2014 U.S. Geological Survey CMGP LiDAR: Post Sandy (Pennsylvania)
OCM Partners
Data Set
(DS)
| ID: 49952
| Published / External
Created: 2017-11-15
|
Last Modified: 2022-08-09
Project (PRJ) | ID: 49401
ID: 49952
Data Set (DS)
* Discovery• First Pass
» Metadata Rubric
Item Identification
* » Title | 2014 U.S. Geological Survey CMGP LiDAR: Post Sandy (Pennsylvania) |
---|---|
Short Name | pa2014_usgs_cmgp_sandy_m5086_metadata |
* Status | Completed |
Creation Date | |
Revision Date | |
• Publication Date | 2016-01-09 |
* » Abstract |
Fugro EarthData, Inc. (Fugro) was tasked by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to plan, acquire, process, and produce derivative products of LiDAR data at a nominal pulse spacing (NPS) of 0.7 meters based on the "U.S. Geological Survey National Geospatial Program LiDAR Base Specification Version 1.0". The project area consists of approximately 1,917 square miles and covers York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. Fugro's approved ID/IQ subcontractor Richard Crouse & Associates, Inc. (RC&A) acquired 148 flight lines in 11 lifts between November 25 and December 27, 2014. LiDAR data collection was performed with a twin engine aircraft, utilizing a Riegl Q-680i sensor; collecting multiple return x, y, and z as well as intensity data. Specialized in-house and commercial software processes the native LiDAR data into 3-dimensional positions that can be imported into GIS software for visualization and further analysis. Breaklines were delivered with the lidar dataset. These have not been reviewed by NOAA OCM, therefore are only available by request. |
* Purpose |
This data will assist in the evaluation of coastal storm damage impacts; aid in post-event reconstruction and mitigation planning for future events and collect LiDAR for counties heavily impacted by storm and flooding for which data is incomplete or inadequate to conduct proper analysis, as part of USGS Hurricane Sandy response. |
Notes |
10596 |
Other Citation Details | |
• Supplemental Information |
A footprint of this data set may be viewed in Google Earth at: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/5086/supplemental/pa2014_usgs_cmgp_sandy_m5086.kmz A survey report for this the project may be viewed here: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/5086/supplemental/pa2014_usgs_cmgp_sandy_m5086_projectreport.pdf An acquisition report for this the project may be viewed here: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/5086/supplemental/pa2014_usgs_cmgp_sandy_m5086_collectionreport.pdf A survey report for this the project may be viewed here: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/5086/supplemental/pa2014_usgs_cmgp_sandy_m5086_accuracyreport.pdf |
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) | |
DOI Registration Authority | |
DOI Issue Date |
Keywords
Theme Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
ISO 19115 Topic Category | elevation |
None | Bare earth |
Temporal Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
* Spatial Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Stratum Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Instrument Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Platform Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Physical Location
• » Organization | Office for Coastal Management |
---|---|
• » City | Charleston |
• » State/Province | SC |
• Country | |
• » Location Description |
Data Set Information
* Data Set Scope Code | Data Set |
---|---|
• Data Set Type | |
• Maintenance Frequency | As Needed |
Maintenance Note | |
» Data Presentation Form | las |
• Entity Attribute Overview |
LiDAR points in LAS format (ASPRS Classes 1,2,7,9,10) |
Entity Attribute Detail Citation |
none |
Entity Attribute Detail URL | |
Distribution Liability |
Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of Richard Crouse & Associates, Inc., USGS, NOAA, the Office for Coastal Management or its partners. |
Data Set Credit |
Support Roles
* » Support Role | Data Steward |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2016-01-09 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | Distributor |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2016-01-09 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | Metadata Contact |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2016-01-09 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | Point of Contact |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2016-01-09 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | |
Date Effective To | |
* » Contact | |
* Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | |
Date Effective To | |
* » Contact | |
* Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | |
Date Effective To | |
* » Contact | |
* Contact Instructions |
Extents
Currentness Reference | Ground Condition |
---|
Extent Group 1
Extent Description |
---|
Extent Group 1 / Geographic Area 1
* » W° Bound | -77.145912 |
---|---|
* » E° Bound | -75.867347 |
* » N° Bound | 40.31901 |
* » S° Bound | 39.706287 |
* » Description |
Extent Group 1 / Vertical Extent
EPSG Code | |
---|---|
Vertical Minimum | |
Vertical Maximum |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 1
