Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Nowadays, it is increasingly common to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or, more broadly, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for missions that result in the acquisition of high-resolution imagery. These images offer great material from which a digital surface model (DSM), digital elevation model (DEM) [1, 2] or orthomosaic [3, 4] can be created relatively quickly and easily. UAS systems enable us to obtain spatial information from a wide area of interest, and the obtained data are detailed and of high resolution. UAS systems can thus be ranked between space-based remote sensing and detailed in situ measurements in environmental monitoring systems [5]. The widespread availability and decreasing cost of such flying equipment has led to its increased use in scientific research, to, for example monitor soil erosion [6], detect and conduct spatial analyses of periglacial landforms [7], perform detailed geomorphological mapping [8], monitor coastal dune change [9, 10], analys karst landforms [11] or conduct a multi-faceted analysis of the Antarctic ecosystem [12]. This technique is also often used in mining [13,14,15], monitoring various natural geohazards and phenomena [16, 17], detecting of agricultural crops or trees [18, 19] and, dam and riverbed erosion [20], modelling topographic features [21], updating cadastral data [22], estimating solar irradiation [23], researching cultural heritage and archaeology [24, 25] and monitoring traffic [26, 27]. All of these activities require specific data of adequate accuracy.
The quality of the final product (UAV-DEM/DSM, orthomosaic) depends on the initial image acquisition, and ground sampling distance (GSD, i.e. spatial resolution of the UAV images) is a fundamental element of successful image processing. GSD is affected by many factors, including the flight height and path, the employed sensor (RGB, multispectral/hyperspectral) [28], lighting conditions (sun angle and cloud cover) [29] and, the terrain surface cover. Furthermore, the resulting model accuracy also depends on camera pitch [30, 31], image overlap [32], flight trajectory [33], camera calibration method [34, 35] and the software used for reconstruction [36]. Besides the above technical aspects related to designing and executing a UAV mission, additional measurements can be applied to improve the quality of UAV data. Standard methods to increase the accuracy of DEMs/DSMs derived from UAV measurements consist of using ground control points (GCPs), which are points measured in the field, during pre-processing and independently using high precision geodetic GNSS RTK [37,38,39,40,41]. UAV methods are sometimes combined with terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) systems [42,43,44]. Some authors apply multi-view stereopsis (MVS) techniques combining photogrammetry and computer vision with ground control points collected using a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) [45]. However, UAV-mounted (on-board) GNSS RTK are utilised in an increasing number of assignments [32, 35]. Unfortunately, UAV cameras equipped with a GNSS RTK or LiDAR receiver are still expensive (prices start at $25,000—$30,000).
There is also a more advanced approach to measuring the same area from different altitudes and angles, which leads to much better results [46]. Although the highest possible accuracy is required from models created on the basis of UAV measurements, it often occurs that high precision (centimetre/decimetre) is not absolutely necessary. Similar insights emerge in the relevant literature [see 47]. Based on such an assumption, the aim of this paper is to vailidate the final accuracy of UAV-DEM and UAV-DSM, which were created based on image data from UAV flights. These models were created using the simplest method, without ground control points (GCPs) measured earlier in the field with GNSS RTK equipment. Accuracy is considered here in two directions: vertical accuracy (calculated on the basis of airborne laser scanning [ALS] data) and horizontal accuracy (calculated on the basis of high-resolution orthophotomaps). The author is interested in mathematical and statistical accuracy, specificallythe extent to which the model obtained from UAV flights differs from reality. The article focuses on two issues: 1) the extent to which the heights of digital models created from UAV data differ from ALS reference models (with an elevation accuracy of ± 0.1 m) and 2) the extent to which the locations of objects are shifted horizontally compared to orthophotomaps acquired from the national geoportal (with a resolution of 5 cm × 5 cm). The results of the study make it possible to determine the order of magnitude of accuracy errors to be expected when using this type of data in environmental studies.
2 Study area
The study area is located in southern Poland, in the Katowice Upland (mesoregion) and the Silesian-Cracow Upland (subprovince), which belong to the strip of Polish Uplands [48]. The midpoint of the research area is situated at 50.3∘ N latitude and 19.1∘ E longitude. This area covers over 82 km2 (Fig. 1). The land cover [49] is mainly of an anthropogenic character: artificial anthropogenic surfaces occupy the majority of the vast area (urban fabric: 38%; industrial, commercial and transport units: 12%; green urban areas: 7%; mines, dumps and construction sites: 1%); the second group comprises agricultural areas (arable land: 31%), and the third group is forests (ca. 10%). The geomorphological background is made up of two large plateaus separated by a floodplain in the southern part. The northern part of the area consists of river terraces and residual hills (due to rock hardness) in the northwest. Moreover, many anthropogenic landforms exist, especially in the centre and south of the area. Anthropogenic flats, subsidence basins, embankments and flood embankments occur near artificial river channels [50]. The local relief is 136 m and the average altitude is 277 m a.s.l. The highest elevations, St. Dorothy Hill (381 m a.s.l.) and Parcina Hill (355 m a.s.l.), are located in the northwestern part of the area; the lowest place, an old coal mine area (238 m a.s.l.), is located in the southwestern part. The main drainage river is Przemsza, with its tributaries and a fragment of Brynica with its arm Wielonka (Fig. 1). This area is diverse enough to show different types of landforms; however, at the same time, it has well-recognized topography, which constitutes the reason for its selection. Twenty-one test sites were selected for detailed research (Fig. 1). These test sites can be divided into three types by surface relief: areas with low, medium and high relief. Areas with low relief (relative heights of 0–10 m) include test fields 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 18. Areas with medium relief (relative heights of 11–20 m) are represented by test fields 5, 6, 7, 12, 17 and 19. The last group (high relief, relative heights > 20 m) includes test fields 2, 3, 15, 16, 20 and 21.
3 Source data
To avoid any misunderstanding, terms used in the following text will first be clearly defined. A digital elevation model (DEM) is understood as a digital representation of elevations of a topographic surface in the form of a georectified area-based grid covering bare earth [51]. A digital surface model (DSM) is in turn a DEM that represents the upper surface of a landscape, including any vegetation (trees, bushes, etc.), buildings and other surface features [52]. In this study, both DEM and DSM are in the form of raster images consisting of rectangular grids with a defined size (i.e. spatial resolution). The models used in the research have basically the same internal structure (data recording format and resolution) and differ only in how they obtain the elevation data, which are the basis for the creation of the elevation models.
