2018 USGS Lidar: Ottawa NF, MI
OCM Partners
Data Set
(DS)
| ID: 58790
| Published / External
Created: 2020-02-06
|
Last Modified: 2023-12-07
Project (PRJ) | ID: 49401
ID: 58790
Data Set (DS)
* Discovery• First Pass
» Metadata Rubric
Item Identification
* » Title | 2018 USGS Lidar: Ottawa NF, MI |
---|---|
Short Name | 2018_Ottawa_MI_9013 |
* Status | Completed |
Creation Date | |
Revision Date | |
• Publication Date | 2018-12-11 |
* » Abstract |
Product: This lidar data set includes classified LAS 1.4 files, with unclassified (1), ground (2), low vegetation (3), medium vegetation (4), high vegetation (5), building (6), noise (7), water (9), ignored ground (10), withheld (11), and bridge (17).
Geographic Extent: Four counties in Michigan, covering approximately 2,563 total square miles. Dataset Description: The Ottawa National Forest, MI, 2017 LiDAR project called for the planning, acquisition, processing, and derivative products of lidar data to be collected at a nominal pulse spacing (NPS) of 0.7 meters. Project specifications are based on the U.S. Geological Survey National Geospatial Program Base LiDAR Specification, Version 1.2. The data were developed based on a horizontal projection/datum of NAD83 (2011), State Plane Michigan North FIPS 2111, Intl feet and vertical datum of NAVD88 (GEOID12B), Intl feet. LiDAR data were delivered as processed Classified LAS 1.4 files formatted to 11,799 individual 2,500 feet x 2,500 feet tiles, as tiled intensity imagery, and as tiled bare earth DEMs; all tiled to the same 2,500 feet x 2,500 feet schema. Continuous breaklines were produced in Esri file geodatabase format. Ground Conditions: LiDAR was collected in spring of 2018, while no snow was on the ground and rivers were at or below normal levels. In order to post process the LiDAR data to meet task order specifications and meet ASPRS vertical accuracy guidelines, Quantum Spatial, Inc. utilized a total of 59 ground control points that were used to calibrate the LiDAR to known ground locations established throughout the project area. An additional 143 independent accuracy checkpoints, 81 in Bare Earth and Urban landcovers (81 NVA points), 62 in Tall Weeds categories (62 VVA points), were used to assess the vertical accuracy of the data. These checkpoints were not used to calibrate or post process the data. Tiled and mosaicked hydro-flattened bare-earth DEMs, continuous breaklines, and tiled and mosaicked intensity imagery are available from USGS National Map. |
* Purpose |
To acquire detailed surface elevation data for use in conservation planning, design, research, floodplain mapping, dam safety assessments and elevation modeling, etc. Classified LAS files are used to show the manually reviewed bare earth surface. This allows the user to create intensity images, breaklines and raster DEMs. The purpose of these LiDAR data was to produce high accuracy 3D hydro-flattened digital elevation models (DEMs) with a 2.5-foot cell size. These raw LiDAR point cloud data were used to create classified LiDAR LAS files, intensity images, 3D breaklines, and hydro-flattened DEMs as necessary. |
Notes | |
Other Citation Details | |
• Supplemental Information |
USGS Contract No. G16PC00016, Task Order No. 140G0218F00167; CONTRACTOR: Quantum Spatial, Inc. The following are the USGS lidar fields in JSON: {
"ldrinfo" : {
"ldrspec" : "USGS-NGP Base Specification v1.2", "ldrsens" : "Leica ALS70", "ldrmaxnr" : "4", "ldrnps" : "0.6", "ldrdens" : "2.8", "ldranps" : "0.6", "ldradens" : "2.8", "ldrfltht" : "2000", "ldrfltsp" : "150", "ldrscana" : "18", "ldrscanr" : "56", "ldrpulsr" : "278", "ldrpulsd" : "4", "ldrpulsw" : "0.44", "ldrwavel" : "1064", "ldrmpia" : "1", "ldrbmdiv" : "0.22", "ldrswatw" : "1300", "ldrswato" : "26", "ldrgeoid" : "GEOID12B", "ldrcrs" : "NAD83 (2011) State Plane Michigan North FIPS 2111, Intl feet" }, "ldrinfo" : {
"ldrspec" : "USGS-NGP Base Specification v1.2", "ldrsens" : "Leica ALS80", "ldrmaxnr" : "Unlimited", "ldrnps" : "0.62", "ldrdens" : "2.63", "ldranps" : "0.62", "ldradens" : "2.63", "ldrfltht" : "1900", "ldrfltsp" : "160", "ldrscana" : "19", "ldrscanr" : "53.3", "ldrpulsr" : "282.8", "ldrpulsd" : "4", "ldrpulsw" : "0.42", "ldrwavel" : "1064", "ldrmpia" : "1", "ldrbmdiv" : "0.22", "ldrswatw" : "1308", "ldrswato" : "35", "ldrgeoid" : "GEOID12B", "ldrcrs" : "NAD83 (2011) State Plane Michigan North FIPS 2111, Intl feet" }, "ldraccur" : {
"ldrchacc" : "0", "rawnva" : "0.849", "rawnvan" : "81" }, "lasinfo" : {