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2014-11-25 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 2
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2014-12-01 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 3
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2014-12-04 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 4
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2014-12-07 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 5
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2014-12-19 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 6
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2014-12-26 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 7
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2014-12-27 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Spatial Information
Spatial Resolution
Angular Distance | |
---|---|
Angular Distance Units | |
Horizontal Distance | |
Horizontal Distance Units | |
Vertical Distance | |
Vertical Distance Units | |
Equivalent Scale Denominator | |
Level of Detail Description |
Spatial Representation
Grid Representation Used? | |
---|---|
Vector Representation Used? | Yes |
Text / Table Representation Used? | |
TIN Representation Used? | |
Stereo Model Representation Used? | |
Video Representation Used? |
Grid Representation
Dimension Count | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cell Geometry | |||||||||||||
Transformation Parameter Available? | |||||||||||||
Axis Dimension |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Axis Dimension |
|||||||||||||
|
Vector Representation
Topology Level | |
---|---|
Complex Object Present? | |
Complex Object Count | |
Composite Object Present? | |
Composite Object Count | |
Curve Object Present? | |
Curve Object Count | |
Point Object Present? | |
Point Object Count | |
Solid Object Present? | |
Solid Object Count | |
Surface Object Present? | |
Surface Object Count |
Reference Systems
Reference System
EPSG Code | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Horizontal Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vertical Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Access Information
Data License | |
---|---|
Data License URL | |
Data License Statement | |
* » Security Class | Unclassified |
* Security Classification System | |
Security Handling Description | |
• Data Access Policy | |
» Data Access Procedure |
This data can be obtained on-line at the following URL: https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=5086; |
• » Data Access Constraints |
None |
• Data Use Constraints |
Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this data set was collected and some parts of this data may no longer represent actual surface conditions. Users should not use this data for critical applications without a full awareness of its limitations. These data depict the heights at the time of the survey and are only accurate for that time. None. However, users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this dataset was collected and that some parts of these data may no longer represent actual surface conditions. Users should not use these data for critical applications without a full awareness of its limitations. Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of the U.S. Geological Survey, York County, PA, Lancaster County, PA or its partners. Acknowledgement of the U.S. Geological Survey, Lancaster County, PA, and York County, PA would be appreciated for products derived from these data. |
Metadata Access Constraints | |
Metadata Use Constraints |
Distribution Information
Start Date | |
---|---|
» Download URL | https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=5086 |
Distributor | |
File Name | Customized Download |
Description |
Create custom data files by choosing data area, product type, map projection, file format, datum, etc. |
File Date/Time | |
File Type (Deprecated) | |
Distribution Format | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
» Download URL | https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/5086/index.html |
Distributor | |
File Name | Bulk Download |
Description |
Simple download of data files. |
File Date/Time | |
File Type (Deprecated) | |
Distribution Format | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
End Date | |
» Download URL | |
Distributor | |
File Name | |
Description | |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
FGDC Content Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
End Date | |
» Download URL | |
Distributor | |
File Name | |
Description | |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
FGDC Content Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
End Date | |
» Download URL | |
Distributor | |
File Name | |
Description | |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
FGDC Content Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
URLs
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | Online Resource |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | Online Resource |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/5086/supplemental/pa2014_usgs_cmgp_sandy_m5086.kmz |
---|---|
Name | Browse Graphic |
URL Type | Browse Graphic |
File Resource Format | kmz |
Description |