3.1 UAV data
The UAV data consist of 21 sets of photos corresponding to the 21 test sites. All the images were obtained using the DJI Mavic 2 Pro UAV missions, which took place in November—January 2020/2021 and April—May 2022. The basic details of the UAV system and the flights: flight altitude 75 m, flight speed (5 m/s), side overlap (70%), frontal overlap (80%), margin (15 m), photo mode (timed interval shot), camera type (Hasselblad L1D-20C), metering mode (center weighted average), the shutter was between 1/320 and 1/800, the ISO was between 100 and 200 (depending on the lighting conditions) and the image pixel was 2.03 cm × 2.03 cm. Each mission assumed the approximate range of the flight area to be 250 m × 250 m; the number of photos taken ranged between 190 and 220 and the flight mission time was about 10 min. After the missions were completed, the data were processed using the AgiSoft MetaShape Professional software [53]. Once the photos were uploaded and Align Photos were taken, a dense cloud was created. The digital surface model (UAV-DSM) and orthomosaic were generated based on this cloud. The final stage was the filtration of Classify Ground Points to obtain a digital elevation model (UAV-DEM). The simplest method of creating terrain models and orthomosaics was used: aerial data processing without ground control points (GCPs). Finally, based on the UAV photos the following data were created for all 21 test sites: orthomosaics in natural colours with a spatial resolution of 5 cm × 5 cm, a digital surface model (UAV-DSM) and a digital elevation model (UAV-DEM) with a resolution of 0.25 m × 0.25 m. The final test sites ranged from 3.3 ha to 15.9 ha, with an average of 10.4 ha (0.1 km2). The spatial distribution of all the test sites is presented in Fig. 1.
3.2 ALS data
The airborne laser scanning (ALS) data are the elevation data in the form of binary files in LAS format [54] containing a cloud of points with X, Y and Z coordinates derived from ALS in April 2019. These data were recorded in accordance with the LAS standard 1.2 [55]. These files contain, among other things, class information for the point and the intensity of reflections in three ranges of the visible part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum corresponding to the red, green and blue colours (RGB values) obtained from the aerial photographs. The LAS files have a minimum density of 12 points/m2 and average height accuracy of ≤ 0.1 m. The correctness of the classification of points is not less than 95%. All of the points are in the Polish plane coordinates system PUWG-1992 (EPSG:2180) and the height coordinate system PL-EVRF2007-NH [54]. Each LAS file covers an area of around 0.5 km × 0.5 km. One used 48 LAS files with a total area of 15.5 km2. Table 1 summarises the information about the applied classification values and the number of points in each class. The average point spacing in all the LAS files ranged from 0.15 to 0.22 m. Therefore, theALS-DSMs and ALS-DEMs were created at a resolution of 0.25 m × 0.25 m. The ALS-DEMs were made based on only class 2 points (ground).
3.3 TOPO-DEM
Four sheets of the topographic maps at a scale 1:10,000 [56] were the primary data for creating the TOPO-DEM. Altogether, most of the contour lines (750 km in total) and all the 362 height points were digitised from the maps. Since the scale of the source maps was 10,000 (if the smallest polygonal object on the map is 1 mm × 1 mm, it measures 10 m × 10 m in reality), a DEM with a resolution of 10 m × 10 m was built. Like the other DEMs, the TOPO-DEM was made in the PUWG-1992 (EPSG: 2180) Polish plane rectangular coordinate system, and the heights of points relate to the Normal Height System Kronsztadt 86 [57]. The Topo-to-Raster tool from ArcGIS Toolbox [58] was utilised to generate the TOPO-DEM. This technique creates hydrologically correct DEMs and is based on the ANUDEM algorithm developed by Hutchinson [59]. This method applies an interpolation process specifically designed to create a surface that more closely represents a natural drainage surface and better preserves ridgelines and stream networks from input contour data. Therefore, all the watercourses and water reservoirs with an area of ≥ 500 m2 were used as break lines together with contours and height points to support the interpolation process.
3.4 Orthophotomaps
An orthophotomap is a raster cartometric image of the land surface, that results from the orthogonal processing of aerial photographs or satellite scenes. High-resolution (5 cm × 5 cm) orthophotomaps from flights in May 2021 were used for this research. These accuracy raster data were made in the PUWG-1992 (EPSG: 2180) Polish plane rectangular coordinate system in real colours (RGB). These orthophotomaps are official high-resolution reference images obtained from the Geoportal of the Spatial Information Infrastructure [60] conducted by the Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography in Warsaw.
4 Methods
As one of the main goals of this research was to determine the quality of DEMs, DSMs and orthomosaics based on UAV measurements, their vertical and horizontal accuracy was assessed as precisely as possible.
ALS-DEM and ALS-DSM reference data created with the LiDAR altitude data [54], were used to assess the vertical accuracy of the UAV-DEM and UAV-DSM. These data are currently the most accurate freely-available reference height data for this study area (see Subsection 3.2). These data were taken from the Geoportal of the Spatial Information Infrastructure [60]. Additionally, based on previous research [61], it was decided to use the TOPO-DEM (see Subsection 3.3) from this area for comparison. To show the quantitative elevation differences between the models and their spatial distribution, differential models were made for the DEMs (UAV-DEM vs ALS-DEM) and DSMs (UAV-DSM vs ALS-DSM). The result conformity index proposed by Szypuła [62] was also applied. This index expresses how the percentage of the grid cells of the interpolated DEM follow the same grid cells of the reference DEM with a given height tolerance. In addition, four additional flights were performed for test site 13 to analyse the variation in the results within one defined area. Morover, 10 ground control points (GCPs) were measured on this test site in the field and used to calculate the UAV-DEM/DSM and orthophotomosaic. GCPs were measured using ComNav T300 GNSS RTK equipment with a horizontal accuracy of 0.01 m and vertical accuracy of 0.02 m.