"lasver" : "1.4", "lasprf" : "6", "laswheld" : "Withheld (ignore) points were identified in these files using the standard LAS Withheld bit", "lasolap" : "Swath "overage" points were identified in these files using the standard LAS overlap bit", "lasintr" : "16", "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "1", "clasitem" : "Processed, but Unclassified" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "2", "clasitem" : "Bare-Earth Ground" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "3", "clasitem" : "Low Vegetation" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "4", "clasitem" : "Medium Vegetation" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "5", "clasitem" : "High Vegetation" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "6", "clasitem" : "Buildings" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "7", "clasitem" : "Low Noise" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "9", "clasitem" : "Water" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "10", "clasitem" : "Ignored Ground" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "11", "clasitem" : "Withheld/Reserved Points" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "17", "clasitem" : "Bridge Decks" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "18", "clasitem" : "High Noise" } }} |
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) | |
DOI Registration Authority | |
DOI Issue Date |
Keywords
Theme Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords | EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > TOPOGRAPHY > TERRAIN ELEVATION |
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords | EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > BATHYMETRY/SEAFLOOR TOPOGRAPHY > BATHYMETRY > COASTAL BATHYMETRY |
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords | EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > COASTAL PROCESSES > COASTAL ELEVATION |
ISO 19115 Topic Category | elevation |
Temporal Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
* Spatial Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | CONTINENT > NORTH AMERICA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | CONTINENT > NORTH AMERICA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > MICHIGAN |
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | VERTICAL LOCATION > LAND SURFACE |
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | VERTICAL LOCATION > SEA FLOOR |
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | Continent > North America > United States Of America > U.S. Coastline |
None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Gogebic County |
None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Houghton County |
None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Iron County |
None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Ontonagon County |
Stratum Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Instrument Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Instrument Keywords | LIDAR > Light Detection and Ranging |
Platform Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Platform Keywords | Airplane > Airplane |
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 | Elevation |
• Maintenance Frequency | None Planned |
Maintenance Note | |
» Data Presentation Form | Model (digital) |
• Entity Attribute Overview | |
Entity Attribute Detail Citation | |
Entity Attribute Detail URL | |
Distribution Liability |
Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of NOAA, the Office for Coastal Management or its partners |
Data Set Credit | USGS, State of Michigan, Quantum Spatial, Inc. |
Support Roles
* » Support Role | Data Steward |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2020 |
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 | 2020 |
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 | 2020 |
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 | 2020 |
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 | -90.24306067 |
---|---|
* » E° Bound | -88.6095749 |
* » N° Bound | 46.77110143 |
* » S° Bound | 46.01211535 |
* » Description |
Extent Group 1 / Vertical Extent
EPSG Code | |
---|---|
Vertical Minimum | |
Vertical Maximum |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 1
* » Time Frame Type | Range |
---|---|
* » Start | 2018-05-15 |
End | 2018-10-24 |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Spatial Information
Spatial Resolution
Angular Distance | |
---|---|
Angular Distance Units | |
Horizontal Distance | 0.3 |
Horizontal Distance Units | Meter |
Vertical Distance | |
Vertical Distance Units | |
Equivalent Scale Denominator | |
Level of Detail Description |
Spatial Representation
Grid Representation Used? | No |
---|---|
Vector Representation Used? | Yes |
Text / Table Representation Used? | No |
TIN Representation Used? | No |
Stereo Model Representation Used? | No |
Video Representation Used? | No |
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? | Yes |
Point Object Count | 52863005585 |
Solid Object Present? | |
Solid Object Count | |
Surface Object Present? | |
Surface Object Count |
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 |
Data is available online for bulk or custom downloads |
• » 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. |
Metadata Access Constraints | |
Metadata Use Constraints |
Distribution Information
Start Date | 2020-02-06 |
---|---|
End Date | Present |
