1 / 18

Evaluating Handheld GPS Receivers for Recording Archaeological Survey Data

This study assesses the effectiveness of handheld GPS receivers in recording archaeological survey data, comparing methods and analyzing results for accuracy and efficiency in mapping survey areas, artifacts, and sites. Practical insights and recommendations are provided based on fieldwork conducted using Garmin Etrex and Vista receivers in 2008 at UW Arboretum. The findings suggest that both waypoints/routes and tracks offer reliable precision, with tracks being more efficient for defining boundaries and shapes of sites. Recommendations include using control points for survey areas, recording artifacts as waypoints, and sites with tracks, and utilizing GPS receivers with loaded background images for improved data collection.

llemmon
Download Presentation

Evaluating Handheld GPS Receivers for Recording Archaeological Survey Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating Handheld GPS Receivers for Recording Archaeological Survey Data GEO444 – Practical GPS William Eichmann and Jake Reidel

  2. Archaeological Survey Data • Survey areas: agricultural field boundaries, areas surveyed, surface conditions, transect interval, often visible on satellite images, polygons, certainty=10m. • Individual artifacts: “isolated finds” reflect diffuse activities across landscape, diagnostic artifacts, points, certainty=2-5m. • Sites: concentrated areas of material culture, amorphous and fuzzy boundaries, comprised of individual artifacts, polygons, certainty=10m.

  3. Time and Cost • How much time does the method take relative to other methods? • How does it compare with other methods in terms of accuracy?

  4. Field Site: UW Aboretum

  5. Google Earth

  6. Methods • Vehicle • 2 recievers Garmin Etrex and Vista • Digital camera • computer • Software: GPS Babel, Google Earth pro. • Date of fieldwork: 2008.05.05 • Time of fieldwork: 16:47-18:50 • Waypoints: measured for 1 min. • Tracks measurement frequency: 5 sec. (p14), 30sec (p12)

  7. Data Analysis

  8. Field conditions

  9. Waypoints

  10. Results: Waypoints / Routes

  11. Masking

  12. Tracks

  13. Visual Comparison

  14. Discussion • Both waypoints/routes and tracks are sufficiently accurate and precise for defining field and site boundaries. • Tracks take less time and provide better accuracy with similar precision to waypoints/routes • Tracks may be better suited to recording amorphous shapes of sites • Record individual artifacts as waypoints. • Tall vegetation masks satellites

  15. Conclusion and Improvements • Survey areas: collect several control points and define fields based on satellite images. • Individual artifacts: record as waypoints • Sites: record with tracks • Equipment: use a GPS receiver/data collector with loaded background images.

More Related