in further detail later on.
Data Capture Tool (dCAP) is a hybrid (software-controlled hardware) entity capable of extracting the user-defined internal process data from the different modules (acquisition, tracking, bit decoding, and so on) of the GNSS RUT and stores it in a computer via a 100-Mbps Ethernet link. The dCAP hardware is independent of the receiver module (although implemented on the same softcore) and operates through minimal interference with the receiver operation. This data can then be post-processed to monitor and record the behavior of the receiver and to investigate any anomalies in its intermediate stages. An experimental version of dCAP has already been used to monitor the carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N0), carrier Doppler, and code delay from the internal tracking channels, and the raw GNSS signals in I/Q format entering the baseband processing unit (BPU) of the TUTGNSS receiver from its radio front end.
The benefits of AutoPET over state-of-art approaches are that it is portable (software platform independent), easy to use, suitable for testing most receivers using a variety of simulators (provided each of them can communicate with the outside world using some form of communication protocol), and its operational parameters are easy to modify through an external configuration file. dCAP is designed specifically for the TUTGNSS receiver; however, it can be easily replicated for most experimental embedded system receivers. Once implemented, dCAP offers a clear view of the internal operation of the receiver by accessing intermediate signals between the input and output terminals. The speed and size of data capture are limited only by the type of Ethernet connection and the size of the internal and external memories. Additional details of AutoPET and dCAP are provided in the next two sections of this article, while the third section describes the application of these tools in testing the GPS L1 operation of the TUTGNSS receiver.
Automated Performance Evaluation Tool
AutoPET is a software program developed using the Qt platform and the C++ language, which communicates between the GNSS receiver, signal simulator, and its associated computer through a remote PC that houses AutoPET. The set-up is shown in FIGURE 1. This figure also denotes the different communication protocols used between the different modules.
FIGURE 1. Block schematic of the AutoPET assembly.
At the center is the GNSS receiver, which accepts RF signals from the GNSS signal simulator. These signals represent signals from the sky in accordance with the scenario loaded in the simulator, and therefore represent unidirectional communication. On the other hand, the receiver communicates with the remote PC housing AutoPET using the NMEA-0183 protocol. This is bidirectional communication, as the receiver continuously updates its status via NMEA messages to AutoPET and, in turn, AutoPET sends a response/control command to the receiver. The receiver sends the $GPGGA NMEA message every second, and through reading this message, AutoPET can determine the current status (acquisition, tracking, position fix, and so on) of the receiver.
The TUTGNSS receiver has the capability to perform a cold start to initiate the next test iteration when commanded by AutoPET. For this purpose, we have designed a simple custom message string, which can be identified by the TUTGNSS receiver as a cold-start command. In response, the receiver sends a custom NMEA message, $GPTXT, which identifies that it has successfully performed a cold start. Performing a cold start involves erasing all a priori navigation-related information from the receiver memory. This includes erasing the ephemeris, almanac, and timing information, and ensuring that all satellite tracking is lost.
AutoPET communicates with the GNSS signal simulator through its controlling computer, called the Sim-PC (which runs the control software for the simulator). This communication is bidirectional using a 100-Mbps Ethernet link. The AutoPET library holds the scenario files, through which it remotely controls the simulator. In turn, the Sim-PC returns responses or error messages in the form of Extensible Markup Language (XML) strings to the AutoPET. The communication between the Sim-PC and the simulator is through its proprietary protocols.
AutoPET makes extensive use of multi-threading. The receiver, AutoPET, and the simulator function autonomously of each other and hence are independently controlled using their own processing threads running in parallel. Examples of some processing threads are:
Thread 1 – monitors the receiver operation through the received NMEA messages. This thread is responsible for identifying, for example, if the receiver achieves a position fix or if it performs a successful cold start.
Thread 2 – monitors the simulator through the received XML error messages and response messages from the Sim-PC. It is responsible for identifying, for example, if the simulator scenario is successfully set up or if the satellite signals are turned on and off when demanded by the test case.
Thread 3 – monitors the internal operation of AutoPET itself to check, for example, if a timer has expired or if the user performs any operation on the GUI during the progress of a test.
Each thread generates an internal software interrupt within AutoPET based on which future course of action has to be dynamically determined.
Later in the article, the application of AutoPET for single-frequency, single-constellation operation and testing of the TUTGNSS receiver is described. However, it can just as easily be applied for more complex, multi-frequency, multi-constellation testing. The scenarios are stored in the library of AutoPET, and they can be easily updated without requiring any changes in the tool itself. On the other hand, the receiver operation needs to be updated to perform position fixes with multiple signals and constellations. If the receiver allows updating of its operation mode using software commands, as is the case in TUTGNSS, these commands can also be included within AutoPET.
In the case of TUTGNSS, two configuration settings control the mode of operation and the manner in which it has to be turned on (cold, warm, or hot start) via a 32-bit control word. Table 1 describes the various options and the digital control word bits corresponding to each option. There are eight possible modes of operation that would require three bits to be uniquely represented. However, we have assigned five bits, to accommodate any planned future increase in operating modes. Similarly, there are three ways to turn on the TUTGNSS receiver, and they can be uniquely represented by two bits. Therefore, out of the 32 available bits, only seven bits are currently utilized. The rest of the bits are in reserve for future use. The mode selection bits are in least significant bit positions of the control word. For example, if the receiver should perform a position fix after a warm start using GPS L1 and Galileo E1 signals, the 32 bit control word would be 00000000_0000000_00000000_00100010. Using this control word at the beginning of every test, AutoPET can be used for a simple single constellation or more advanced multi-constellation testing of the receiver.
TABLE 1. Control words for multi-frequency, multi-constellation testing of TUTGNSS.
Data Capture Tool
The overall set up of dCAP is shown in FIGURE 2. The TUTGNSS receiver consists of the radio front end and the BPU implemented on an Altera Stratix-II development board. This board consists of the NIOS-II softcore embedded processor controlled by the MicroC operating system within a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) board. The hardware is programmed using VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL) and consists of the system entity and a few peripheral entities, such as a phase-locked loop (PLL), which are not shown in the figure for sake of simplicity. The system entity consists of (among others) two software-controlled hardware entities, one for the TUTGNSS receiver BPU and the other for the dCAP server, called CPU-0 and CPU-1 respectively. The Control-PC is responsible for the overall programming of the FPGA board through a USB link. It also holds a Qt-based user interface acting as the dCAP client implementation.