» Download URL | https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=9013 |
Distributor | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) (2020 - Present) |
File Name | Customized Download |
Description |
Create custom data files by choosing data area, product type, map projection, file format, datum, etc. A new metadata will be produced to reflect your request using this record as a base. Change to an orthometric vertical datum is one of the many options. |
File Date/Time | |
File Type (Deprecated) | Zip |
Distribution Format | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | Zip |
Review Status |
Start Date | 2020-02-06 |
---|---|
End Date | Present |
» Download URL | https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/9013/index.html |
Distributor | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) (2020 - Present) |
File Name | Bulk Download |
Description |
Bulk download of data files in LAZ format, geographic coordinates, orthometric heights. Note that the vertical datum (hence elevations) of the files here are different than described in this document. They will be in an orthometric datum. |
File Date/Time | |
File Type (Deprecated) | LAZ |
Distribution Format | LAS/LAZ - LASer |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | Zip |
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 |
Archive Information
Location | |
---|---|
File Identifier | |
File Name | |
URL | |
Description | |
DOI | |
Archive Date | |
Archive Update Frequency |
Location | |
---|---|
File Identifier | |
File Name | |
URL | |
Description | |
DOI | |
Archive Date | |
Archive Update Frequency |
Location | |
---|---|
File Identifier | |
File Name | |
URL | |
Description | |
DOI | |
Archive Date | |
Archive Update Frequency |
URLs
URL | https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/9013/supplemental/extent_Ottawa_MI_m9013.kmz |
---|---|
Name | Browse graphic |
URL Type | Browse Graphic |
File Resource Format | KML |
Description |
This graphic displays the footprint for this lidar data set. |
URL | https://rockyweb.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/metadata/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017/ |
---|---|
Name | Breaklines |
URL Type | Online Resource |
File Resource Format | Zip |
Description |
Link to the breaklines. |
URL | https://rockyweb.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/metadata/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017/reports/Project_Report.pdf |
---|---|
Name | Lidar Report |
URL Type | Online Resource |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
Link to the lidar report. |
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 | |
---|---|
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 | |
Vertical Positional Accuracy |
The project specifications require that only Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy (NVA) be computed for raw LiDAR point cloud swath files. The required accuracy (ACCz) is: 19.6 cm at a 95% confidence level, derived according to NSSDA, i.e., based on RMSE of 10 cm in the "bare earth" and "urban" land cover classes. The NVA was tested with 81 checkpoints located in bare earth and urban (non-vegetated) areas. These checkpoints were not used in the calibration or post processing of the LiDAR point cloud data. The checkpoints were distributed throughout the project area and were surveyed using GPS techniques. See survey report for additional survey methodologies. Elevations from the unclassified LiDAR surface were measured for the x,y location of each checkpoint. Elevations interpolated from the LiDAR surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control points. AccuracyZ has been tested to meet 19.6 cm or better Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy at 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines. The project specifications require the accuracy (ACCz) of the derived DEM be calculated and reported in two ways: 1. The required NVA is: 19.6 cm at a 95% confidence level, derived according to NSSDA, i.e., based on RMSE of 10 cm in the "bare earth" and "urban" land cover classes. This is a required accuracy. The NVA was tested with 81 checkpoints located in bare earth and urban (non-vegetated) areas. 2. Vegetated Vertical Accuracy (VVA): VVA shall be reported for "tall weeds" land cover classes. The target VVA is: 29.4 cm at the 95th percentile, derived according to ASPRS Guidelines, Vertical Accuracy Reporting for LiDAR Data, i.e., based on the 95th percentile error in all vegetated land cover classes combined. This is a target accuracy. The VVA was tested with 62 checkpoints located in forested and tall weeds (vegetated) areas. The checkpoints were distributed throughout the project area and were surveyed using GPS techniques. See survey report for additional survey methodologies. AccuracyZ has been tested to meet 19.6 cm or better Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy at 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.
