Accuracy of Determination of Corresponding Points from Available Providers of Spatial Data—A Case Study from Slovakia

Slavomir Labant (), Patrik Petovsky, Pavel Sustek and Lubomir Leicher
Additional contact information
Slavomir Labant: Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Geographical Information Systems, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology, Technical University of Kosice, 04200 Kosice, Slovakia
Patrik Petovsky: Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Geographical Information Systems, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology, Technical University of Kosice, 04200 Kosice, Slovakia
Pavel Sustek: Department of Geodesy and Mine Surveying, Faculty of Mining and Geology, VSB—Technical University of Ostrava, 70833 Ostrava, Czech Republic
Lubomir Leicher: Department of Geodesy and Mine Surveying, Faculty of Mining and Geology, VSB—Technical University of Ostrava, 70833 Ostrava, Czech Republic

Land, 2024, vol. 13, issue 6, 1-18

Abstract: Mapping the terrain and the Earth’s surface can be performed through non-contact methoYes, that is correct.ds such as laser scanning. This is one of the most dynamic and effective data collection methods. This case study aims to analyze the usability of spatial data from available sources and to choose the appropriate solutions and procedures for processing the point cloud of the area of interest obtained from available web applications. The processing of the point cloud obtained by airborne laser scanning results in digital terrain models created in selected software. The study also included modeling of different types of residential development, and the results were evaluated. Different data sources may have compatibility issues, which means that the position of the same object from different spatial data databases may not be identical. To address this, deviations of the corresponding points were determined from various data sources such as Real Estate Cadaster, ZBGIS Buildings, LiDAR point cloud, orthophoto mosaic, and geodetic measurements. These deviations were analyzed according to their size and orientation, with the average deviations ranging from 0.22 to 0.34 m and standard deviations from 0.11 to 0.20 m. The Real Estate Cadaster was used as the correct basis for comparison. The area of the building was also compared, with the slightest difference being present between the Real Estate Cadaster and geodetic measurement. The difference was zero after rounding the area to whole numbers. The maximum area difference was +5 m 2 for ZBGIS Buildings.

Keywords: spatial data sources; LIDAR; point cloud; positional deviation; DTM; 3D model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/6/875/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/6/875/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:875-:d:1416776

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().