High-resolution orthophotomapswere employed to assess the horizontal accuracy (location of the X and Y coordinates) of the UAV orthomosaic. The horizontal displacement (shift) of the UAV orthomosaics compared to the orthophotomaps was measured. The shift measurements were made based on points that: 1) were located on the ground (intersections, road lanes, street ligh lamp bases, square corners, curbs, sewage pits, etc.) and 2) were unambiguously identified on UAV orthomosaics and orthophotomaps. For each of the 21 test areas, 10—28 points were measured, reaching a total of 371 points.
In the last stage, the UAV orthomosaics were georeferenced using orthophotomaps. Moreover, the shift measurements were repeated in the same points to verify the extent to which the horizontal accuracy of the UAV orthomosaic would increase.
The development of UAV data and the creation of relevant UAV-DSMs, UAV-DEMs and UAV orthomosaics was conducted using the AgiSoft MetaShape Professional software [53]. The Polish plane coordinate system PUWG-1992 (EPSG:2180) and height coordinate system PL-EVRF2007-NH [57] were used in the creation of all the resulting data (models and orthophotomaps).
The creation of the TOPO-DEM and ALS DEM/DSM and all analyses, calculations and visualisations were performed in the ArcGIS environment [58]. All of the important software processing settings are in Table 2. Figure 2 presents a workflow which shows the main stages of the work: A – data preparation, B – creation of the models/orthomosaics, C – accuracy calculation.
5 Results
5.1 Characteristics of the altitude data
To address the models’quality issues, it is necessary to first look at the altitude data that describe them. Table 3 summarises the basic altitude characteristics of the DEMs based on data from the UAV, ALS and topographic maps. A first glance at the data shows that the elevation relationships in all three types of DEMs are similar. The minimum heights for the UAV-DEMs and ALS-DEMs differ by 2.5 m on average; the average differences in the maximum heights for the same models amount to 3.1 m, while the mean heights differ by an average of 2.4 m (Table 3). This shows the order of magnitude of height differences related to the minimum and maximum values. The standard deviation (STD) values for UAV-DEMs and ALS-DEMs are very similar, which confirms the substantial similarity in the distribution of distance from the mean value and the variability of the height value in the data set itself. The greatest differences in the minimum, maximum and mean heights were observed for test sites 16 and 20, while the smallest ones were observed for test sites 8 and 20 (Table 3). Despite this, the spatial image of the surface relief shows a high agreement of topographic details for all the test sites (Fig. 3). The only differences are related to the imperfect filtering of areas that are usually wooded, an anthropogenic dump in the middle of the area (Fig. 3B) or buildings (Fig. 3D).
As for the TOPO-DEM, despite the obvious difference in resolution compared to the UAV-DEM, Table 3 shows very similar minimum, maximum and mean values of both models. This confirms the author's earlier observations [see 61] that, despite its lower resolution, the DEM created on the basis of the topographic maps generalises the topography very well while maintaining the characteristic elements of the terrain surface.
Table 4 presents the altitude characteristics of the UAV-DSMs and ALS-DSMs. The differences between the minimum, maximum and mean values, which are much higher than for the analogous DEMs, can be easily observed. This is mainly due to individual objects such as trees, power lines, chimneys and buildings (see Fig. 4B, C) which were recorded incorrectly or left unrecorded on the UAV data. On average, the mean values of the UAV-DSMs and ALS-DSMs differ by only 2.2 m (Table 4). As with the DEMs, the spatial image of the topography mapped on the UAV-DSMs is very accurate (Fig. 4).
5.2 Elevation accuracy
In statistics, the term “error” means a departure from a known, correct value [63]. To determine the differences between the elevation values obtained from the model and the real situation, one can employ field measurements or apply reference data. In these studies, the ALS-DEM and ALS-DSM with a confirmed height accuracy of 10 cm were used as reference data [54]. There are many standards that can be used to calculate the differences (errors) between models [39, 64, 65]; however, the mean absolute error (MAE), the root-mean square error (RMSE) and the result conformity index were applied in this study. The MAE measures the average magnitude of errors in a set of predictions without considering their direction (+ or -). It is the average of the absolute differences between an actual observation (ALS models) and prediction (UAV models) at a set of points used for calculation. All individual differences have equal weight [66]. The RMSE also measures the average magnitude of error. It is the square root of the average of squared differences between an actual observation and prediction at control points.
The RMSE is the most frequently used characteristic determining the degree of accuracy or the measure of conformity between a set of estimates and the actual values [67]. It expresses the dispersion of frequency distribution of variances between reference elevations and DEM data. The main difference between these indicators is that the RMSE is a measure of the typical difference between two models cell by cell, and the MAE is the average of all absolute errors.
Table 5 shows the calculated altitude differences between the UAV-models and ALS-models. Column “differences” indicates that the ALS model has been subtracted from the UAV model. As for the DEMs, the height differences range from -9 m to + 19 m.
These may seem like major differences, but a look at the spatial image (see Fig. 5) shows that these are only single places (trees or buildings). These major errors should be considered as outliers. The MAE and RMSE values are much more important. Only in one case (test site 21) did these values exceed 10 m, while the majority did not go beyond 2 m, with the mean value for all test sites being 2.7 m (Table 5). In general, the greater the difference between the MAE and the RMSE, the greater the variance in individual errors in the sample. The RMSE values are slightly greater than the MAE, which suggests that all the errors are of the same magnitude [68]. The MAE and RMSE values for the DSMs look alike, so the overall error distribution for the areas is very similar. The differences only appear in extreme values, which, do not have a significant impact on the entire data set, because the average values (MAE and RMSE) are almost identical to those for the DEMs (Table 5, Fig. 6). Generally, it can be stated that the average height accuracy of UAV based DEMs and DSMs is 2.7–2.8 m. The MAE values are almost identical to the RMSE values, which indicates that most of the errors in the models have similar values (the set is not statistically differentiated). This is additionally confirmed by the differential models (Figs. 5 and 6).
The last indicator used to assess the altitude accuracy in spatial terms was the results conformity index [after 62]. Result conformity values express the percentage of the grid cells of the interpolated model (UAV-DEM) that are in accordance with the same grid cells of the reference model (ALS-DEM) within a given accuracy. This index is based on differential models and through its nature (value ranges), it somehow generalises the image of height errors, making the differential model more spatially readable. On the other hand, it presents a quantitative statement: the percentage share of the area occupied by individual ranges of error values.
