1 / 18

Leaf-off accuracy of mapping-grade GPS receivers

Leaf-off accuracy of mapping-grade GPS receivers. Pete Bettinger Michael Ransom James Rhynold University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Athens, GA. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference. Overview

zoltan
Download Presentation

Leaf-off accuracy of mapping-grade GPS receivers

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. Leaf-off accuracy of mapping-grade GPS receivers Pete Bettinger Michael Ransom James Rhynold University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Athens, GA 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  2. Overview This study represents an assessment of two recently-available GPS receiver configurations used in mature southern pine and hardwood forests in the Piedmont of Georgia. Recent studies of GPS technology in the Piedmont of Georgia indicate that mapping-grade GPS receivers, when used in forested conditions, can have horizontal position error of 5 m or greater. However, these studies were conducted with equipment 2-3 years old at the time of data collection, and results were published almost 2 years after data collection. Given recent advances in GPS technology, we decided to enact a study of two recently-introduced mapping-grade GPS receiver configurations in winter-time to determine how much better current technology may be with regard to horizontal position accuracy. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  3. Objectives With the advent of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), it is questionable whether post-collection differential correction is now necessary, therefore it was our desire to report real-time accuracy levels that might be obtained with the latest equipment. As a result, our objective was to design a study that would allow us to understand the current state of real-time mapping-grade GPS receiver accuracy in leaf-off forested conditions. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  4. Methods GPS point positions were collected with two mapping-grade GPS receivers during leaf-off (winter) conditions at the Whitehall Forest GPS Test Course in Athens, GA. The systems were (1) a Trimble GeoXT receiver with a self-contained antenna, and (2) a Tripod Data Systems Ranger data collector equipped with a Crescent A100 antenna. During each sample, fifty position fixes were recorded. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  5. Methods Hardwood stand: 60-70 years old 88 ft2 per acre basal area 144 trees per acre Pine stand: 60-70 years old 86 ft2 per acre basal area 59 trees per acre 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  6. Methods 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  7. Methods A 1-second interval separated the position fixes that were collected at each visit to each control point. Our intent was to visit each control point during periods of time when the planned position dilution of precision (PDOP) was adequate; pre-planning was thus accomplished using GPS planning software. The WAAS signal was enabled for real-time augmentation of positions, although the service was not necessarily available 100% of the time. Since the method of data collection was randomized, and since visits to control points were made within minutes of each other, the effect of WAAS was assumed the same for the conditions tested. Post-collection differential correction was not applied, to determine whether the current accepted theory (differential correction is necessary) could be challenged. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  8. Methods Accuracy of the horizontal positions collected with each GPS receiver configuration was evaluated by using the root mean square error (RMSE). RMSE is the raw difference between collected measurements and the control points, and places greater weight on larger errors since the error term is squared. Using raw RMSE to evaluate the differences between GPS receiver configurations may make more sense to land managers than what the federal government suggests, which is to report accuracy in RMSE ground distances at the 95% confidence level. Here, one would take the raw RMSE, and multiply it by a factor (1.7308) to arrive at a value which suggests that one would be 95% confident that the true accuracy is this resulting value (raw RMSE x 1.7308), or lower. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  9. Methods There are two distinct ways to evaluate RMSE: (1) Determine the error for each of the 50 position fixes collected on each visit to a control point, and then average the error (RMSE1). (2) Generate an average position using the set of 50 position fixes collected from each visit to each control point, then determine the error from this value (RMSE2). 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  10. Methods A correlation analysis was performed between the RMSE values and the average PDOP, SNR, air temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure experienced with each visit. Goodness of fit tests for a normal distribution of data were testing using BestFit software. These tests were necessary, since a Student's t-test was ultimately applied to determine whether significant differences existed between stand types (using the same receiver configuration) and between receiver configurations (within the same stand type). 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  11. Results Leaf-off RMSE RMSE2 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.0 RMSE1 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.7 PDOP 3.25 3.93 3.59 4.44 SNR 44.1 43.6 41.7 40.9 Receiver / stand GeoXT - Pine - Hardwood Crescent A100 - Pine - Hardwood Range of error: 0.2 m to 16 m (RMSE1). 0.2 m to 10 m (RMSE2). 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  12. Results RMSE2 No significant differences in accuracy between stand types, when using the same GPS receiver configuration. No significant differences in accuracy between receiver configurations, within the same stand type. RMSE1 Similar story, except a significant difference between pine and hardwood stand types when using the Crescent A100. And, there were significant differences between the two GPS receiver configurations in the hardwood stand. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  13. Results Correlation Analysis Little correlation between: Planned PDOP and accuracy levels SNR and accuracy levels Relative humidity and accuracy levels Atmospheric pressure and accuracy levels The only interesting correlations were between air temperature and RMSE1 (-0.517) and RMSE2 (-0.608), when using the Crescent A100 antenna in the hardwood stand. As air temperature increased in the hardwood stand, accuracy of the Crescent A100 increased. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  14. Discussion Recent studies have shown that under both leaf-on and leaf-off conditions, enabling WAAS can increase the horizontal position accuracy of both mapping-grade and consumer-grade GPS receivers. Although in our study the WAAS signal was not available 100% of the time, we assumed it was enabled sufficiently to simulate common data collection practices. Our work suggests that the current technology may be able to provide forest managers with a level of quality that is acceptable for most forest management purposes, although leaf-on conditions and other forest types should also subsequently be assessed. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  15. Discussion We found that horizontal position accuracy was on the order of 2 m when WAAS is enabled in these receivers and post-collection differential correction is not employed. This is significant in that the accuracy of the receivers evaluated is greater than recent studies suggest even without the use of differential correction, revising our notion of how well GPS receivers can perform in real time in forested conditions. While post-processing was not performed here, since real-time horizontal position accuracy was of interest to us, one might assume that horizontal position accuracy might be improved about 1.0 m, assuming the results from other studies are transferable to our results. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  16. Discussion In general, there was no significant difference in horizontal position accuracy between the two receiver configurations when the error of an average position (from a set of position fixes) was analyzed. These results are therefore applicable to forest managers who desire real-time data for assisting with forest management decisions. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  17. Discussion In addition, in general there was no correlation between horizontal position accuracy and PDOP (Positional Dilution of Precision), signal-to-noise ratio, relative humidity, air temperature, and atmospheric pressure values at the time of data collection. However, one of the two receiver configurations seemed sensitive to air temperature. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

  18. Questions and Comments are Welcome The assistance of LandMark Systems is greatly appreciated. 7th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference

More Related