FIGURE 2. Overall block schematic of the dCAP assembly.
The dCAP client (in the Control-PC) establishes an Ethernet connection with the dCAP server (on the FPGA) and requests a user-specified internal data sample. As an example, let us assume the user requests raw I/Q samples input to the TUTGNSS BPU from the radio front end. The dCAP server software communicates with the TUTGNSS software, which in turn allows the dCAP server hardware access to the requested data from the appropriate region of the TUTGNSS hardware, similar to how a signal across a resistor on a dense printed circuit board is viewed by placing oscilloscope probes across it. The only limitation with dCAP is that the user has to predict, in advance, which internal data parameters are of interest and create access points within the correct hardware entities. The dCAP server hardware will connect to the respective access point when demanded by the client.
This data snapshot is first buffered in the local shared memory entity on the FPGA board due to the requirements of speed, size, and time synchronization. The dCAP server software is responsible for transferring this data from the internal memory to the Control-PC through the Ethernet link. The data is stored on the Control-PC hard drive in the form of a *.bin file. Therefore, the size of each data-packet that can be accessed at a time is limited by the size of the FPGA memory entity, while the total data size is limited only by the size of the hard drive of the Control-PC. The speed of data capture is restricted by the maximum speed of the Ethernet link between the dCAP client and server.
In FIGURE 3, the internal operation of the dCAP server is illustrated, assuming that we would like to access the raw samples from the radio front end. The first block that the samples enter inside the TUTGNSS BPU is the baseband converter unit (BCU). This is where the dCAP hardware probes listen in on the signal samples. Through these probes, the signals are diverted to the first-in-first-out (FIFO) data collector on the dCAP server (CPU-1) in addition to their usual route through the further baseband processing blocks of the receiver. After the FIFO collector, the data undergoes clock arbitration, time synchronization, and master-slave synchronization, before being buffered into the on-chip Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM), where it waits until the dCAP server transfers it through the Ethernet-based local network to the requesting dCAP client within the Control-PC. In the case where different internal data has to be monitored, the probes simply reorient to the correct access point within the correct hardware entity (for example, to monitor the signal C/N0, the probes access the tracking loops).
FIGURE 3. Block schematic of an example of the dCAP internal operation.
TUTGNSS Receiver Performance Testing
During the GPS L1 performance testing of the TUTGNSS receiver, the reference receiver position in the simulator was set randomly. Ionosphere and troposphere errors were turned off in the simulator. On average, 100 iterations were performed for each test, and the total duration to complete all tests was two weeks. dCAP was used in monitoring the tracking channels and extracting information such as the C/N0, carrier Doppler, and code-delay estimates for the satellites being tracked. Access to these parameters enabled testing the acquisition and tracking sensitivity of the TUTGNSS receiver, thus confirming the results of the tests performed using AutoPET.
Acquisition Sensitivity. Acquisition sensitivity for the TUTGNSS receiver was measured to be -141.5 dBm via AutoPET and -141 dBm via dCAP. Each coherent integration interval was 4 milliseconds, and 256 such intervals were integrated non-coherently. Using AutoPET, 100 acquisition iterations were performed at every power level, and the average number of satellites acquired was recorded. It was observed that no satellites were acquired at -142 dBm. The acquisition sensitivity test using dCAP involved extracting the carrier Doppler and code-delay estimates. A successful acquisition was assumed only if the code-delay estimate error was less than ±1 chip (300 meters) and the carrier Doppler estimate error was less than ±150 Hz. Based on these criteria, 96.72% of acquisitions were found to be successful when the satellite power was maintained at -141 dBm in the simulator as shown in the histograms in FIGURES 4 and 5.
FIGURE 4. Code-delay estimate within ±1 chip (300 meters).FIGURE 5. Carrier Doppler estimate within ±150 Hz.
Tracking Sensitivity. Tracking sensitivity for the TUTGNSS receiver was measured to be -151 dBm via both tools, assuming a coherent integration interval of 20 milliseconds. Using AutoPET, 100 tracking iterations were performed at every power level and the average number of satellites tracked was recorded. Using dCAP, this test was performed by selecting one satellite and observing how the receiver C/N0 tracked this satellite during high and low signal power conditions. Twenty tracking iterations of 90 seconds each were performed for a particular satellite. In each iteration, the satellite power in the simulator was maintained at the nominal condition of -130 dBm (equivalent to 38 dB C/N0 in the receiver) for the first 30 seconds. Subsequently, the power of the satellite was dropped to -151 dBm (equivalent to 17 dB C/N0 in the receiver).
As visible in Figure 6, the receiver was able to continue tracking the satellite at -51 dBm in 19 out of the 20 iterations. In the case where tracking was lost, the C/N0 can be seen to diverge rapidly to 0. To make sure that in the rest of the 19 cases the receiver was really tracking the satellite at low power, the power of the satellite was increased again after an additional 30 seconds. In each of the 19 cases, the receiver successfully continued to track the satellite.
FIGURE 6. Tracking C/N0 in one tracking channel using dCAP.
3D Position Accuracy and TTFF. Computation of the position fix was performed using a least-squares algorithm without any filtering. Using only AutoPET, 100 position fix iterations were performed and the average 3D error in meters was computed. Within the same test case, the time for achieving a position fix was also recorded. The initial (0–30 seconds) position fix estimates are not very accurate. This is because only the first four acquired satellites are used for the position computation. As more satellites are acquired and tracked, their inclusion into the computation gradually improves the position accuracy to within 1 meter. The average TTFF was computed to 60.59 seconds.
Validity of C/N0 Estimator. FIGURE 7 presents a comparison of C/N0 measurements between the TUTGNSS receiver (extracted using dCAP) and a commercial receiver. The input power from the simulator was varied between -130 dBm and -151 dBm with steps of around 2 dB for 10 seconds each. The C/N0 readings from the two receivers were measured at each power level and plotted on the same scale. The reference power level represents the C/N0 readings of a hypothetical (ideal) receiver with zero radio front-end losses. As the figure shows, on average there is close conformance between the estimated values of C/N0 in the two receivers. The difference between the two receivers and the reference is approximately 5 dB, which includes radio front-end noise and other losses. The TUTGNSS receiver displays lower C/N0 estimation peak-to-peak inconsistency than the commercial receiver.