This graphic shows the lidar coverage for the 2014 lidar acquisition for Pennsylvania. |
URL | |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
Activity Log
Activity Time | 2016-07-15 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Date that the source FGDC record was last modified. |
Activity Time | 2017-11-14 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Converted from FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (version FGDC-STD-001-1998) using 'fgdc_to_inport_xml.pl' script. Contact Tyler Christensen (NOS) for details. |
Activity Time | 2018-02-08 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Partial upload of Positional Accuracy fields only. |
Activity Time | 2018-03-13 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Partial upload to move data access links to Distribution Info. |
Activity Time | |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Activity Time | |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Activity Time | |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Issues
Issue Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Issue |
Issue Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Issue |
Issue Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Issue |
Technical Environment
Description |
|
---|
Data Quality
Representativeness | |
---|---|
Accuracy | |
Analytical Accuracy | |
Horizontal Positional Accuracy |
The horizontal errors in LiDAR data are largely a function of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positional errors, the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) angular errors, and the flying altitude. If the accuracy of the GNSS/IMU solution is known for the specific POS system, using the flying altitude of the project the expected horizontal errors in the Lidar data can be estimated. Following the formula in the ASPRS Positional Accuracy Standards for Digital Geospatial Data (Edition 1, Version 1.0. - November, 2014), using the specifications of the POS system used and 1000 m flying altitude above ground, the estimated horizontal accuracy is RMSEr = 0.26 m.; Quantitative Value: 0.26 meters, Test that produced the value: Using the specifications of the POS system used and 1000 m flying altitude above ground, the estimated horizontal accuracy is RMSEr = 0.26 m. |
Vertical Positional Accuracy |
RMSE 5 cm. SVA - Cumulative 10 cm Crops/Ag - 10 cm Urban - 5 cm Woods - 12 cm Nominal Pulse Spacing - 0.7; Quantitative Value: 0.05 meters, Test that produced the value: RMSEz derived. Provided in the accuracy report as Vertical tested at 95% (RMSEz x 1.96) = 0.09 m. |
Quantitation Limits | |
Bias | |
Comparability | |
Completeness Measure | |
Precision | |
Analytical Precision | |
Field Precision | |
Sensitivity | |
Detection Limit | |
Completeness Report |
The Classified Point Cloud data files include all data points collected except the ones from Cross ties and Calibration lines. The points that have been removed or excluded are the points fall outside the project delivery boundary. Points are classified. A visual qualitative assessment was performed to ensure data completeness. No void areas or missing data exist. The classified point cloud is of good quality and data passes Vertical Accuracy requirements. |
Conceptual Consistency |
Compliance with the accuracy standard was ensured by the collection of ground control and the establishment of a GPS base station at the operation airport as well as multiple other active stations in the project area. |
» Quality Control Procedures Employed |
Data Management
» Have Resources for Management of these Data Been Identified? | |
---|---|
» Approximate Percentage of Budget for these Data Devoted to Data Management | |
» Do these Data Comply with the Data Access Directive? | |
» Is Access to the Data Limited Based on an Approved Waiver? | |
» If Distributor (Data Hosting Service) is Needed, Please Indicate | |
» Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Dissemination | |
» If Delay is Longer than Latency of Automated Processing, Indicate Under What Authority Data Access is Delayed |
|
» Actual or Planned Long-Term Data Archive Location | |
» If World Data Center or Other, Specify | |
» If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended, Explain |
|
» Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Archiving | |
» How Will the Data Be Protected from Accidental or Malicious Modification or Deletion Prior to Receipt by the Archive? |
|
Lineage
» Lineage Statement |
---|
Sources
Citation Title | |
---|---|
Contact Role Type | |
Contact Type | |
Contact Name | |
Publish Date | |
Extent Type | |
Extent Start Date/Time | |
Extent End Date/Time | |
Citation URL | |
Citation URL Name | |
Citation URL Description | |
Scale Denominator |
Citation Title | |
---|---|
Contact Role Type | |
Contact Type | |
Contact Name | |
Publish Date | |
Extent Type | |
Extent Start Date/Time | |
Extent End Date/Time | |
Citation URL | |
Citation URL Name | |
Citation URL Description | |
Scale Denominator |
Citation Title | |
---|---|
Contact Role Type | |
Contact Type | |
Contact Name | |
Publish Date | |
Extent Type | |
Extent Start Date/Time | |
Extent End Date/Time | |
Citation URL | |
Citation URL Name | |
Citation URL Description | |
Scale Denominator |
Process Steps