Tested 0.849 meters NVA at a 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). The NVA of the raw LiDAR point cloud swath files was calculated against TINs derived from the final calibrated and controlled swath data using 81 independent checkpoints located in Bare Earth and Urban land cover classes. Tested 0.845 meters NVA at a 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). The NVA of the DEM was calculated using 81 independent checkpoints located in the Bare Earth and Urban land cover categories. Tested 1.37 meters VVA was calculated using 62 checkpoints located in the Forested and Tall Weeds land cover categories at the 95th percentile, derived according to ASPRS Guidelines, Vertical Accuracy Reporting for LiDAR Data. Tested against the DEM. |
Quantitation Limits | |
Bias | |
Comparability | |
Completeness Measure | |
Precision | |
Analytical Precision | |
Field Precision | |
Sensitivity | |
Detection Limit | |
Completeness Report |
All files are inspected to ensure that they conform to the specified file naming conventions, all files load in their correct geographic position, all files conform to the project specifications for file standard and content. |
Conceptual Consistency |
Data cover the entire area specified for this project. |
» Quality Control Procedures Employed |
Data Management
» Have Resources for Management of these Data Been Identified? | Yes |
---|---|
» Approximate Percentage of Budget for these Data Devoted to Data Management | Unknown |
» Do these Data Comply with the Data Access Directive? | Yes |
» 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 | NCEI-CO |
» 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? |
Data is backed up to tape and to cloud storage. |
Lineage
» Lineage Statement |
---|
Sources
Citation Title | Raw Lidar |
---|---|
Contact Role Type | Originator |
Contact Type | Organization |
Contact Name | Quantum Spatial |
Publish Date | |
Extent Type | |
Extent Start Date/Time | |
Extent End Date/Time | |
Scale Denominator | |
Citation URL | |
Citation URL Name | |
Citation URL Description | |
Source Contribution |
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 |
Raw Data and Boresight Processing: 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 Quantum Spatial, Inc. 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 was 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 matched 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 less than or equal to 7 cm RMSEz within individual swaths and less than or equal to 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 checkpoints after the z correction to ensure the requirement of NVA = 19.6 cm 95% Confidence Level (Required Accuracy) was met. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 2 |
---|---|
» Description |
LAS Point Classification: The point classification was performed as described below. The bare earth surface was manually reviewed to ensure correct classification on the Class 2 (Ground) points. After the bare-earth surface was finalized, it was then used to generate all hydro-breaklines through heads-up digitization. All ground (ASPRS Class 2) LiDAR data inside of the Lake Pond and Double Line Drain hydro-flattened breaklines were then classified to Water (ASPRS Class 9) using TerraScan macro functionality. A buffer of 1 meter was also used around each hydro-flattened feature to classify these ground (ASPRS Class 2) points to Ignored ground (ASPRS Class 10). All Lake Pond Island and Double Line Drain Island features were checked to ensure that the ground (ASPRS Class 2) points were reclassified to the correct classification after the automated classification was completed. All overlap data was processed through automated functionality provided by TerraScan to classify the overlapping flight line data to approved classes by USGS. The overlap data was classified using standard LAS overlap bit. These classes were created through automated processes only and were not verified for classification accuracy. Due to software limitations within TerraScan, these classes were used to trip the withheld bit within various software packages. These processes were reviewed and accepted by USGS through numerous conference calls and pilot study areas. All data were manually reviewed and any remaining artifacts removed using functionality provided by TerraScan and TerraModeler. Global Mapper was used as a final check of the bare earth dataset. GeoCue was then used to create the deliverable industry-standard LAS files for both the All Point Cloud Data and the Bare Earth. Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary software was used to perform final statistical analysis of the classes in the LAS files, on a per tile level to verify final classification metrics and full LAS header information. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 3 |
---|---|
» Description |