FIGURE 7. C/N0 measurement using dCAP: Comparison between TUTGNSS, a commercial, and a hypothetical receiver.
Other Uses of dCAP. During initial prototype validation, we noticed that satellite tracking was inconsistent even under high C/N0 conditions. dCAP was used to extract detailed baseband tracking information that helped to identify the source of the problem: signal anomalies due to insufficient clock buffering on an experimental RF front end, as shown in FIGURE 8. Such anomalies would have been impossible to detect with traditional black-box testing practices. Once the problem was rectified, dCAP was used once again to monitor the RF front-end signals and performance of the baseband tracking loops, where FIGURES 9 and 10 show a marked improvement in the receiver signal processing and satellite tracking performance.
FIGURE 8. Signal anomaly in the Q-branch signal due to insufficient clock buffering in the experimental RF front end: detected using dCAP.FIGURE 9. Code Doppler extracted from one tracking loop.FIGURE 10. Carrier Doppler extracted from one tracking loop using dCAP.
Conclusion
In this article, we have demonstrated the results of the TUTGNSS prototype receiver testing using AutoPET and dCAP. Results were presented, analyzed, and conclusions drawn for the GPS L1 performance of the receiver. Furthermore, the procedures can be easily replicated through software modifications for testing more advanced multi-frequency, multi-constellation modes of the receiver.
Added to the benefits of automation in terms of improved accuracy and personnel efficiency, the proposed AutoPET is a cost-effective solution to anyone working on GNSS receiver technology to understand its most important performance parameters. This tool is portable (software platform-independent), easy to install, and easy to execute on any computer with the basic scientific software. From an academic point of view, dCAP is useful for teaching the spectral characteristics of GNSS signals at every stage from deep inside the receiver to researchers or university students in laboratory exercises. Together, these tools have assisted in the complete characterization of the TUTGNSS receiver at TUT, and can be easily adapted, enhanced, and applied to other research-based receivers as well. In other words, the proposed research has an academic as well as practical appeal.
Acknowledgments
This research work received support from the Tampere Doctoral Programme in Information Science and Engineering (TISE), Nokia Foundation, and the Ulla Tuominen Foundation. It has also been partially supported by the Academy of Finland (under the projects: 251138 “Digitally-Enhanced RF for Cognitive Radio Devices”, and 256175 “Cognitive Approaches for Location in Mobile Environments”). We wish to gratefully acknowledge each of these institutions. This article is based on the paper “Automated Test-bench Infrastructure for GNSS Receivers – Case Study of the TUTGNSS Receiver” presented at the 26th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation held in Nashville, Tennessee, September 16–20, 2013.
Manufacturers
The tests described in this article used a Spirent Federal Systems STR4500 multi-channel GPS/SBAS simulator and a u-blox AG EVK-5P GNSS receiver evaluation kit with a LEA-5P receiver module.
SARANG THOMBRE is a GNSS research scientist in the Department of Navigation and Positioning at the Finnish Geodetic Institute (FGI), Helsinki.
JUSSI RAASAKKA is a GNSS R&D scientist at Honeywell International s.r.o. in the Czech Republic.
TOMMI PAAKKI is a teaching assistant and a doctoral student at the Department of Electronics and Communications Engineering, Tampere University of Technology (TUT).
FRANCESCANTONIO DELLA ROSA is the project manager of the Multitechnology Positioning Professionals (MULTI-POS) Marie Curie Initial Training Network and a research scientist at TUT.
MIKKO VALKAMA is a full professor and the head of the Department of Communications Engineering at TUT.
LAURA RUOTSALAINEN is the deputy head of the Department of Navigation and Positioning and aspecialist research scientist at FGI.
HEIDI KUUSNIEMI is a professor and the acting head of the Department of Navigation and Positioning at FGI.
JARI NURMI is a professor in the Department of Electronics and Communications Engineering at TUT.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Conference Paper
“Automated Test-bench Infrastructure for GNSS Receivers – Case Study of the TUTGNSS Receiver” by S. Thombre, J. Raasakka, T. Paakki, F. Della Rosa, M. Valkama, and J. Nurmi in Proceedings of ION GNSS+ 2013, the 26th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Nashville, Tennessee, September 16–20, 2013, pp. 1919–1930.
• TUTGNSS
“TUTGNSS – University Based Hardware/Software GNSS Receiver for Research Purposes” by T. Paakki, J. Raasakka, F. Della Rosa, H. Hurskainen, and J. Nurmi, in Proceedings of Ubiquitous Positioning Indoor Navigation and Location Based Service (UPINLBS), 2010, Helsinki, Finland, October 14–15, 2010, doi: 10.1109/UPINLBS.2010.5654337.
“Software-based GNSS Signal Simulators: Past, Present and Possible Future” by S. Thombre, E.S. Lohan, J. Raquet, H. Hurskainen, and J. Nurmi, in Proceedings of ENC GNSS 2010, the European Navigation Conference 2010, Braunschweig, Germany, October 19–21, 2010.
NMEA 0183, The Standard for Interfacing Marine Electronic Devices, Ver. 4.10, published by the National Marine Electronics Association, Severna Park, Maryland, June 2012.
Plans to harness Galileo and other satnav systems for next-generation satellite augmentation systems for aviation and other high-performance uses took a significant step forward at the latest gathering of worldwide operators and experts, reports the European Space Agency.
Satellite augmentation systems combine additional ground stations and satellite transponders to sharpen satnav accuracy and reliability across given geographical regions — based on the U.S. GPS for now, but with plans to move to a multi-constellation design additionally employing Europe’s Galileo, China’s BeiDou, and Russia’s GLONASS systems in the post-2020 era.
The 26th Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) Interoperability Working Group (IWG) took place in New Delhi, India on February 5–7.
The 26th SBAS Interoperability Working Group (IWG) was introduced by V. Somasundaram, board member of the Airport Authority of India.
Among its achievements was to converge on a standard message definition for one of the channels — known as L5 — of the planned second-generation SBAS systems, which will utilize dual-frequency, multi-constellation signals.
“Two solutions had been put forward, one by ESA based on work by European industry and one from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Stanford University,” explains ESA’s Didier Flament, co-chair of the IWG.