Process Step Number | 1 |
---|---|
» Description |
Fugro was tasked with planning, acquiring, processing, and producing derivative products of LiDAR data collected at a NPS of 0.7 meters, including overlap, for an Area of Interest (AOI) covering the entire counties of York and Lancaster in south-eastern Pennsylvania. The AOI covers approximately 1,899 square miles. A 100-meter buffer was added to the AOI covering approximately 1,917 square miles; all products were generated to the limit of this buffered boundary. LiDAR data was acquired using a twin engine aircraft equipped with an antenna and receiver for airborne GPS collection. Flight status was communicated during data collection. All acquired LiDAR data went through a preliminary review to assure that complete coverage was obtained and that there were no gaps between flight lines before the flight crew left the project site. Once back in the office, the data was run through a complete iteration of processing to ensure that it is complete, uncorrupted, and that the entire project area has been covered without gaps between flight lines. There are essentially three steps to this processing: 1) GPS/IMU Processing - Airborne GPS and IMU data was immediately processed using the airport GPS base station data, which was available to the flight crew upon landing the plane. This ensures the integrity of all the mission data. The following GPS base stations were utilized: RCA1, YORK, DEW3, AAM1, and KCI1. These results were also used to perform the initial LiDAR system calibration test. 2) Raw LiDAR Data Processing - Technicians processed the raw data to LAS format flight lines with full resolution output before performing QC. A starting configuration file is used in this process, which contains the latest calibration parameters for the sensor. The technicians also generated flight line trajectories for each of the flight lines during this process. 3) Verification of Coverage and Data Quality - Technicians checked flight line trajectory files to ensure completeness of acquisition for the flight lines, calibration lines, and cross flight lines. The intensity images were generated for the entire lift at the required 0.7 meter nominal post spacing for the project. The technician visually checked the intensity images against the acquisition boundary to ensure full coverage to the 100 meter buffer beyond the project boundary. The intensity histogram was analyzed to ensure the quality of the intensity values. The technician also thoroughly reviewed the data for any gaps in project area. The technician generated a sample TIN surface to ensure no anomalies were present in the data. Turbulence was inspected for each flight line; if any adverse quality issues were discovered, the flight line was rejected and re-flown. The technician also evaluated the achieved post spacing against project specified 0.7 meter nominal post spacing as well as making sure no clustering in point distribution. |
Process Date/Time | 2015-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 2 |
---|---|
» Description |
The boresight for each lift was done individually as the solution may change slightly from lift to lift. The following steps describe the Raw Data Processing and Boresight process: 1) Technicians processed the raw data to LAS format flight lines using the final GPS/IMU solution. This LAS data set was used as source data for boresight. 2) Technicians first used Fugro proprietary and commercial software to calculate initial boresight adjustment angles based on sample areas selected in the lift. These areas cover calibration flight lines collected in the lift, cross tie and production flight lines. These areas are well distributed in the lift coverage and cover multiple terrain types that are necessary for boresight angle calculation. The technician then analyzed the results and made any necessary additional adjustment until it is acceptable for the selected areas. 3) Once the boresight angle calculation was completed for the selected areas, the adjusted settings were applied to all of the flight lines of the lift and checked for consistency. The technicians utilized commercial and proprietary software packages to analyze how well flight line overlaps match for the entire lift and adjusted as necessary until the results met the project specifications. 4) Once all lifts were completed with individual boresight adjustment, the technicians checked and corrected the vertical misalignment of all flight lines and also the matching between data and ground truth. The relative accuracy was <= 7cm RMSEZ within individual swaths and <=10 cm RMSEZ or within swath overlap (between adjacent swaths). 5) The technicians ran a final vertical accuracy check of the boresighted flight lines against the surveyed check points after the z correction to ensure the requirement of FVA = 18.13 cm 95% Confidence Level (Required Accuracy) was met. |
Process Date/Time | 2015-01-12 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 3 |
---|---|
» Description |
