Investigating and Comparing Spatial Accuracy and Precision of GPS-Enabled Devices in Middle Tennessee

Lee, Leong; Jones, M.; Ridenour, Gregory S.; Testa, Maurice P.; Wilson, Michael J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45737-5_22

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Automatic positioning of measurements was achieved within the app using the iPad's integrated GPS unit, directly onto preloaded satellite imagery. Accuracy of iPad measurement positioning was generally estimated to be within 3 m of location, in agreement with published data (Lee et al, 2015). On occasion the app mislocated data points (by failing to update GPS co-ordinates) and these were manually corrected, in the app, during field acquisition.…”

Section: Digital Compass-clinometer Surveysupporting

confidence: 80%

LiDAR, UAV or compass-clinometer? Accuracy, coverage and the effects on structural models

Cawood

Bond

Howell

et al. 2017

Journal of Structural Geology

169

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tLight Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Structure from Motion (SfM) provide large amounts of digital data from which virtual outcrops can be created. The accuracy of these surface reconstructions is critical for quantitative structural analysis. Assessment of LiDAR and SfM methodologies suggest that SfM results are comparable to high data-density LiDAR on individual surfaces. The effect of chosen acquisition technique on the full outcrop and the efficacy on its virtual form for quantitative structural analysis and prediction beyond single bedding surfaces, however, is less certain. Here, we compare the accuracy of digital virtual outcrop analysis with traditional field data, for structural measurements and along-strike prediction of fold geometry from Stackpole syncline. In this case, the SfM virtual outcrop, derived from UAV imagery, yields better along-strike predictions and a more reliable geological model, in spite of lower accuracy surface reconstructions than LiDAR. This outcome is attributed to greater coverage by UAV and reliable reconstruction of a greater number of bedding planes than terrestrial LiDAR, which suffers from the effects of occlusion. Irrespective of the chosen acquisition technique, we find that workflows must incorporate careful survey planning, data processing and quality checking of derived data if virtual outcrops are to be used for robust structural analysis and along-strike prediction.

show abstract

Section: Digital Compass-clinometer Surveysupporting

confidence: 80%

LiDAR, UAV or compass-clinometer? Accuracy, coverage and the effects on structural models

Cawood

Bond

Howell

et al. 2017

Journal of Structural Geology

169

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, numerous validation studies focusing on the validity of GPS receivers in team sports [24][25][26] have been carried out, but only a limited number of studies have investigated the validity of GPS receivers in free-living conditions [27]. Moreover, these studies mainly focus on one type of device, such as smartphones [28][29][30], and on one specific environment or location [31][32][33]. According to previous studies [34][35][36][37], the accuracy of this information can vary significantly in different environments, so it is important to test these devices across several environmental settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smart Watch Versus Classic Receivers: Static Validity of Three GPS Devices in Different Types of Built Environments

Vorlíček

Schipperijn

Burian

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to study the relationship between human physical activity and the design of the built environment, it is important to measure the location of human movement accurately. In this study, we compared an inexpensive GPS receiver (Holux RCV-3000) and a frequently used Garmin Forerunner 35 smart watch, with a device that has been validated and recommended for physical activity research (Qstarz BT-Q1000XT). These instruments were placed on six geodetic points, which represented a range of different environments (e.g., residential, open space, park). The coordinates recorded by each device were compared with the known coordinates of the geodetic points. There were no differences in accuracy among the three devices when averaged across the six sites. However, the Garmin was more accurate in the city center and the Holux was more accurate in the park and housing estate areas compared to the other devices. We consider the location accuracy of the Holux and the Garmin to be comparable to that of the Qstarz. Therefore, we consider these devices to be suitable instruments for locating physical activity. Researchers must also consider other differences among these devices (such as battery life) when determining if they are suitable for their research studies.

show abstract

Investigating and Comparing Spatial Accuracy and Precision of GPS-Enabled Devices in Middle Tennessee

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

LiDAR, UAV or compass-clinometer? Accuracy, coverage and the effects on structural models

LiDAR, UAV or compass-clinometer? Accuracy, coverage and the effects on structural models

Smart Watch Versus Classic Receivers: Static Validity of Three GPS Devices in Different Types of Built Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About