“A single definition coordinated between both bodies has been presented, combining the benefits of both solutions. The formal IWG review and approval loop has now been started with the objective of finalizing it for September’s IWG meeting.
“The aim is to have it ready to submit to the official international SBAS standardization bodies — the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics — as soon as October.”
The meeting also marked the significant progress made by Indian’s own SBAS system GAGAN, which underwent its final stability test last summer, followed by its safety certification in December.
At this point GAGAN was declared certified for non-precision approach users , followed by its safety-of-life service being formally offered to civil aviation users on 14 February.
GAGAN has been jointly undertaken by the AAI and the Indian Space Research Organisation, intended to provide improved accuracy, availability and integrity necessary to enable users to rely on satnav signals for all phases of flight – from en route as well as approach to all qualified airports within the GAGAN service area.
SBAS services worldwide
EGNOS is an operational precursor to Europe’s Galileo global satnav system.
GAGAN is the fourth certified SBAS to enter servicer worldwide. Europe has the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), which was designed and built by ESA then turned over for operation by the European Satellite Service Provider, ESSP, overseen by the European Global Navigation Satellite System Agency (GSA) — both of whom also participated in the meeting. ESA retains responsibility for the future evolution of EGNOS.
The U.S. has the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), developed and operated by the Federal Aviation Administration, with an extension over Canada called CWAAS (Canadian WAAS). WAAS celebrated its 10th anniversary of operational life last July.
Japan has the Multi-functional Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS), developed and operated by Japan’s Civil Aviation Bureau. Japan is currently discussing plans to merge this capability with their new home-grown satnav system, QZSS.
Along with GAGAN, the meeting also covered the progress made by the other SBAS systems under definition or development — the Russian SDCM, Chinese SNAS and Korean K-SBAS.
The follow-up IWG meeting is due to take place in September in Tampa, Florida.
Planned GAGAN service coverage for the two different service levels (RNP0.1 and APV1). GAGAN has been jointly undertaken by the Airport Authority of India and the Indian Space Research Organization, ISRO, to achieve smooth transition to satellite-based navigation and seamless air traffic management across continents. GAGAN is designed to provide improved accuracy, availability and integrity necessary to enable users to rely on GPS for all phases of flight, from en route through approach for all qualified airports within the GAGAN service volume. More precisely it is aimed to provide Non Precision Approach RNP0.1 service levels to the entire Indian Flight Information Region and Precision Approach APV1 service (equivalent to the current EGNOS Service) within a specified service volume within Indian land mass.
Tackling ionospheric interference
The New Delhi IWG took place concurrently with a related meeting, the ICAO’s 4th Ionospheric Study Task Force. This group has been tasked with the objective of developing region-specific models of ionospheric models to compensate for satnav signal interference or loss.
The ionosphere, the electrically sensitive outer shell of Earth’s atmosphere, can be perturbed by solar activity. And because satnav signals pass from space by Earth they can then be disrupted in turn. Equatorial regions see the greatest disturbance, including signal delay or ‘scintillations’ making signals unstable.
The aim is to develop reliable ionospheric models to compensate for these effects, particularly for equatorial SBAS regions, such as India. ESA is contributing with data from its worldwide Monitor network, gathering data to improve future EGNOS performance and potentially support further geographical extension.
Comparing current worldwide SBAS coverage — based on WAAS, EGNOS and MSAS — to the situation envisaged for 2020–25: near-global coverage based on WAAS, EGNOS, MAAS, SDCM and GAGAN, with an expanded network of stations in the southern hemisphere, based on a common dual-frequency/dual satnav standard being finalized by the SBAS IWG.
GammaTech Computer Corp., an international manufacturer and supplier of notebook and tablet computers, has added the S15H: a 15.6-inch semi-rugged Durabook notebook with high-definition resolution that takes full advantage of the Intel Haswell CPU. The S15H is designed for rugged applications and environments.
“The S15H was designed to fill a need for a 15-inch monitor in the marketplace,” said Paul Kim, GammaTech vice president of marketing. “Many companies and organizations have legacy software programs that were designed for 15-inch monitors with no way to run them. The S15H provides a solution to this problem, while eliminating the need and expense of modifying how legacy systems display.”
The S15H notebook’s full high-definition (1920 x 1080 resolution) 15.6-inch LED display with Intel compliant high-definition stereo audio, built-in microphone, and Intel integrated graphics controller, plus nVidia Optimus technology ensures incredible image detail and crisp reproduction, even for the most graphic-intense situations, including 3D, GammaTech said.
Replacing Intel’s Ivy Bridge, the Haswell CPU is the first SoCs that is made specifically to take advantage of Intel’s 22nm process technology. It features a new core, new graphics, and substantial changes to the platform in terms of memory and power delivery as well as power management. That means consumers or businesses using the GammaTech S15H notebook can expect faster computing and graphics, and longer battery life in a sleek form factor, GammaTech said.
The use of a USB 3.0 connector allows the S15H notebook to transfer data very fast, GammaTech said. With a “SuperSpeed” transfer mode, USB 3.0 is capable of transferring data at up to 5Gbit/sec., more than 10 times as fast as the 480 Mbit/sec. top speed of USB 2.0. Plus, with its increased bandwidth, USB 3.0 is able to use two unidirectional data paths: one for receiving data, the other for transmitting. It is also backwards compatible with USB 2.0 devices.
The Durabook S15H notebook has a magnesium alloy case 20 times stronger than ABS plastic. The unit is tested to military standard 810G for drop and shock resistance. Its keyboard, buttons and indicators are spill resistant. Its flexible HDD cable design absorbs shock from drops, providing protection for important data, while anti-shock mounting technology around the LCD helps protect the display from accidental damage.
Other rugged features include an exclusive optical disk-tray lock that prevents unintentional tray eject from drop and vibration; double-protection smart battery circuitry, which prevents damage caused by current or voltage surges and overheating; and smart battery calibration that helps fight the loss of battery capacity after repeated charge-discharge cycles.
The Durabook S15H notebook comes with an Intel 4th Generation iCore CPU M series with Intel HM86 chipset. Two dual-channel DDR III SODIMM slots provide 2, 4, 8, or 16GB of memory. An internal optical media device accommodates a DVD super-multi drive (DVD-R/CD-RW/DVD-RW/DVD+RW_DL/DVD-RAM).
