Distortion modelling and the transition to GDA94

Collier, Philip A.; Argeseanu, V.S.; Leahy, F. J.

doi:10.1080/00050326.1998.10441838

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [5] several distortion models are compared: (R) Regression, (LSC) Least Squares Collocation and (MCS) Minimum Curvature Surfaces. The results for the Australian network [4] shown that MCS has better performance than the others. For the distortion modelling for Spain we are going to study R, LSC, MCS plus a new one RS (Rubber Sheeting).…”

Section: Polynomial Modelsmentioning

confidence: 87%

A Range of Ed50-Etrs89 Datum Transformation Models Tested on the Spanish Geodetic Network

González-Matesanz¹,

Dalda²,

Malpica³

2006

Survey Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A set of datum transformation models for performing ED50-ETRS89 datum transformation in Spain are presented. These comprise 5/7 parameters, complex and real polynomials and distortion modelling. The latter case includes several tests using external points for the three methods explored: Rubber Sheeting, Minimum Curvature Surfaces and Least Squares Collocation. The Spanish ED50 geodetic network is linked with the European network through the Pyrenees, the westernmost part of ED50. This implies that the ED50 network compensation errors are bigger than elsewhere in the network. In addition, the particular low order network adjustment procedure applied in the past, in which each province was computed separately, and then its monuments were used as the boundary fixed points for the next province, has given rise to a non-homogeneous network, as compared to fully consistent networks such as ETRS89. The finished REGENTE campaign has provided dual coordinate monuments every 30Km allowing a complete test to be conducted for the different transformation models presented here.

show abstract

Section: Polynomial Modelsmentioning

confidence: 87%

A Range of Ed50-Etrs89 Datum Transformation Models Tested on the Spanish Geodetic Network

González-Matesanz¹,

Dalda²,

Malpica³

2006

Survey Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• In the case of coordinate transformations by LSC, the residual is regarded as a distortion that remains after the application of a conformal datum transformation (e.g., Ruffhead, 1987;Collier et al, 1997Collier et al, , 1998You and Hwang, 2006).…”

Section: Trend Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of non-stationary spatial methods for geodetic least-squares collocation

Darbeheshti

Featherstone

2010

Journal of Spatial Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews a field that is herein termed spatial "non-stationarity", which is specifically concerned with non-stationarity in the geodetic theory of least-squares collocation (LSC). In practice, many geodesists rely on stationary assumptions in LSC, i.e., using a constant mean and isotropic and spatially invariant covariance for estimation and prediction of geodetic quantities. However, new theories in spatial statistics and geostatistics allow for better statistical methodologies to be used in geodesy. The aim of this paper is to introduce these methodologies and adapt them for dealing with non-stationarity in LSC.

show abstract

“…As with the MREs, the so-called grid transformation technique is able to model the change of datum as well as the distortion between the geodetic networks (cf. Collier et al, 1997). This is done by first creating a regularly spaced grid of unique, predetermined transformation shift values and mapping them to each grid node, from which they can be used as required to produce interpolated values for any given point.…”

Section: The Grid Transformation (Projective) -New Icsm Approach and mentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical comparison of coordinate transformations from the Australian geodetic datum (AGD66 and AGD84) to the geocentric datum of Australia (GDA94)

Kinneen¹,

Featherstone²

2004

Journal of Spatial Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper compares six coordinate transformation models and eight associated sets of (new and old) parameters over Australia. Test data comprising 161 Australian Geodetic Datum 1966 (AGD66) and 327 Australian Geodetic Datum 1984 (AGD84) coordinates are transformed to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94) using these different models and parameters. The transformed coordinates are then compared with the, mainly satellite-derived, GDA94 coordinates of the same ground marks (i.e., control), then the results analysed and discussed. It must be stressed that this paper does not attempt to investigate or analyse the suitability of the mathematical models themselves, but makes an empirical comparison of past and existing approaches and parameters by using the same sample data sets. It is shown, as could be expected, that the more recent transformation parameters are the most suitable for coordinate transformations from the AGD to the GDA and vice versa.

show abstract

Distortion modelling and the transition to GDA94

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

A Range of Ed50-Etrs89 Datum Transformation Models Tested on the Spanish Geodetic Network

A Range of Ed50-Etrs89 Datum Transformation Models Tested on the Spanish Geodetic Network

A review of non-stationary spatial methods for geodetic least-squares collocation

An empirical comparison of coordinate transformations from the Australian geodetic datum (AGD66 and AGD84) to the geocentric datum of Australia (GDA94)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About