Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70270642

Geometric quality assessment of lidar data based on swath overlap

Abstract

This paper provides guidelines on quantifying the relative horizontal and vertical errors observed between conjugate features in the overlapping regions of lidar data. The quantification of these errors is important because their presence quantifies the geometric quality of the data. A data set can be said to have good geometric quality if measurements of identical features, regardless of their position or orientation, yield identical results. Good geometric quality indicates that the data are produced using sensor models that are working as they are mathematically designed, and data acquisition processes are not introducing any unforeseen distortion in the data. High geometric quality also leads to high geolocation accuracy of the data when the data acquisition process includes coupling the sensor with geopositioning systems. Current specifications (e.g. Heidemann 2014) do not provide adequate means to quantitatively measure these errors, even though they are required to be reported. Current accuracy measurement and reporting practices followed in the industry and as recommended by data specification documents also potentially underestimate the inter-swath errors, including the presence of systematic errors in lidar data. Hence they pose a risk to the user in terms of data acceptance (i.e. a higher potential for Type II error indicating risk of accepting potentially unsuitable data). For example, if the overlap area is too small or if the sampled locations are close to the center of overlap, or if the errors are sampled in flat regions when there are residual pitch errors in the data, the resultant Root Mean Square Differences (RMSD) can still be small. To avoid this, the following are suggested to be used as criteria for defining the inter-swath quality of data: a) Median Discrepancy Angle b) Mean and RMSD of Horizontal Errors using DQM measured on sloping surfaces c) RMSD for sampled locations from flat areas (defined as areas with less than 5 degrees of slope) It is suggested that 4000-5000 points are uniformly sampled in the overlapping regions of the point cloud, and depending on the surface roughness, to measure the discrepancy between swaths. Care must be taken to sample only areas of single return points only. Point-to-Plane distance based data quality measures are determined for each sample point. These measurements are used to determine the above mentioned parameters. This paper details the measurements and analysis of measurements required to determine these metrics, i.e. Discrepancy Angle, Mean and RMSD of errors in flat regions and horizontal errors obtained using measurements extracted from sloping regions (slope greater than 10 degrees). The research is a result of an ad-hoc joint working group of the US Geological Survey and the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Airborne Lidar Committee.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aparajithan Sampath, Hans K. Heidemann, Gregory L. Stensaas. 2016-06-02. Geometric quality assessment of lidar data based on swath overlap. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-xli-b1-93-2016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Authoritative knowledge infrastructure for GeoAI: Implications for scientific spatial data providers

Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) increasingly relies on automated analysis of authoritative geospatial data, exposing limitations in data infrastructures originally designed for simple dissemination rather than for knowledge-driven use. From the perspective of scientific spatial data providers, the challenge is enabling GeoAI responsibly while retaining semantic clarity, provenance, reproducibility, and governance. This short paper (i) examines how GeoAI exposed limitations within existing geospatial data infrastructures, and (ii) identifies provider-side requirements for an authoritative knowledge infrastructure. Drawing on GIScience, scientific workflow, and operational AI literature, the paper outlines implications for national mapping organizations that seek to support advanced analytics without jeopardizing scientific rigor or stewardship responsibilities.

Conference Paper↗

Springs of the Catskill Mountains: A conduit flow system in predominantly siliciclastic strata

The Catskill Mountains of New York state are composed of thick sequences of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone that are intercalated with thin beds of paludal limestone and calcareous mudstone. Sandstones often contain rip-up clasts of calcareous material at their bases and contain minor amounts of carbonate cement throughout their mass. This minor amount of calcareous material weathers out to produce thin zones of solutional porosity and permeability integrated within perched aquifers that feed perennial hillslope springs. Solutional features are evident within thin carbonate lenses and along fractures in sandstones, occasionally resulting in explorable cave-sized conduits. This study focuses on the behavior of bedrock springs and seeps in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin above the Neversink Reservoir. Bedrock springs are numerous throughout the Catskill Mountains and serve to provide baseflow to the headwater streams that tends to be more persistent during dry times than other baseflow sources. We observed dissolution-influenced conduits within the bedrock, and suffosional conduits within unconsolidated materials. Continuous water temperature at six springs was monitored at hourly intervals from May to October 2022 to investigate the thermal response of groundwater to daily and seasonal changes in air temperature along with event-based meteorological events. Temperature monitoring was augmented at some springs with time-lapse photography to evaluate persistence of flow. The thermal responses of springs to precipitation events were highly variable across sites, with some springs exhibiting flashy responses indicating a strong connection to the surface, while other springs showed muted or no thermal response to events. The seasonal thermal response also varied across sites having lag times of 23-48 days between peak air temperature and peak spring water temperature. The water temperatures and geochemical compositions of these bedrock springs support a conceptual model of multiple residence times, showing both event and seasonal groundwater storage within the conduit flow system that feeds the springs of the Catskill Mountains.

New York↗

Rapid deglaciation of the Tuolumne Meadows region linked to glacier hypsometry

During the LGM deglaciation (19–11 ka), episodes of glacier retreat and stabilization in the western United States are often attributed to abrupt climate change events via changes in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (e.g., Becker et al. 2025; McGee et al. 2018; Phillips 2016). However, there is considerable variability in the magnitude and timing of glacier retreat across the western US that is difficult to reconcile with a uniform climate forcing (Marcott et al. 2019), indicating either heterogeneous climate change or the influence of local non-climatic variables, such as glacier hypsometry (Young et al. 2011). Prior work from basal lake radiocarbon ages (Gillespie and Clark 2011) and cosmogenic nuclide dating (Phillips 2016; Phillips et al. 2009; Rood et al. 2011) established that Sierra Nevada glaciers receded from LGM moraines to north-facing cirques between 18 and 15 ka, with most deglaciation occurring at 15.8 ± 0.5 ka. As discussed above, geomorphic evidence supports abrupt glacier stagnation and in situ melting in the Tuolumne Meadows region.

Calfiornia↗