The S15H notebook can be used virtually anywhere thanks to wireless communications such as integrated 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet, an Intel Mini-Express wireless LAN network connection, and Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR. A WWAN 3G module is also available. The SIM card is secured behind a security-screwed door.
System security is provided by internal TPM 1.2 data security protection, as well as a Kensington lock connector and both administrator and boot password control.
GeoLearn, a start-up devoted to servicing the geospatial industry with online learning and continuing education credits, has launched its website and training portal with an initial catalog of 22 one-hour-long courses taught by industry-leading faculty members. Course topics available at launch include “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s),” “ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys,” and “National Flood Plain Insurance.”
“We want to provide quality professional development to satisfy continuing education requirements that also enables you to deliver services to your clients from a higher quality knowledge base,” said GeoLearn Principal Joe Paiva. “You often have to get continuing education to satisfy licensing requirements; at GeoLearn you will also leave enriched — a plus for any geospatial organization.” While catering to professionals, GeoLearn will begin to build up courses suitable for technicians as well, including a series that supports those pursuing Certified Survey Technician (CST) status.
GeoLearn faculty members are nationally recognized experts in the geospatial field. Initial faculty include Gary Kent of the Schneider Corporation, Wendy Lathrop of Cadastral Consulting and GeoLearn Principal Joseph Paiva. More courses will come soon from other notable professionals in the geospatial industry.
“A key motivation to start GeoLearn has been the desire to significantly improve the learning experience for busy professionals and technicians,” said GeoLearn Principal Bob Morris. “With limited time availability and the growing cost of travel associated with more traditional methods of securing continuing education credits, we hope to provide an attractive option using of state-of-the-art multi-media through our online training portal.”
GeoLearn has invested in a multi-camera video production studio optimized for online learning, and hired Emmy Award-winning marketing and video expert Peter Barrett to head up those efforts.
During this year, National Atlas of the United States and The National Map will transition into a combined single source for geospatial and cartographic information. This transformation is projected to streamline access to maps, data and information from the USGS National Geospatial Program (NGP). The move will prioritize the the agency’s civilian mapping role and consolidate core investments, the agency said.
The USGS will continue its long history of providing topographic maps, geospatial data and other geographic information by offering a range of scales and layers of geospatial information on The National Map Viewer and through US Topo maps. As a result of the conversion to an integrated single source for geospatial and cartographic information, nationalatlas.gov will be removed from service on September 30, 2014.
“We recognize how important it is for citizens to have access to the cartographic and geographic information of our nation. We are committed to providing that access through nationalmap.gov,” said Mark DeMulder, NGP director.
“We value the National Atlas customers and stakeholders and want to make this transition as easy as possible,” explained Jay Donnelly, the National Atlas Program Manager. “We will post updates to The National Map and National Atlas Websites as this transition unfolds, including information on the future availability of the products and services currently delivered by nationalatlas.gov.”
March 6, 2014 update: On March 6, 2014 Federal Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled against the FAA in its case against Rapheal Pirker, opening up commercial use of drones in the U.S.
Forgive me for circling back on the the topic of drone use for commercial mapping in the U.S., but I’m drawn to it like a bee to honey. Perhaps it’s because I used to fly airplanes, or because drone technology encompasses a lot of the technology I’m involved with: GNSS, inertial navigation, GIS, imagery. Be that as it may, the most intriguing aspect of this issue in the U.S. is that seemingly law-abiding citizens are knowingly (or unknowningly) disregarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) firm stance that no commercial drone operations are allowed.
According to the FAA, it doesn’t matter if the drone flies under 400 feet. It doesn’t matter if an operator only flies the drone above his/her own property. It doesn’t matter if the drone operator doesn’t charge for the service. If its business-related (such as mapping your fields), it’s illegal, according to the FAA.
But, who cares?
Late last year, Fox News published a story about a farmer in Idaho who uses a drone he built to monitor activities on his farm. According to the report, he’s not waiting around for the FAA “to work out rules for drones.” Countless U.S. start-up companies are promoting their mapping drones by either selling drones (MarcusUAV, Honeycomb, VoltAerial Robotics, Precision Drone, etc.) or selling services to process data collected by drones (such as DroneMapper).
Last week, online magazine Politico published an article appropriately titled “FAA Risks Losing the Drone War.” The article summarizes that as much as the FAA wants to tell you it’s illegal to fly drones commercially, people are doing it anyway. They aren’t sneaking around trying to hide it! High-profile people have openly used drones without regard to the FAA’s opinion. Martin Scorsese reportedly hired a drone service company to shoot one of the scenes in the 2013 movie “The Wolf of Wall Street.”
“Honestly?” said one commercial operator, who requested anonymity to protect his business. “My hope is that I’m far afield enough and small enough potatoes to the FAA that I can fly under the radar on this one.”
I think that’s the most honest statement I’ve read so far, and that’s probably the attitude of nearly every operator who is flying drones commercially in the U.S., even as they attempt to justify how they are legally (or illegally) dancing around the FAA rules.
The FAA has to take the majority of the blame for letting this happen. Perhaps it’s intentional? A “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy? There seem to have been very few enforcement actions taken by the FAA. In November 2013, I requested a list of enforcement actions from the FAA regarding UAVs. Despite giving me delivery dates, nothing has arrived and I’m told I won’t likely see anything from the agency. In an article published by BusinessWeek last week entitled “The FAA Finds Commercial Drone Flights Hard to Police,” BusinessWeek reports that the FAA informed the magazine that it took action “17 times in 13 months ending July.” Furthermore, the article quotes a former FAA employee involved with drones as saying “The reality is, there is no way to patrol it.”
March 3, 2014 Update: On February 26, 2014, the FAA published “Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft”.
The Mobile World Congress in Barcelona has turned into a mini Consumer Electronics Show. The term “Internet of Things” is the new hot buzz word this year. The show had an estimated 75,000 attendees spread across two sites and eight football-field-sized exhibit halls. While the connected car continued to have high visibility, other technology such as location-enabled advertising and indoor positioning received buzz.
BARCELONA — Fueled by connected car popularity, automakers and vendors converged on the Mobile World Congress here to assess the market in a continent that has not fared well economically. Some say the European market for location products is slower than that of North America — others say it is doing fine.