Once boresighting was complete for the project, the project was first set up for automatic classification. The LiDAR data was cut to production tiles. The flight line Overlap points, Noise points and Ground points were classified automatically in this process. Fugro utilized commercial software, as well as proprietary, in-house developed software for automatic filtering. The parameters used in the process were customized for each terrain type to obtain optimum results. Once the automated filtering was completed, the files were run through a visual inspection to ensure that the filtering was not too aggressive or not aggressive enough. In cases where the filtering was too aggressive and important terrain were filtered out, the data was either run through a different filter within local area or was corrected during the manual filtering process. Interactive editing was completed in visualization software that provides manual and automatic point classification tools. Fugro utilized commercial and proprietary software for this process. All manually inspected tiles went through a peer review to ensure proper editing and consistency. After the manual editing and peer review, all tiles went through another final automated classification routine. This process ensures only the required classifications are used in the final product (all points classified into any temporary classes during manual editing will be re-classified into the project specified classifications). During this process, the points originally classified as flight line overlap were tagged as withheld points. Once manual inspection, QC and final autofilter is complete for the LiDAR tiles, the LAS data was packaged to the project specified tiling scheme, clipped to project boundary including the 100 meter buffer and formatted to LAS v1.2. It was also re-projected to UTM Zone 18 north; NAD83(NSRS2011), meters; NAVD88(GEOID12A), meters. The file header was formatted to meet the project specification with File Source ID assigned. This Classified Point Cloud product was used for the generation of derived products. This product was delivered in fully compliant LAS v1.2, Point Record Format 1 with Adjusted Standard GPS Time at a precision sufficient to allow unique timestamps for each return. Georeference information is included in all LAS file headers. Intensity values are included for each point. Each tile has unique File Source ID assigned. The Point Source ID matches to the flight line ID in flight trajectory files. The following classifications are included: Code 1 - Processed, but unclassified; Code 2 - Bare-earth ground; Code 7 - Noise (low or high, manually identified, if needed); Code 9 - Water; and Code 10 - Ignored Ground (Breakline Proximity). |
Process Date/Time | 2015-06-16 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 4 |
---|---|
» Description |
The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received the topographic files in classified LAZ format from USGS' ftp site. The data were received in UTM Zone 18N NAD83 coordinates (meters) and vertically referenced to NAVD88 using the Geoid12a model in meters. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes: 1. LAS files were compressed to LAZ format with LASTools. 2. LAS files were removed of any duplicated points and extraneous points were reclassified to noise. 3. The LAS files were transformed to geographic (decimal degrees), ellipsoidal coordinates (meters). |
Process Date/Time | 2016-07-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | |
---|---|
» Description | |
Process Date/Time | |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | |
---|---|
» Description | |
Process Date/Time | |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | |
---|---|
» Description | |
Process Date/Time | |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Acquisition Information
Instruments
Instrument Unavailable Reason |
---|
Identifier | |
---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |
Instrument / Gear | |
Instrument Type | |
Description |
Identifier | |
---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |
Instrument / Gear | |
Instrument Type | |
Description |
Identifier | |
---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |
Instrument / Gear | |
Instrument Type | |
Description |
Platforms
Platform Unavailable Reason |
---|
Identifier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |||||||
Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
Identifier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |||||||
Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
Identifier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |||||||
Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
FAQs
Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Question | |
Answer |
Child Items
Rubric scores updated every 15m
Score | Type | Title |
---|---|---|
Related Items
Item Type | Relationship Type | Title |
---|---|---|
Catalog Details
Catalog Item ID | 49952 |
---|---|
Metadata Record Created By | Anne Ball |
Metadata Record Created | 2017-11-15 15:23+0000 |
Metadata Record Last Modified By | SysAdmin InPortAdmin |
» Metadata Record Last Modified | 2022-08-09 17:11+0000 |
Metadata Record Published | 2022-03-16 |
Owner Org | OCMP |
Metadata Publication Status | Published Externally |
Do Not Publish? | N |
Metadata Workflow State | Published / External |
Metadata Last Review Date | 2022-03-16 |
Metadata Review Frequency | 1 Year |
Metadata Next Review Date | 2023-03-16 |
Tags |
---|