Hydro-Flattened Breakline Processing: Class 2 (ground) LiDAR points were used to create a bare earth surface model. The surface model was then used to heads-up digitize 2D breaklines of inland streams and rivers with a 100-foot nominal width and inland ponds and lakes of 2 acres or greater surface area. Elevation values were assigned to all Inland Ponds and Lakes, Inland Pond and Lake Islands, Inland Stream and River Islands, using TerraModeler functionality. Elevation values were assigned to all inland streams and rivers using Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary software. All Ground (ASPRS Class 2) LiDAR data inside of the collected inland breaklines were then classified to Water (ASPRS Class 9) using TerraScan macro functionality. A buffer of 1 meter was also used around each hydro-flattened feature. These points were moved from ground (ASPRS Class 2) to Ignored Ground (ASPRS Class 10). The breakline files were then translated to Esri file geodatabase format using Esri conversion tools. Breaklines were reviewed against LiDAR intensity imagery to verify completeness of capture. All breaklines were then compared to TINs (triangular irregular networks) created from ground only points prior to water classification. The horizontal placement of breaklines was compared to terrain features and the breakline elevations were compared to LiDAR elevations to ensure all breaklines matched the LiDAR within acceptable tolerances. Some deviation was expected between breakline and LiDAR elevations due to monotonicity, connectivity, and flattening rules that were enforced on the breaklines. Once completeness, horizontal placement, and vertical variance were reviewed, all breaklines were reviewed for topological consistency and data integrity using a combination of Esri Data Reviewer tools and proprietary tools. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 4 |
---|---|
» Description |
Hydro-Flattened Raster DEM Processing: Class 2 (Ground) LiDAR points in conjunction with the hydro-breaklines were used to create a 2.5-foot hydro-flattened raster DEM. Using automated scripting routines within ArcMap, an ERDAS Imagine .IMG file was created for each tile. Each surface was reviewed using Global Mapper to check for any surface anomalies or incorrect elevations found within the surface. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 5 |
---|---|
» Description |
Intensity Image Generation Processing: GeoCue software was used to create the deliverable intensity images. All overlap classes were ignored during this process. This helps to ensure a more aesthetically pleasing image. The GeoCue software was then used to verify full project coverage as well. TIF/TWF files were then provided as the deliverable for this dataset requirement. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 6 |
---|---|
» Description |
Tile Index Processing: Tiles were created using a 0,0 origin point to ensure proper divisibility of raster and image cells. A 2,500 feet x 2,500 feet tile size was used as called for in the Task Order. Tile index was output in Esri shapefile format. Tile names are derived from the US National Grid. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 7 |
---|---|
» Description |
QC Checkpoint Processing: Please see the survey report for more information on control point location methodologies. The QC checkpoint shapefiles were generated from XYZ text files using a combination of Global Mapper and ArcMap software. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 8 |
---|---|
» Description |
Processing Boundary Processing: The processing boundary was created using the original client-provided AOI shapefile. The original file was buffered by 100 meters in order to meet task order requirements for data coverage. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 9 |
---|---|
» Description |
Calibration Point Processing: Please see the survey report for more information on control point location methodologies. The calibration control point shapefiles were generated from XYZ text files using a combination of Global Mapper and ArcMap software. |
Process Date/Time | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 10 |
---|---|
» Description |
NOAA OCM downloaded 11800 laz files from the USGS rockyftp site. The files were in Michigan State Plane North projection NAD83(2011) and NAVD88 geoid12b, with all units in feet. OCM processed the files to the Digital Coastd using internal scripts. For provisioning purposes the files were converted to geographic projection and ellipsoidal heights by reversing the application of geoid12b, with units in meters. |
Process Date/Time | |
Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
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 | 58790 |
---|---|
Metadata Record Created By | Blake Waring |
Metadata Record Created | 2020-02-06 13:09+0000 |
Metadata Record Last Modified By | Rebecca Mataosky |
» Metadata Record Last Modified | 2023-12-07 21:53+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 |
---|