In this climate, a few automobile analysts have indicated they were worried that a large player such as Google or Apple will swoop in and take control of the connected car market — and tell automakers what to put in a vehicle. Last month, Google even formed its own group, the Open Automobile Alliance, with GM, Honda, Audi, Hyundai and chipmaker Nvidia.
Jorg Brakensiek, Car Connectivity Consortium chair of technical work group and Nokia principal architect, smart devices, doesn’t believe that Google will tell automakers what to do when it comes to connected vehicles. “Android is a consumer electronic device. Completely different than what we do,” he said. “Certainly, there are complimentary applications. We are not dominated by a single partner.”
At MWC, the Car Connectivity Consortium, or CCC, rolled out MirrorLink Developer Fast Track to allow developers to gain MirrorLink certification, an industry standard for car-smartphone interoperability, for their connected car applications. “We believe in standardization of the technology. But also do not put restrictions on business models and feel we allow a very open ecosystem [for members],” Brakensiek said.
Several industry analysts have said that the connected car market will eventually drive the autonomous vehicle movement, also championed by Google. Brakensiek said people still have to make the decisions — driverless cars initially will not be fully autonomous. “People have to make the judgment whether to hit the kid, or drive into a car next to them. Will that decision be made entirely by a car? I hope not,” he said.
CCC said that Coyote, Glympse and Parkopedia are the first developers admitted to the program. CCC said developers will have access to technical support, social media and press inclusion, promotion of the application among members and other benefits.
At an MWC developer’s conference, CCC said that Peugeot Citroen will roll out two MirrorLink-enabled vehicles, the C1 and 108, at the Geneva International Motor Show.
One company, Cincinnati-based RacoWireless, has been working with a number of overseas wireless carriers as well as automakers to power connected vehicles. The company recently signed a deal with AT&T Mobility to connect the Audi A3 line to LTE. As GPS World reported, AT&T had announced its LTE commitment to Audi at CES.
“We want to have our customers get the connectivity they need. We have signed dozens of carriers [worldwide], but now we are looking at more strategic partnerships,” said John Horn, RacoWireless president, who also says the Latin America is a growing market, working with its carrier partner, Telefonica, there.
At MWC, RacoWireless said it would integrate Inmarsat’s M2M service into its Omega Management Suite. The OMS is a cloud-based dashboard that helps to enable RacoWireless’ network of more than 1,000 providers. The deal could be significant as satellite connectivity services, required in remote areas, are growing in the M2M market.
Magellan Boss Outlines Strategic Vision
One of the companies trying to establish deep roots in the connected vehicle market is Magellan. Peggy Fong, Magellan president, said the company’s strategic focus is now in two areas: Wearables and connected vehicles.
“We have set a clear direction for the company in next few years. Our focus will be the cloud connected car, which is not traditional navigation,” she said. “Our other focus will be wearables. We saw that market coming when we identified that [portable navigation device] sales were declining five years ago.”
Magellan’s first foray into the wearable/smartwatch market wasn’t a success. The new product, Echo, was launched at CES, works with a smartphone. “The first product built a foundation. We are focusing on the sports watch market, which is different than the fitness market,” Fong said.
In addition to Magellan’s rollout, Garmin teamed up with Sony at MWC to offer navigation on a smartwatch. The app has speed warnings, traffic tracking, social media capability. The unit, launching later this spring, has a monthly service charge.
Fong believes that navigation on a watch won’t catch on because consumers are already carrying a smartphone with that capability. “We don’t believe navigation is the best use for a watch,” said Fong, who indicated that the company was working on other applications for its own wearable product.
Garmin also is offered its Navigon, Streetpilot navigation units for iPhones, iPad, Android and Windows phones at MWC. Its Head-Up Display Plus was getting a lot of buzz at the Showstoppers event the day before the conference.
Established Location Companies Exhibit at MWC
Telecommunication Systems’ two location entities — one based in California and the other in Washington state — displayed location-based services and navigation systems at MWC.
TCS rolled out its DopplerNav embedded weather overlays at the show. The company is also trying to establish a foothold with European wireless carriers with its Gokivo 2.0 location-based technologies for both Android and iPhone smartphones.
“Users can see real-time weather and be able to adjust routes around it. The released version of the product is scheduled for April, but we are rolling it out in Europe,” said Michael Loo, TCS senior marketing manager, of the new DopplerNav unit.
The company’s Seattle unit, which was made up of former Autodesk employees, is seeing inroads in Latin American markets. Europe, however, has been a tough nut to crack as carriers haven’t signed up for its white label locater product.
“Our Family Locater and Workforce Locator products are doing well in Latin America. We are trying to gain a foothold here in Europe,” said Javier Ferraez, TCS senior product manager, location applications.
Overall, TCS was one of the companies that had been hurt by Google’s free maps and navigation, but is now seeing growth in niche LBS and navigation areas.
Also at MWC, Nokia’s Here unit had a few product announcements such as a mapping product with CNN; Here maps and turn-by-turn navigation integration into the parent company’s first Android-based phone, Nokia X (which doesn’t incorporate Google maps and navigation); Here Auto Cloud that powers Volvo navigation; and even location-based games.
Where’s Indoor Positioning?
Some of the usual industry players had displays on indoor positioning, but there were no big announcements. Such companies as SK Telecom displayed beacons with centimeter-level accuracy that leverage Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and UWB technology.
“We have indoor and outdoor beacons. The outdoor beacons can last three years without a battery change,” said John Kwon, Idolink CEO, who was displaying a system that is not on the market to assess European carriers’ interest.
SK Telecom displayed its augmented reality platform, also not yet on the market, which allows users to point a camera at an object, have it identified, mapped/located and described. The company says it will allow the development of many business-to-business and business-to-consumer augmented reality services and content by third-party developers. This may open the door to several markets such as advertising agencies, education and publishing companies.
In other Mobile World Congress news:
ALK Technologies showed off its free CoPilot GPS app, which has turn-by-turn navigation. The app has a new feature called CommuteMe, which learns a driver’s daily commute routing, tracking streets and freeways they frequently use. ALK was another company that focused on enterprise markets, particularly when Google invaded the market with free maps and navigation.
Is the Mobile World Congress outgrowing Barcelona? Seems as if it is almost as hard to get a hotel room, flight and other travel as it is to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. One attendee said he found great lodging near the conference, but obtained it in October. Others in the industry believed that the enormous trade show is getting too expensive — and too far away — to realistically attend and market products and services.
