Spatial Accuracy of UAV-Derived Orthoimagery and Topography: Comparing Photogrammetric Models Processed with Direct Geo-Referencing and Ground Control Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mapping with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) typically involves the deployment of ground control points (GCPs) to georeference the images and topographic model. An alternative approach is direct geo ref er encing, whereby the onboard Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and inertial measurement unit are used without GCPs to locate and orient the data. This study compares the spatial accuracy of these approaches using two nearly identical UAVs. The onboard GNSS is the one difference between them, as one vehicle uses a survey-grade GNSS/RTK receiver (RTK UAV), while the other uses a lower-grade GPS receiver (non-RTK UAV). Field testing was performed at a gravel pit , with all ground measurements and aerial sur vey ing completed on the same day. Three sets of orthoimages and DSMs were produced for comparing spa tial accuracies: two sets were created by direct georeferencing images from the RTK UAV and non-RTK UAV and one set was created by using GCPs during the external orientation of the non-RTK UAV images. Spatial accuracy was determined from the horizontal (X,Y) and vertical (Z) residuals and root-mean-square-errors (RMSE) relative to 17 horizontal and 180 vertical check points measured with a GNSS/RTK base station and rover. For the two direct georeferencing datasets, the horizontal and vertical accuracy improved substantially with the survey-grade GNSS/RTK receiver onboard the RTK UAV, effectively reducing the RMSE values in X, Y and Z by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude compared to the lower grade GPS receiver onboard the non-RTK UAV. Importantly, the horizontal accuracy of the RTK UAV data processed via direct georeferencing was equivalent to the horizontal accuracy of the non-RTK UAV data processed with GCPs, but the vertical error of the DSM from the RTK UAV data was 2 to 3 times greater than the DSM from the non-RTK data with GCPs. Overall, results suggest that direct georeferencing with the RTK UAV can achieve horizontal accuracy comparable to that obtained with a network of GCPs, but for topographic meas urements requiring the highest achievable accuracy, researchers and practitioners should use GCPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".