Due to the large errors that occurred in the UAV-DSM models, it was decided that the result conformity index would be calculated only for UAV-DEMs versus ALS-DEMs models, as shown in Table 6. The calculations were made for the given ranges of errors (differences) in height. It appears that the places with the smallest errors (range from -0.5 m to + 0.5 m) for all 21 test sites amount to 21% on average. If the range of the smallest altitude errors is extended from -1 m to + 1 m, it will cover a total average area of 41% of each UAV-DEM. The largest area (52%) is occupied by errors above + 1 m. This means that half of the area of each UAV-DEM is 1 m or more above the actual ground surface on average. The areas with an error of -1 m and below occupy an average of less than 17% (Table 6).
On the other hand, the spatial distribution of the result conformity index values looks interesting (Fig. 7). First of all, as mentioned above, the areas occupied by the largest positive errors dominate. Secondly, errors often appear concentrically in the form of circles centred in the middle of the area (Fig. 7). Circular height errors are related to flat or slightly sloping areas, usually ploughed fields or low meadows (test sites 1, 4, 6–11 with a local relief of 6–12 m). The majority of significantly inclined areas (test sites 2, 3, 15–16, 21 with a local relief of 22–35 m) or completely flat ones with buildings (test site 14 is a parking lot) have positive errors of above 1 m (Fig. 7). The areas containing meadows with tall grasses (test sites 18, 19) are characterised by the greatest chaos in terms of the distribution of height differences. Nevertheless, these are the most accurate models: the error range from -0.5 to + 0.5 m has the largest share (34–47%; see Table 6).
5.3 Horizontal accuracy
High-resolution reference images (orthophotomaps) were used to analyse the horizontal accuracy (shift errors) of the UAV orthomosaics. Both the UAV orthomosaics and orthophotomaps had the same resolutionof 5 cm × 5 cm. For each test site, 10 to 28 distinctive, uniquely identified points were selected on each pair of images. The difference in the position of each point on the UAV orthomosaic relative to its position on the reference orthophotomap was measured. Then, based on the shift values, an interpolation was performed to see the spatial shift distribution (Fig. 8). A total of 371 points were measured. Table 7 shows the obtained shift values, which ranged from 0.18 m to over 5 m, while for test sites they ranged from 1.1 m to 3.6 m on average. The average value obtained from all the 371 measurements was 2.1 m. This seems to be a good resultas official tests revealed that the best accuracy of GPS Navstar amounts to 1.8–2.8 m [69], and 3.1 m for GLONASS [70, 71]. The UAV used for the measurements (DJI Mavic 2 Pro) utilises two GNSS systems simultaneously (GPS and GLONASS), and position precision in this case ranges from 2.3 to 4.6 m [72].
As for the spatial distribution of the shift errors, the smallest values (max 1.7 – 2.6 m) were recorded for test site 1, 3, 18 and 21, and the mean error was 1.1—1.5 m (Table 7). While for test sites 1 and 18 this is related to the occurrence of the smallest height errors, the other two test sites ( 3 and 21) are characterised by positive errors of height over the entire surface (see Figs. 7, 8 and Tables 5, 6). On the other hand, the largest shift errors (max > 5 m) that we noticed concern test sites 4, 10 and 11, mean 2.4 – 3.2 m. It is interesting that these three test sites represent areas with low relief (local relief < 1 m, see Table 3). When analysing the maps of all the test sites with shift errors (Fig. 8), it is difficult to notice any spatial regularity—regardless of the surface coverage or topography. Some authors note that the centre of the orthomosaic has higher positional precision than areas along the edges [40]. It is likely that more survey points distributed more symmetrically across the area would have provided more comprehensive information, but unfortunately this was often not possible due to the lack of distinctive reference points.
6 Discussion
The vertical and horizontal accuracy obtained results are similar to the research of Crume [73]. His tests showed that the Mavic 2 Pro used, for a flight at an altitude of 50 m, for frontal overlap of 70% and side overlap of 60%, achieved an elevation error of about 1.8 m and a horizontal error of about 1.2—1.5 m. Its errors are smaller, probably due to the 1/3 lower flight altitude and the associated higher resolution of the images (1.37 cm).
UAV systems usually measure altitude using an internal barometric sensor with an above ground level (AGL) reference. This means that the DJI Mavic system records each time elevation compared to its take-off point, not an absolute elevation [72]. In view of this fact, the range of measurement error (spread of values) between successive flights was assessed. For this purpose, four additional flights were conducted (numbers 2, 3, 4, 5) for test site 13. The results of these flights are shown in Table 8. The differences between the minimum, maximum and mean values for successive flights range from 1.5 to 5.5 m. These are, of course, extreme values, as the STD values were 0.5—0.7 m, which shows a similar distribution of values across the entire data set.
In the next step, a UAV-DEM and UAV-DSM were created using all the images from flights 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Table 8, flights 2–5). The UAV-DEM and UAV-DSM calculated in this way did not show better performance; the values were similar to the other four models. This means that an increased number of images does not improve the quality of the created models.
In addition, 10 GCPs were measured using ComNav T300 GNSS RTK equipment with high accuracy (horizontal 0.01 m, vertical 0.02 m). It was decided to assess the accuracy UAV models would have with GCPs (Table 8, flight GCPs). The differences in altitude values for the UAV-DEM (GCPs) compared to the ALS-DEM do not exceed 0.2 m. The UAV-DSM (GCPs) is different mainly because of the changes that occurred in the study area over thethree years (since the ALS measurements were made). This can easily be seen in the spatial image (Fig. 9D) in the southern part of the area, where a new housing development has been built. The calculated RMSE value for the UAV-DEM (GCPs) was 0.68 m, and the MAE value was 0.47 m. These values are comparable to the results of other authors [see 74]. For the UAV-DEM without GCPs for the same test site (13), the RMSE was 1.4 m and the MAE was 1.1 m (see Table 5). This is confirmed by the results obtained by other researchers [see 75], who achieved a vertical accuracy result of 2.5–3 m for the RMS and MAE. Thus the UAV-DEM with GCPs has only twice the vertical accuracy of the UAV-DEM without GCPs. On the other hand, the value of the RMSE for the UAV-DSM was 2.01 m, and the MAE was 1.29 m; for the same UAV-DSM without GCPs, the RMSE was 2.3 m and the MAE was 1.7 m. Thus, the statistical accuracy results are almost identical for the UAV-DSM with and without GCPs. In general, it can be said that the range of the values for the UAV-DSM is comparable to, for example, archaeological studies see [76], where DSM accuracy ranges from -4.6 to 15.4 m.
