4.3 Article

Accuracy of UAV-based DEMs without ground control points

期刊

GEOINFORMATICA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10707-023-00498-1

关键词

Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); Digital surface model (DSM); Digital elevation model (DEM); Orthomosaics and orthophotomaps; Horizontal and vertical accuracy; Result conformity index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article evaluates the mathematical accuracy of terrain models created without ground control points and finds that while the accuracy of UAV models is low, the topography is well reflected in the spatial images. It is proposed that UAV-based DEMs be rapidly georeferenced based on orthophotomaps to improve accuracy parameters.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly used in various environmental research projects and other activities that require accurate topography images. The quality of elevation models derived from UAV measurements varies depending on many variables (e.g. UAV equipment used, terrain conditions, etc.). In order to improve the quality of digital models based on UAV image data, additional GNSS-RTK measurements are usually made at ground control points. The aim of this article is to evaluate the mathematical accuracy of terrain models created without ground control points. The accuracy of the models is considered in two directions: vertical and horizontal. Vertical (elevation) accuracy is calculated based on airborne laser scanning (ALS) data and horizontal (location) accuracy is calculated through comparison with high-resolution orthophotomaps. The average elevation accuracy of all created UAV-based DEMs is found to be 2.7-2.8 m (MAE), 3.1-3.3 m (RMSE), and the average horizontal accuracy is 2.1 m. Despite the low accuracy of the UAV models, the topography is reflected very well in the spatial images. This may be related to the regular and symmetrical distribution of height errors. To improve the accuracy parameters of UAV-based DEMs, it is proposed that they be rapidly georeferenced based on orthophotomaps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据