There were many more meeting rooms this year than at previous MWCs. Many companies are opting in on these private venues to talk with customers and potential customers.
Mark Zuckerberg came out in his trademark short sleeved T-shirt and jeans. He promoted Internet.org, an effort to get the web into underdeveloped countries. Of course, he was talking to a room of wireless executives and others who would have to build/pay for that capability. He also said he was done acquiring companies for now — does that mean there will be no $19 billion Whatsapp pay day for a location company?
Last week, the FCC proposed to update 911 regulations to require carriers to be able to locate 911 calls that are made indoors. The current rules were made in 1996 and only required carriers to locate outdoor calls. Then, the outdoor-only rule made sense. We used wireline indoors, and complex indoor technology wasn’t in sight. That is no longer the case. Nearly 73 percent of 911 calls in California are made from wireless phones. The FCC wants to start small; in the near term, wireless carriers would need to identify the building, as well as the floor, from where the call is being made. I’ll get to the proposed long-term rules in a bit.
How do I think this will play out? Dialing back in time to the turn of the century, you will recall that the carriers were stomping their feet in outrage over FCC rules that required carriers to send the location of an outdoor 911 call to dispatch centers. The word onerous was used generously by the carriers. K Street filled its pockets lobbying the FCC to water down location accuracy requirements and reporting. There were certainly some challenges complying with the FCC rules, but they were greatly overstated.
Back then, I served two terms on the board of the E911 Institute, which supported a caucus in Congress devoted to promoting emergency response. The board included wireless carriers, vendors and public safety professionals. While, on the face of it the carriers were providing support for E911, at the same time, they were working hard to take teeth out of the implementation. We will see how the carriers respond this time.
So let’s look at the FCC’s proposed rules for the long-term. The commission is proposing more detailed indoor location accuracy standards that would require identification of the specific room, office or apartment where a wireless 911 call is made. Imagine a call being placed from a college dorm or arena and the value is clear. And with regard to the technology, my retailer in the mall can trace my location throughout the mall, before and after I enter their store. As usual, the commercial arena has showed us what’s possible. Let’s see what the carriers say this time about stricter rules on location.
Carlson Software’s newest data collector, the Carlson MINI2, packs a punch for its compact size. The new handheld computer is taking the place of its predecessor, the Carlson MINI.
With an IP68 rating (better than the original MINI), the MINI2 is waterproof and dustproof, and is tested to MIL-STD-810G to meet the environmental demands of the surveying industry. The MINI2 also has several advancements over the MINI, including a bright display, a custom battery that lasts 20+ hours on one charge, and a scratch-resistant capacitive touchscreen with glove-friendly numeric keypad, for faster and more accurate data entry.
The Carlson MINI2 was designed and manufactured by Juniper Systems, which specializes in building ultra-rugged handheld computers. Juniper Systems also manufactures the Carlson Surveyor handheld computer. Carlson Software packages these rugged handhelds with its own software to provide a total solution for surveying professionals.
“Carlson Software has been a great partner of Juniper Systems for many years now,” said Debbie Trolson, Geomatics Market Manager at Juniper Systems. “Their high level of service as well as their attention to customer needs has made them not only an excellent company, but also a leader in the surveying market. I believe our cooperation with Carlson in providing the MINI2 to surveying professionals will continue to strengthen our partnership for years to come.”
“Working with the team at Juniper Systems has allowed Carlson to offer our customers the kind of rugged and reliable hardware they need out in the field,” said Butch Herter, director of Hardware for Carlson Software. “The Juniper-produced MINI2 and Surveyor are the perfect complement to Carlson’s popular and efficient data collection software choices.”
The hounds of spring are on winter’s traces. As Galileo emerges from its long, cold slumber, the energy of a new constellation radiates through the skies to encourage blossoms across Europe. ESA’s recent declaration of in-orbit validation means the downstream satnav market can now truly get going.
If a lot of demand has yet to be demonstrated, certainly a lot of pioneer applications have been developed, and the pent-up current is about to flow. Witness a plethora of GNSS and geospatial conferences in March, April, May, and June, from Munich to Rotterdam to Geneva to London, and on to Prague. The presentations at these gatherings no longer lean so heavily on academic and technical projections and predictions, but embody real-world applications and actual products. Long awaited, Europe’s GNSS spring has finally sprung.
Brad Parkinson, the chief and original architect of GPS, fittingly kicked off the season this month in London, where he told a UK conference that GNSS needs to be made more robust to ensure worldwide availability of services to users. His concerns over signal availability relate to threats such as the loss of authorized frequency spectrum (implicitly creating licensed jammers), space weather due to hyperactive ionospheric conditions, and deliberate or inadvertent jamming of GNSS signals. Parkinson made his remarks as the keynote speech at GNSS Vulnerabilities and Resilient PNT 2014, hosted by the Royal Institute of Navigation.
Coming up soon, Dr. Parkinson will also deliver the keynote address for the European Navigation Conference on April 15 in the Netherlands — but more on that anon.
Munich Satellite Navigation Summit, Munich, March 25–27
The scene now shifts southward to Bavaria, where the long-running Munich Summit gathers government, financial, industrial, and scientific dignitaries for high-level perspective on all GNSS, certainly with a Galileo emphasis but prominently featuring GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, QZSS, IRNSS, and SBAS.
The technical program of the Munich Satellite Navigation Summit includes a multitude of panel discussions involving invited speakers on further topics such as the legal issues of privacy devices and GNSS re-transmitters, achieving precise point positioning (PPP) on a global scale, the role of other autonomous sensors in future navigation, monitoring of climate and natural disasters, and integrated applications of GNSS and Earth observation.
The summit will also officially open the European Satellite Navigation and provide a parallel track on Copernicus, the European Commission´s Earth observation program.
GPS World’s contributing editor Tony Murfin will file a complete report on the Munich Summit in the inaugural issue of EAGER, the European GNSS and Earth Observation Report. Subscriptions are free to this new quarterly email newsletter at the preceding link.
EAGER will feature news of European industry, agency, and scientific developments in satellite-based positioning, navigation, and timing; geospatial technology; Earth observation from space; digital mapping; and location-based services. EAGER focuses on the EU programs Galileo, EGNOS, and Copernicus along with their applications, but also encompasses European involvement in the other GNSSs and their geospatial applications of all kinds. Knowledgeable reporting from European sources, and interviews with and articles by European GNSS/geospatial community leaders. The latest technologies, launch schedules, applications, equipment, and industry and policy developments.