Analysis of the result conformity showed that for the UAV-DEM with GCPs, areas with ± 0.5 m accuracy occupied almost 64% of the area, and areas with ± 1.0 accuracy occupied more than 90% (Fig. 9C). This is a much better result than for the UAV-DEM without GCPs, where areas with ± 0.5 m accuracy occupied 31% of the area, and areas with ± 1.0 m accuracy occupied around 55% (Table 6, test site 13). For the UAV-DSM, the largest area (over 40%) was occupied by areas with an error of more than 1 m. Areas with ± 0.5 m error covered around 13%, and areas with ± 1.0 m error covered around 50% of the total area. This agrees with the research of Kulhavy [77] and Unger [78], who noted that a UAV system measuring altitude with an internal barometer tends to overestimate the height.
The processing analysis revealed that the types of distortion recorded and shown in Fig. 7 were probably related to the standard calibration settings of the DJI Mavic Pro. Some UAS systems (including Mavic 2 Pro with the integrated Hasselblad L1D-2C camera) need processing modifications [75]. The standard pipeline for processing that allows software to optimise the internal camera parameters and recalculate or optimise the position and orientation of the photographs only resulted in a domed SfM point cloud (radial distortion). Kalacska et al. [75] also point out that the exact model of the Mavic 2 Pro despite having a superior camera to other UAV systems (i.e. the Mavic Pro or the SkyRanger), generates an unexpected amount of relatively high errors.
The calculated mean shift errors ranged from 1.1 to 3.6 m, and they are typical for orthomosaic made without GCPs, as has been confirmed by other researchers [79] or [75]. Having the measured GCPs at my disposal, I also decided to verify the horizontal accuracy of the orthomosaic made based on GCPs. Shift errors turned out to be very small and amounted to only 0.02 to 0.15 m with a mean value of 0.04 m and STD of 0.03 m. This is a very good result that is in line with expectations, but unfortunately requires precise measurements of ground control points.
Although to the study aimed to avoid interfering (through post-processing) with the material obtained from the UAV flights, we decided to verify the extent to which the horizontal accuracy would improve if the UAV orthomosaic was georeferenced based on orthophotomaps. As an experiment, the test sites with the smallest errors in horizontal accuracy (1, 3) and with the largest errors (9, 11, 12—see Table 7) were checked. The georeferencing tool in the ArcGIS software was used to perform first order polynomial (affine) transformation, and nearest neighbour without compression was used as the resample type. The measurements of the position difference were made again for the same points on the selected five test sites. The results are presented in Table 9. Except for one maximum error (test site 1) all the shift errors decreased. On average, the horizontal accuracy was between 0.25 and 0.90 m, which is a very good result for materials of this resolution.
7 Conclusions
The advantages of working with UAV survey data without GCPs include the speed of data acquisition, low cost, simple post-processing (most of it is automatic), high resolution of data, measurement capabilities in difficult or inaccessible areas, and the relatively large area that can be measured. The disadvantages are relatively short flight time on a single battery, the need for good weather conditions when measurements are taken, and (sometimes) too low vertical and location accuracy. Obviously, it is the research profile that determines quality of the spatial data. Data obtained from UAV systems can be successfully used for automatic landform recognition [see 80, 81], because the accuracy of the calculated DEMs and DSMs is sufficient. The research of Dachauer et al. [82] is a good example in which the obtained DEM has exactly the same resolution (about 0.25 m × 0.25 m) and is accurate enough to capture the large crevasse structures. Given the advantages of UAVs compared to other devices (e.g. low cost, applicable to inaccessible areas; [83]), this study shows that UAVs provide a reliable and effective method for gathering data for aerodynamic roughness length estimation on glaciers. Morover, UAV-based SfM photogrammetry without GCPs has a special advantage in places where there are no possibilities to measure GCPs (i.e. assessment of marsh geomorphology in highly seasonal climates [84]).
The average elevation accuracy of all the created UAV-based DEMs/DSMs is approximately 2.8 m. The ± 1 m accuracy involved an average of 41% of the area of each model, while half of the area of each model displayed height values overestimated by 1 m or more on average. Despite this, the spatial image of the surface relief on the obtained models shows high conformity of topographic details with reality. The only differences that occur are related to elements of infrastructure (chimneys, high voltage lines, and buildings) or areas with medium (shrubs) and high (trees) vegetation, which are often inappropriately filtered when creating the orthomosaic.
