Little Desert - LiDAR
  • MetaShare PROD
  •  
  •  
  •  

  Little Desert - LiDAR

dataset
Dataset: Little Desert - LiDAR Assembly: Single
 
Citation proposal Citation proposal

Little Desert - LiDAR

Department of Transport and Planning

https://metashare.maps.vic.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/302e50db-1644-5c82-8c36-3f155641fce7
 
  • Description
  • Temporal
  • Spatial
  • Maintenance
  • Format
  • Contacts
  • Keywords
  • Resource Constraints
  • Lineage
  • Metadata Constraints
  • Quality
  • Acquisition Info
  • Raster Data Details
  • Raster Type Details
  • Point Cloud Data Details
  • Contour Data Details
  • Survey Details

Simple

 
 

Description

Title
Little Desert - LiDAR 
 
 

Temporal

Time period
2016-01-092016-01-10 
 
 

Spatial

Horizontal Accuracy
0.3m  
Vertical Accuracy
0.1m  
Code
MGA Zone 54 GDA94 
 
 

Maintenance

 
 

Format

Title
LAS 1.3, Waveform Packets 
 
 

Contacts

  Point of contact

Department of Transport and Planning - Coordinated Imagery Program  
PO Box 500
East Melbourne
Victoria
3002
Australia
 
 

Keywords

Topic category
  • Elevation
 
 

Resource Constraints

Use limitation
General 
Classification
Unclassified  
 
 

Lineage

Description
LiDAR was acquired over the project area. An instrument calibration issue was encountered with the LiDAR system during initial pre-processing. The issue was caused by an internal calibration error between channel 1 and channel 2. It manifested itself by producing a fluctuating, vertical, misalignment between both channels in the range of 0.05 - 0.20m (relative accuracy). It was resolved by an internal calibration correction (provided by sensor manufacturer) being applied to all flights of LiDAR data in this project. The acquired LiDAR strikes were transformed into an ellipsoid point cloud using a solution obtained from the onboard IMU and GPS and Victorian CORS network. The point cloud was then adjusted to AHD using AusGeoid09. Checks against an network of surveyed ground control resulted in further general and local adjustments where required. Reduction of the LiDAR data proceeded without any significant problems. Laser returns were classified into ground and non ground classes using a single algorithm tailored to the project before further automatic classification was performed to differentiate non ground features into their respective classes. Following this, manual checking and editing was undertaken to improve the classification of the ground class. 
 
 

Metadata Constraints

Classification
Unclassified  
 
 

Quality

Attribute Quality
Positional Accuracy
Conceptual Consistency
Comments
Accuracy of the ground surface under dense canopy may be reduced due to diminished returns. Laser accuracy at swath edges may be reduced. Classification algorithms have been tailored for common terrain/vegetation combinations across the project area. Classification accuracy and ground definition may be less accurate in uncommon or mixed terrain/vegetation/land use combinations. The Riegl Q1560 LiDAR sensor is an extremely sensitive system and also contains a unique functionality with ¿multi-time-around¿ technology. The combination of these two factors increases the number of high/low outliers compared to other LiDAR sensors. 
Missing Data
Comments
Gaps may occur due to the multi-time-around technology of the Reigl Q1560 LiDAR Sensor, or from diminished returns over water, under canopy and on materials with low laser reflectivity, such as black roofing, swimming pools. 
Excess Data
 
 

Acquisition Info

Platform Type
Aerial  
Assembly
Single  
Tile Size
2 km  
 
 

Raster Data Details

 
 

Point Cloud Data Details

Pulse Mode
Multi Pulse 
Scan Rate (Hz)
102Hz  
Scan Frequency (kHz)
400kHz  
Scan Angle (degrees)
60degrees  
Footprint Size (m)
0.25m  
Point Density Actual (pts/m2)
4points/m2  
Point Spacing Actual (pts/m)
0.5points/m2  
Ellipsoid Provided
1 
Ellipsoid Vertical Datum
GRS80 Ellipsoidal (ITRF2005)  
Ellipsoid Format
LAS 1.2  
Geoid Vertical Datum
AUSGEOID09  
Additional Adjustments
Ground data in this volume has been compared to 364 test points obtained by field survey and assumed to be error-free. The test points were distributed in 4 groups across the mapping area and located on open clear ground. Comparison of the field test points with elevations interpolated from measured data resulted in the mean difference for Horsham (-0.918m) being removed from the data. 
Class Level
2 
Classification Accuracy
98 
Classification
Class Level Classification Accuracy Class 0 - Unclassified Class 1 - Default Class 2 - Ground Class 3 - Low Vegetation Class 4 - Medium Vegetation Class 5 - High Vegetation Class 6 - Buildings/Structures Class 7 - Low/High Points Class 8 - Model Key Points Class 9- Water Class 10 - Bridge Class 12 - Flightline Overlap Points
2 98 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
 
 

Contour Data Details

 
 

Survey Details

Sensor

Title
Riegl Q1560 
Identifier
Aerial

Type
LIDAR 
 

Aerial Survey Details

Runs
10 
Run Orientation
N-S  
Swath Width
1480 
Side Overlap
33 
Forward Overlap
60 
Flying Height Unit
agl metre  
Flight Height
1400 
 
 

    Overviews

  Provided by

  Share on social sites

         

  Views Views

  • Simple
  • Simple
  • Full
  • XML
302e50db-1644-5c82-8c36-3f155641fce7   Access to the portal Access to the portal Read here the full details and access to the data. Read here the full details and access to the data.

  Associated resources

Not available


  •  
  •  
  •