ENC GNSS 2014, Rotterdam, April 14–17
More than 120 technical papers will be presented at the European Navigation Conference (ENC 2014), under the thematic header Technology, Innovation, Business. As previously mentioned, Bradford Parkinson will deliver one of the two keynotes on “Assured PNT – Assured World Economic Benefits,” joined on the podium by Prof. Erik Theunissen of Delft Technical University, speaking on “So You Think You Are Safe.”
The program continues with a Galileo session, in which ESA will present the latest results of Galileo IOV and future plans for FOC.
Preliminary meetings will be held by the European Maritime Radionavigation Forum (EMRF), the Resilient PNT Forum, EUGIN, IAIN, and European Journal of Navigation. On Tuesday, another kick-off (!!) of the European Satellite Navigation Competition (ESNC) 2014 will take place.
The Netherlands Institute of Navigation’s organizing committee chair Jac Spaans (also a long-time Editorial Advisory Board member of this magazine, and furthermore a knight in the Order of Orange-Nassau) is pleased to invite all satnav enthusiasts to the conference, taking place the week before Easter, allowing you to extend your stay and enjoy the tulip fields, the windmills, and other objects of interest in The Netherlands. Host-city Rotterdam, one of the biggest ports in the world, gives proof the Dutch saying, “In Rotterdam they do not sell shirts with long sleeves, because they roll them up anyway.”
Another of GPS World’s contributing editors, Don Jewell, will attend and report on the conference, either in his Defense PNT newsletter in May or as a guest columnist in this GNSS Design & Test newsletter of that month. To be sure, his column will also appear prominently in the second (June) issue of EAGER, the European GNSS and Earth Observation Report. Subscriptions are free to this new quarterly email newsletter at the preceding link.
Geospatial World Forum, Geneva, May 5–9
Now in its sixth edition, the Geospatial World Forum concentrates on geographic information systems (GIS) in mapping, remote sensing, satellite navigation as applied to the electricity sector and energy distribution; architecture, engineering, and construction; sustainable agricultural industrialization; smart cities, municipal management; disaster preparedness and coping, natural hazard monitoring; big data as a competitive business asset, business intelligence, and market analysis; multi-sensor integration for monitoring; geospatial’s role in healthcare; global peace and prosperity; and last but by no means least, in fact probably the most important in our long term, climate change.
Next up on our busy travel schedule — and nothing says an industry is growing like the launch of another new conference — comes GEO Business, primarily an exhibition but also conference featuring industrial training and demonstrations featuring the technology and services used by those working with spatial data.
GEO Business boasts that it was born out of consultation with key industry leaders, and as a result the show is organized in collaboration with the Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors (ICES), the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), The Survey Association (TSA), and the Association for Geographic Information (AGI). This is a joint cooperative event involving major players, both organizational and industrial, in the geospatial community.
Presentations will be given by Leica Geosystems (Mobile GIS), Esri UK, Carlson Software, Fugro (Advanced airborne survey), Trimble, GeoPlace (spatial addressing), Altus Positioning Systems (single- and dual-frequency data collection), Topcon (global-scope monitoring), Spectra Precision, Ordnance Survey (geospatial data management), iXBlue, and others.
By this point, I should start charging a subscription fee to anyone who has failed to sign up for EAGER.
European Space Solutions 2014, Prague, June 11–13
photo: European Space Solutions
Finally, the European Space Solutions conference in Prague has yet to be formally announced by the European GNSS Agency, but a pre-registration page is open.
The 2013 generation of this conference featured sessions on indoor location-based services and solutions, environmental protection, emergency response and disaster management, mobile applications, sustainable energy, road and traffic management, and the future of the Galileo Public Regulated Service, an encrypted navigation service designed to be more resistant to jamming, involuntary interference and spoofing, designated for authorized users.
Tim Reynolds, GPS World’s newest contributing editor, will likely report from Prague on this, as he will from several of the earlier spring shows. Based in Brussels for the last decade-plus, Tim will provide in-depth and up-close perspective on Galileo, Copernicus, and all things Europe connected with space and satellite navigation. His main public forum will be EAGER, the European GNSS and Earth Observation Report, but he will also furnish regular stories for the Navigate! e-newsletter and this one.
CompassTools Inc., a distributor of mapping and GIS products for field data collection, has installed a GPS reference station in Durango, Colorado, to provide freely available differential correction data to GPS users in the Four Corners area of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. The correction data can significantly enhance the accuracy of location coordinates captured by GPS receivers used in mapping and surveying applications.
“We have many clients involved in GIS mapping projects for energy development, utility asset location and local government applications in the Four Corners region,” said CompassTools CEO Steve Chiles. “CompassTools set up the Durango reference station to help them complete their mapping projects with greater efficiency and accuracy and at less expense.”
CompassTools is a value-added reseller of hardware and software mapping solutions from Trimble, Laser Technology, Ricoh, GeoSpatial Experts, Esri, and CartoPac. Since 1994, CompassTools has sold, leased, repaired, and offered training on the latest GPS and GIS mapping products in an eight-state region that includes Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas and parts of Texas. In addition, the firm provides expert GPS/GIS consulting and creates customized bundled packages to meet the specific needs of complex data collection projects.
The Trimble NetR9 GNSS reference station installed by CompassTools in Durango is capable of receiving location signals from GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo. CompassTools established the unit as a Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) accepted by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and part of Mesa County Colorado’s Real Time Virtual Reference Network.
“The Trimble NetR9 broadcasts differential correction data in real time via a cellular signal,” said Chiles. “And the correction data is also posted automatically to the CompassTools website for post-processing.”
Chiles explained that this means the GPS user has the option — usually depending on the capabilities of their portable GPS receiver — to correct their location data and improve its accuracy in real time as they collect it in the field. Or the GPS user can download the correction data from the CompassTools website when they return to the office and process the data after the fact. An advantage of real-time correction is the user knows the accuracy of the GPS data being collected while still in the field.
“The ultimate accuracy of the collected location data depends on the quality of GPS receiver being used,” said Chiles. “We have many clients in Durango using mapping-grade handheld GPS data collection devices achieving accuracy better than 10 centimeters using the reference station data.”
