Comparing sUAS Photogrammetrically-Derived Point Clouds with GNSS Measurements and Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Topographic Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) for topographic mapping has significantly grown in recent years, driven in part by technological advancements that have made it possible to survey small- to medium-sized areas quickly and at low cost using sUAS aerial photography and digital photogrammetry. Although this approach can produce dense point clouds of topographic measurements, they have not been tested extensively to provide insights on accuracy levels for topographic mapping. This case study examines the accuracy of a sUAS-derived point cloud of a parking lot located at the Citizens Bank Arena (CBA) in Ontario, California, by comparing it to ground control points (GCPs) measured using global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data corrected with real-time kinematic (RTK) and to data from a terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) survey. We intentionally chose a flat surface due to the prevalence of flat scenes in sUAS mapping and the challenges they pose for accurately deriving vertical measurements. When the GNSS-RTK survey was compared to the sUAS point cloud, the residuals were found to be on average 18 mm and −20 mm for the horizontal and vertical components. Furthermore, when the sUAS point cloud was compared to the TLS point cloud, the average difference observed in the vertical component was 2 mm with a standard deviation of 31 mm. These results indicate that sUAS imagery can produce point clouds comparable to traditional topographic mapping methods and support other studies showing that sUAS photogrammetry provides a cost-effective, safe, efficient, and accurate solution for topographic mapping.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".