As for the horizontal accuracy, the obtained shift values range from 0.18 m to more than 5 m, with an average of 1.1 m to 3.6 m for the test sites. The average value generated from all the measurements was 2.1 m. Interestingly the analysis showed that UAV orthomosaics have a much better quality for identifying details than orthophotomaps of the same resolution (5 cm × 5 cm). Additionally, fast georeferencing of UAV data based on reference orthophotomaps increased horizontal accuracy by several multiples. This could be a simple and quick method to significantly improve the quality of UAV data, provided that high-resolution orthophotomaps are available. Additional UAV-DEM/DSM and orthophotomosaics calculated with GCPs showed very minor errors (horizontal: mean 0.04 m; vertical: MAE 0.47 m). Surprisingly, the vertical accuracy is only twice as good as for models without GCPs. It is important to remember that the presented results for creating DEMs/DSMs and orthophotomosaics without GCPs and the associated vertical and horizontal accuracies refer to a specific UAV system (Mavic 2 Pro), which provides a certain benchmark. The use of more professional and, above all, newer UAV systems, together with the conscious application of processing settings, maybe will yield much higher accuracies than those reported here.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Fawcett D, Azlan B, Hill TC, Kho LK, Bennie J, Anderson K (2019) Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) derived structure-from-motion photogrammetry point clouds for oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) canopy segmentation and height estimation. Int J Remote Sens 40:7538–7560. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1591651
Mohan M, Silva C, Klauberg C, Jat P, Catts G, Cardil A, Hudak A, Dia M (2017) Individual Tree Detection from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Derived Canopy Height Model in an Open Canopy Mixed Conifer Forest. Forests 8:340. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8090340
Belmonte A, Sankey T, Biederman JA, Bradford J, Goetz SJ, Kolb T, Woolley T (2019) UAV-derived estimates of forest structure to inform ponderosa pine forest restoration. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 6:181–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.137
Kattenborn T, Lopatin J, Förster M, Braun AC, Fassnacht FE (2019) UAV data as alternative to field sampling to map woody invasive species based on combined Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sens Environ 227:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.025
Manfreda S, McCabe MF, Miller PE, Lucas R, Pajuelo Madrigal V, Mallinis G, Ben Dor E, Helman D, Estes L, Ciraolo G, Müllerová J, Tauro F, De Lima MI, De Lima JLMP, Maltese A, Frances F, Caylor K, Kohv M, Perks M, Ruiz-Pérez G, Su Z, Vico G, Toth B (2018) On the Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Environmental Monitoring. Remote Sens 10:641. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10040641
d’Oleire-Oltmanns S, Marzolff I, Peter KD, Ries JB (2012) Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for monitoring soil erosion in Morocco. Remote Sens 4:3390–3416. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4113390
Dąbski M, Zmarz A, Pabjanek P, Korczak-Abshire M, Karsznia I, Chwedorzewska K (2017) UAV-based detection and spatial analyses of periglacial landforms on Demay Point (King George Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica). Geomorphology 290:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.03.033
Kasprzak M, Jancewicz K, Michniewicz A (2017) UAV and SfM in detailed geomorphological mapping of granite tors: An example of Starościńskie Skały (Sudetes, SW Poland). Pure App Geoph 175:3193–3207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1730-8
Scarelli FM, Sistilli F, Fabbri S, Cantelli L, Barboza EG, Gabbianelli G (2017) Seasonal dune and beach monitoring using photogrammetry from UAV surveys to apply in the ICZM on the Ravenna coast (Emilia-Romagna, Italy). Remote Sens App Soc Env 7:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2017.06.003
Laporte-Fauret Q, Marieu V, Castelle B, Michalet R, Bujan S, Rosebery D (2019) Low-cost UAV for high-resolution and large-scale coastal dune change monitoring using photogrammetry. J Mar Sci Eng 7:63. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7030063
Silva OL, Bezerra FHR, Maia RP, Cazarin CL (2017) Karst landforms revealed at various scales using LiDAR and UAV in semi-arid Brazil: Consideration on karstification processes and methodological constraints. Geomorphology 295:611–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.07.025
Zmarz A, Rodzewicz M, Dąbski M, Karsznic I, Korczak-Abshire M, Chwedorzewska KJ (2018) Application of UAV BVLOS remote sensing data for multi-faceted analysis of Antarctic ecosystem. Remote Sens Environ 217:375–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.08.031
Park S, Choi Y (2020) Applications of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Mining from Exploration to Reclamation: A Review. Minerals 10:663. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10080663
Kršák B, Blištán P, Pauliková A, Puškárová P, Kovanič L, Palková J, Zelizňaková V (2016) Use of low-cost UAV photogrammetry to analyze the accuracy of a digital elevation model in a case study. Meas J Int Meas Confed 91:276–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.028
Blištán P, Jacko S, Kovanič L, Kondela J, Pukanská K, Bartoš K (2020) TLS and SfM Approach for Bulk Density Determination of Excavated Heterogeneous Raw Materials. Minerals 10:174. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10020174
Pavelka K, Šedina J, Matoušková E, Hlaváčová I, Korth W (2019) Examples of different techniques for glaciers motion monitoring using InSAR and RPAS. Eur J Remote Sens 5:219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1559001
Kovanič L, Blištán P, Urban R, Štroner M, Blištánová M, Bartoš K, Pukanská K (2020) Analysis of the Suitability of High-Resolution DEM Obtained Using ALS and UAS (SfM) for the Identification of Changes and Monitoring the Development of Selected Geohazards in the Alpine Environment - A Case Study in High Tatras, Slovakia. Remote Sens 12:3901. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12233901
Komárek J, Klouček T, Prošek J (2018) The potential of Unmanned Aerial Systems: A tool towards precision classification of hard-to-distinguish vegetation types? Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 71:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2018.05.003
Klouček T, Komárek J, Surový P, Hrach K, Janata P, Vašíček B (2019) The Use of UAV Mounted Sensors for Precise Detection of Bark Beetle Infestation. Remote Sens 11:1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11131561
Buffi G, Manciola P, Grassi S, Barberini M, Gambi A (2017) Survey of the Ridracoli Dam: UAV–based photogrammetry and traditional topographic techniques in the inspection of vertical structures. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 8:1562–1579. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2017.1362039
Kumhálová J, Moudrý V (2014) Topographical characteristics for precision agriculture in conditions of the Czech Republic. Appl Geogr 50:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.02.012
Puniach E, Bieda A, Ćwiąkała P, Kwartnik-Pruc A, Parzych P (2018) Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for Updating Farmland Cadastral Data in Areas Subject to Landslides. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 7:331. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7080331
Moudrý V, Beková A, Lagner O (2019) Evaluation of a high resolution UAV imagery model for rooftop solar irradiation estimates. Remote Sens Lett 10:1077–1085. https://doi.org/10.1080/2150704X.2019.1649735
Carricondo PJM, Carvajal-Ramirez F, Yero-Paneque L, Vega FA (2019) Combination of nadiral and oblique UAV photogrammetry and HBIM for the virtual reconstruction of cultural heritage. Case study of Cortijo del Fraile in Níjar, Almería (Spain). Build Res Inf 48:140–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1626213
Carvajal-Ramirez F, Navarro-Ortega AD, Agüera-Vega F, Martínez-Carricondo P, Mancini F (2019) Virtual reconstruction of damaged archaeological sites based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Photogrammetry and 3D modelling. Study case of a southeastern Iberia production area in the Bronze Age. Measurement 136:225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.12.092
Salvo G, Caruso L, Scordo A (2014) Urban Traffic Analysis through an UAV. Proc Soc Behav Sci 111:1083–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.143
Kanistras K, Martins G, Rutherford MJ, Valavanis KP (2015) Survey of unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) for traffic monitoring. In: Valavanis KP, Vachtsevanos GJ (eds) Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; Springer Reference: Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Seifert E, Seifert S, Vogt H, Drew D, van Aardt J, Kunneke A, Seifert T (2019) Influence of Drone Altitude, Image Overlap, and Optical Sensor Resolution on Multi-View Reconstruction of Forest Images. Remote Sens 11:1252. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11101252
Pepe M, Fregonese L, Scaioni M (2018) Planning airborne photogrammetry and remote-sensing missions with modern platforms and sensors. Europ J Remote Sens 51(1):412–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1444945
Vacca G, Dessì A, Sacco A (2017) The Use of Nadir and Oblique UAV Images for Building Knowledge. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 6:393. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6120393
Nesbit PR, Hugenholtz CH (2019) Enhancing UAV–SfM 3D Model Accuracy in High-Relief Landscapes by Incorporating Oblique Images. Remote Sens 11:239. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11030239
Gerke M, Nex F, Remondino F, Jacobsen K, Kremer J, Karel W, Hu H, Ostrowski W (2016) Orientation of oblique airborne image sets–experiences from the isprs/eurosdr benchmark on multi-platform photogrammetry. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci 41:185–191. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B1-185-2016
Gerke M, Przybilla HJ (2016) Accuracy Analysis of Photogrammetric UAV Image Blocks: Influence of Onboard RTK-GNSS and Cross Flight Patterns. Photogramm Fernerkund Geoinf 2016:17–30. https://doi.org/10.1127/pfg/2016/0284
Jon J, Koska B, Pospíšil J (2013) Autonomous Airship Equipped with Multi-Sensor Mapping Platform. ISPRS-Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 40:119–124. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W1-119-2013
Forlani G, Diotri F, Morra di Cella U, Roncella R (2020) UAV Block georeferencing and control by on-board GNSS data. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci XLIII-B2-2020:9–16. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B2-2020-9-2020
Jaud M, Passot S, Le Bivic R, Delacourt C, Grandjean P, Le Dantec N (2016) Assessing the Accuracy of High Resolution Digital Surface Models Computed by PhotoScan®and MicMac®in Sub-Optimal Survey Conditions. Remote Sens 8:465. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8060465
Sanz-Ablanedo E, Chandler JH, Rodríguez-Pérez JR, Ordóñez C (2018) Accuracy of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and SfM Photogrammetry Survey as a Function of the Number and Location of Ground Control Points Used. Remote Sens 10:1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101606
Martínez-Carricondo P, Agüera-Vega F, Carvajal-Ramírez F, Mesas-Carrascosa FJ, García-Ferrer A, Pérez-Porras FJ (2018) Assessment of UAV-photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation of ground control points. Int J App Earth Obser and Geoinf 72:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2018.05.015
Barba S, Barbarella M, Di Benedetto A, Fiani M, Limongiello M (2019) Quality assessment of uav photogrammetric archaeological survey. The IAP Remote Sens and Spatial Inf Sci XLII-2/W9. 8th Intl. Workshop 3D-ARCH “3D Virtual Reconstruction and Visualization of Complex Architectures”, 6–8 February 2019, Bergamo, Italy. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W9-93-2019
Hung IK, Unger D, Kulhavy D, Zhang Y (2019) Positional Precision Analysis of Orthomosaics Derived from Drone Captured Aerial Imagery. Drones 3:46. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones3020046
Ludwig M, Runge MC, Friess N, Koch TL, Richter S, Seyfried S, Wraase L, Lobo A, Sebastià MT, Reudenbach C, Nauss T (2020) Quality Assessment of Photogrammetric Methods—A Workflow for Reproducible UAS Orthomosaics. Remote Sens 12:3831. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223831
Müller D, Walter TR, Schöpa A, Witt T, Steinke B, Gudmundsson MT, Dürig T (2017) High-Resolution Digital Elevation Modeling from TLS and UAV Campaign Reveals Structural Complexity at the 2014/2015 Holuhraun Eruption Site, Iceland. Front Earth Sci 5:59. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2017.00059
Martínez-Carricondo P, Agüera-Vega F, Carvajal-Ramírez F (2020) Use of UAV-Photogrammetry for Quasi-Vertical Wall Surveying. Remote Sens 12:2221. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142221
Błaszczyk M, Laska M, Sivertsen A, Jawak SD (2022) Combined Use of Aerial Photogrammetry and Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Detecting Geomorphological Changes in Hornsund, Svalbard. Remote Sens 14:601. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14030601
Harwin S, Lucieer A (2010) Assessing the Accuracy of Georeferenced Point Clouds Produced via Multi-View Stereopsis from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Imagery. Remote Sens 4:1573–1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4061573
Štroner M, Urban R, Seidl J, Reindl T, Brouček J (2021) Photogrammetry Using UAV-Mounted GNSS RTK: Georeferencing Strategies without GCPs. Remote Sens 13:1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13071336
Urban R, Štroner M, Kuric I (2020) The use of onboard UAV GNSS navigation data for area and volume calculation. Acta Montan Slovaca 25:361–374. https://doi.org/10.46544/AMS.v25i3.9
Solon J, Borzyszkowski J, Bidłasik M, Richling A, Badora K, Balon J, Brzezińska-Wójcik T, Chabudziński Ł, Dobrowolski R, Grzegorczyk I, Jodłowski M, Kistowski M, Kot R, Krąż P, Lechnio J, Macias A, Majchrowska A, Malinowska E, Migoń P, Myga-Piątek U, Nita J, Papińska E, Rodzik J, Strzyż M, Terpiłowski S, Ziaja W (2018) Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries on the basis of contemporary spatial data. Geogr Polon 91(2):143–170. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0115
CLC18_PL (Corine Land Cover database for Poland) (2018) Copernicus GIO Land Monitoring program, Institute of Geodesy and Cartography (IGiK), Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection (GIOŚ), Warszawa. Available at: https://clc.gios.gov.pl/index.php/clc-2018/udostepnianie. Accessed on 10 May 2022
Jania J, Dulias R, Szypuła B, Tyc A (2014) Digital Geomorphological Map of Poland 1:100,000, sheet Katowice. Surveyor General of Poland, Warszawa
Guth PL, Van Niekerk A, Grohmann CH, Muller JP, Hawker L, Florinsky IV, Gesch D, Reuter HI, Herrera-Cruz V, Riazanoff S, López-Vázquez C, Carabajal CC, Albinet C, Strobl P (2021) Digital Elevation Models: Terminology and Definitions. Remote Sens 13:3581. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13183581
Kemp KK (ed) (2008) Encyclopedia of geographic information science. SAGE Publications Inc. 558 p. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412953962
Agisoft LLC (2020) AgiSoft MetaShape Professional (Software version 1.6.5), St. Petersburg, Russia
Dane pomiarowe NMT (2019) Surveyor General of Poland, Warszawa. Available at: https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/. Accessed on 10 May 2022
ASPRS (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) (2008) LAS Specification version 1.2., 13 p
Topographic Map of Poland 1:10,000 (1993) sheets: M-34–51-C-c-4, M-34–51-C-d-3, M-34–63-A-a-2, M-34–63-A-b-1. Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography, Warszawa
Kadaj RJ (2002) Polskie układy współrzędnych. Formuły transformacyjne, algorytmy i programy. AlgoRes soft, Rzeszów. 52 p
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) (2019) ArcGIS Desktop 10.8.1 & ArcGIS Pro 2.9.3. Redlands, CA
Hutchinson MF (2011) ANUDEM Version 5.3. User Guide. Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University. 25 p
Geoportal of the Spatial Information Infrastructure, Główny Urząd Geodezji i Kartografii (Head of the Surveyor General of Poland). Available at: https://geoportal.gov.pl. Accessed on 1 May 2022
Szypuła B (2019) Quality assessment of DEM derived from topographic maps for geomorphometric purposes. Open Geosci 11:843–865. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2019-0066
Szypuła B (2016) Geomorphometric comparison of DEMs built by different interpolation methods. Land Anal 32:45–58. https://doi.org/10.12657/landfana.032.004
Meyer T (2012) Root Mean Square Error compared to, and contrasted with, Standard Deviation. Surv Land Inf Sci 72:107–108
Shetty S, Vaishnavi PC, Umesh P, Shetty A (2022) Vertical accuracy assessment of open source digital elevation models under varying elevation and land cover in Western Ghats of India. Model Earth Syst Environ 8:883–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01119-2
Śliwiński D, Konieczna A, Roman K (2022) Geostatistical Resampling of LiDAR-Derived DEM in Wide Resolution Range for Modelling in SWAT: A Case Study of Zgłowiączka River (Poland). Remote Sens 14:1281. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14051281
Kotz S, Read CB, Balakrishnan N, Vidakovic B eds. (2006) Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. Wiley
Li ZL (1988) On the measure of digital terrain model accuracy. Photogr Rec 12(72):873–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9730.1988.tb00636.x
Everitt BS, Skrondal A (2010) The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. Cambridge University Press, UK, p 480
Global Positioning System (2021) Standard positioning service performance analysis report. FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport. 176 pp
GPS-server (2022) Available at: https://www.gps-server.net/gps-vs-glonass. Accessed 25 June 2022
Technologia GPS (2022) Available at: https://technologiagps.org.pl/systemy/glonass.html. Accessed 25 June 2022
Mavic 2 Pro/ZOOM (2019) User manual v. 1.8. DJI
Crume J (2019) Drone mapping with and without GCP's using DJI drones. Available at: https://www.agsgis.com/Drone-Mapping-With-and-Without-GCPs-using-DJI-Drones_b_1065.html
Gauci AA, Brodbeck CJ, Poncet AM, Knappenberger T (2018) Assessing the Geospatial Accuracy of Aerial Imagery Collected with Various UAS Platforms. Trans ASABE 61 6:1823–1829. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12852
Kalacska M, Lucanus O, Arroyo-Mora JP, Laliberté É, Elmer K, Leblanc G, Groves A (2020) Accuracy of 3D Landscape Reconstruction without Ground Control Points Using Different UAS Platforms. Drones 4:13. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones4020013
Senkal E, Kaplan G, Avdan U (2021) Accuracy assessment of digital surface models from unmanned aerial vehicles’ imagery on archaeological sites. Int J Eng Geosc 6 2:81–89. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.696001
Kulhavy DL, Hung IK, Unger DR, Zhang Y (2018) Accuracy assessment on drone measured heights at different height levels. Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture
Unger DR, Hung IK, Kulhavy DL, Zhang Y, Busch-Petersen K (2018) Accuracy of Unmanned Aerial System (Drone) Height Measurements. Int J Geosp Environ Res 5 1:1–14
Brach M, Chan JCW, Szymanski P (2019) Accuracy assessment of different photogrammetric software for processing data from low-cost UAV platforms in forest conditions. iForest 12:435–441. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2986-012
Szypuła B (2017) Quantitative studies of the morphology of the south Poland using Relief Index (RI). Open Geosc 9:509–524. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2017-0039
Lin S, Chen N, He Z (2021) Automatic Landform Recognition from the Perspective of Watershed Spatial Structure Based on Digital Elevation Models. Remote Sens 13:3926. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193926
Dachauer A, Hann R, Hodson AJ (2021) Aerodynamic roughness length of crevassed tidewater glaciers from UAV mapping. Cryosphere 15:5513–5528. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-5513-2021
Hann R, Altstädter B, Betlem P, Deja K, Dragańska-Deja K, Ewertowski M, Hartvich F, Jonassen M, Lampert A, Laska M, Sobota I, Storvold R, Tomczyk A, Wojtysiak K, Zagórski P (2020) Scientific Applications of Unmanned Vehicles in Svalbard, SESS report 2020, Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System, Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4293283
Kalacska M, Chmura GL, Lucanus O, Bérubé D, Arroyo-Mora JP (2017) Structure from motion will revolutionize analyses of tidal wetland landscapes. Remote Sens Environ 199:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.023
Acknowledgements
The studies were carried out with the use of research equipment UAV DJI Mavic 2 Pro of the Polar Laboratory of the University of Silesia in Katowice. I wish also to thank to Instrumenty Geodezyjne T. Nadowski company for access to GNSS corrections during the GNSS RTK surveys. And of course, thanks to Dr. Michał Laska for inspiring talks and drone-related instruction.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B.S. wrote the whole text, made figures and reviewed the manuscript
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Conflict of interest
The author have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Szypuła, B. Accuracy of UAV-based DEMs without ground control points. Geoinformatica 28, 1–28 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-023-00498-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-023-00498-1