2011 MN GISLIS PANEL DISCUSSION THURSDAY, OCT 6, 2011 LiDAR ACTIVITIES IN MINNESOTA.
-
Upload
angel-pelfrey -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of 2011 MN GISLIS PANEL DISCUSSION THURSDAY, OCT 6, 2011 LiDAR ACTIVITIES IN MINNESOTA.
2011 MN GISLIS PANEL DISCUSSION
THURSDAY, OCT 6, 2011
LiDAR ACTIVITIES IN MINNESOTA
SPEAKERS:TIM LOESCH, MNDNR, [email protected]
PETER JENKINS, MNDOT, [email protected]
RON WENCL, USGS, [email protected]
LES EVERETT, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA [email protected]
NANCY RADER, MN GEO, [email protected]
STATEWIDE LiDAR COLLECTINTRODUCTIONSTATUS TIM LOESCH, MNDNR
DATA VALIDATION & ACCURACYPETER JENKINS, MNDOT
MINNESOTA ELEVATION COMMITTEE
• The Committee’s position was to spend as much of the money on acquisition as possible
• Independent accuracy validation was essential
• How to accomplish this ?– The first project (SE Mn) was full of surveyors &
engineers who were willing to help
– In the SW Project it was mostly county engineers
– So far in the Metro & Arrowhead it has been both
– This has been a sample of the in-kind effort that we have seen from all levels of government
SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA LIDAR PROJECT
S.E. MINNESOTA LIDAR PROJECT HIGHEST & LOWEST ACCURACY
CountyRMSE CVA Agency Method
Wabasha 10.6 County RTKOlmsted 11.7 County VRSSteele 12.5 County RTKDodge 12.9 County VRSHouston 13.4 County RTKFreeborn 14.4 County VRSFillmore 15.5 MnDOT VRSMower 16.1 County VRSWinona 16.1 County RTK
S.W. MINNESOTA PROJECT HIGHEST & LOWEST ACCURACY
CountyRMSE CVA Agency Method
Rock 7.6 MnDOT VRSNicollet 9.2 County RTKPope 9.2 MnDOT VRS
Swift 14.4 MnDOT VRSChippewa 14.9 County RTKLac Qui Parle 14.9 County RTK
CONCLUSIONS
• There is a consistent spread in the RMSE values between the SE and SW projects
• The methodology and personnel seem to have little influence in the accuracy results
• Terrain has only a small influence in the accuracy results
• The error budget in GPS is +/- 2.5 cm, which could explain most of what we see
• Regardless the consultants have consistently meet contract deliverable specifications
Questions ???Thank You
Peter Jenkins, PLS, CFedS
FEDERAL PERSPECTIVEINVENTORY RESULTSNATIONAL STANDARDS
RON WENCL, USGS
CONSERVATION APPLICATIONS OF LiDAR TRAINING LCCMR PROJECTLES EVERETT, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Audience and Method
For Conservation Professionals who use GIS
Hands-on workshops in computer labs
Repeated at multiple locations in MN
In ArcGIS or Civil 3D (1 Module)
Training Modules
1. Basics of Using LiDAR Data
2. Terrain Analysis
3. Hydrologic Applications
4. Engineering
5. Wetland Mapping
6. Forest and Ecological Applications
Contacts
Project Manager: Les Everett, UM Water Resources Center [email protected]
Program Coordinator: Ann Lewandowski, UM Water Resources [email protected]
Project Web Site: http://tsp.umn.edu/lidar
STATE LiDAR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION COMMITTEESPRING SURVEYWEB PORTALTRAININGSHELLY SENTYZ, MNDNR
STATE LiDAR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE
STATE LiDAR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Tim Loesch, MNDNR, [email protected]
Ron Wencl, USGS, [email protected]
Peter Jenkins, MnDOT, [email protected]
Shelly Sentyrz, MNDNR, [email protected]
Sean Vaughn, MNDNR, [email protected]
Les Everett, University of Minnesota, [email protected]
http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/elevation/index.html
FOR MORE INFORMATION: