gov.noaa.nmfs.inport:50144
eng
UTF8
dataset
OCM Partners
resourceProvider
NOAA Office for Coastal Management
(843) 740-1202
2234 South Hobson Ave
Charleston
SC
29405-2413
coastal.info@noaa.gov
https://coast.noaa.gov
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page
information
pointOfContact
2024-02-29T00:00:00
ISO 19115-2 Geographic Information - Metadata Part 2 Extensions for imagery and gridded data
ISO 19115-2:2009(E)
2004 Puget Sound Lidar Consortium (PSLC) Topographic Bare-Earth Lidar: Pierce County, WA
wa2004_pslc_piercecountybe_m2532_metadata
2013-08
publication
NOAA/NMFS/EDM
50144
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/50144
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
Full Metadata Record
View the complete metadata record on InPort for more information about this dataset.
information
https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
Citation URL
Online Resource
download
https://coast.noaa.gov
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
Citation URL
Online Resource
download
Terrapoint surveyed and created this data for the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium under contract. The project area covers approximately 814 square miles of western Pierce County. A majority of the data
was collected between January 21st and March 08, 2004. Two small areas were reflown during spring 2005.
The LiDAR bare earth ASCII files can be used to create DEM and also to extract topographic data in software that does not support raster data. This high accuracy data can be used at scales up to 1:12000
(1 inch = 1,000 feet). The LiDAR bare earth data has a wide range of uses such as earthquake hazard studies, hydrologic modeling, forestry, coastal engineering, roadway and pipeline engineering, flood
plain mapping, wetland studies, geologic studies and a variety of analytical and cartographic projects.
Please credit the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium (PSLC) for these data. The PSLC is supported by the Puget Sound Regional Council, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA),
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and numerous partners in local, state, and tribal government.
completed
NOAA Office for Coastal Management
(843) 740-1202
2234 South Hobson Ave
Charleston
SC
29405-2413
coastal.info@noaa.gov
https://coast.noaa.gov
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page
information
pointOfContact
NOAA Office for Coastal Management
(843) 740-1202
2234 South Hobson Ave
Charleston
SC
29405-2413
coastal.info@noaa.gov
https://coast.noaa.gov
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page
information
custodian
asNeeded
https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/2532/supplemental/wa2004_pslc_piercecountybe_footprint.KMZ
This graphic shows the lidar coverage for western Pierce County.
kmz
Bare Earth
ground surface
theme
Lidar - partner (no harvest)
project
InPort
otherRestrictions
Cite As: OCM Partners, [Date of Access]: 2004 Puget Sound Lidar Consortium (PSLC) Topographic Bare-Earth Lidar: Pierce County, WA [Data Date Range], https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/50144.
NOAA provides no warranty, nor accepts any liability occurring from any incomplete, incorrect, or misleading data, or from any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading use of the data. It is the responsibility of the user to determine whether or not the data is suitable for the intended purpose.
otherRestrictions
Access Constraints: None
otherRestrictions
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.
otherRestrictions
Distribution Liability: Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility
of Terrapoint, PSLC, NASA, NOAA, the Office for Coastal Management or its partners.
unclassified
NOAA Data Management Plan (DMP)
NOAA/NMFS/EDM
50144
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inportserve/waf/noaa/nos/ocmp/dmp/pdf/50144.pdf
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
NOAA Data Management Plan (DMP)
NOAA Data Management Plan for this record on InPort.
information
crossReference
vector
eng; US
elevation
-122.696132
-121.91087
46.743235
47.321118
| Currentness: Ground Condition
2004-01-24
2004-03-08
A footprint of this data set may be viewed in Google Earth at:
https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/2532/supplemental/wa2004_pslc_piercecountybe_footprint.KMZ
false
eng
false
none
NOAA Office for Coastal Management
(843) 740-1202
2234 South Hobson Ave
Charleston
SC
29405-2413
coastal.info@noaa.gov
https://coast.noaa.gov
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website
NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page
information
distributor
https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=2532
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
Customized Download
Create custom data files by choosing data area, product type, map projection, file format, datum, etc.
download
https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/2532/index.html
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
Bulk Download
Simple download of data files.
download
dataset
Accuracy
Elevation records are accurate to .30 meters in open, flat terrain. There are no other attributes available for this data.
Horizontal Positional Accuracy
Not applicable for pure elevation data: every XY error has an associated Z error.
Vertical Positional Accuracy
Puget Sound Lidar Consortium evaluates vertical accuracy with two measures: internal consistency and conformance with independent ground control points.
Internal Consistency: Data are split into swaths (separate flightlines), a separate surface is constructed for each flightline, and where surfaces overlap one is subtracted from another. Where both surfaces are planar,
this produces a robust measure of the repeatability, or internal consistency, of the survey. The average error calculated by this means, robustly determined from a very large sample, should be a lower bound on the true
error of the survey as it doesn't include errors deriving from a number of sources including: 1) inaccurately located base station(s), 2) long-period GPS error, 3) errors in classification of points as ground and
not-ground (post-processing), 4) some errors related to interpolation from scattered points to a continous surface (surface generation).
Conformance with independent ground control points: Bare-earth surface models are compared to independently-surveyed ground control points (GCPs) where such GCPs are available. The purpose of the ground control evaluation
is to assess that the bare earth DEMs meet the vertical accuracy specification in the PSLC contract with TerraPoint: "The accuracy specification in the contract between the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium and TerraPoint is
based on a required Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 'Bare Earth' vertical accuracy of 30 cm for flat areas in the complete data set. This is the required result if all data points in flat areas were evaluated. Because only
a small sample of points is evaluated, the required RMSE for the sample set is adjusted downward per the following equation from the FEMA LiDAR specification (adjusted from the 15 cm RMSE in the FEMA specification to 30 cm
to accommodate the dense vegetation cover in the Pacific Northwest)."
During this step, the bare earth DEMs were compared with existing survey benchmarks. The differences between the LiDAR bare earth DEMs and the survey points are calculated and the final results are first summarized in a
graph that illustrates how the dataset behaves as whole. The graph illustrates how close the DEM elevation values were to the ground control points. The individual results were aggregated and used in the RMSE calculations.
The results of the RMSE calculations are the measure that makes the data acceptable for this particular specification in the contract.
; Quantitative Value: 0.30 meters, Test that produced the value:
Root mean square Z error in open, near-horizontal areas, as specified by contract. Our assessment suggests that all data meet this standard. Accuracy may be significantly less in steep areas and under heavy forest canopy.
Accuracy appears to be significantly better for data acquired in early 2003 and afterward, to which in-situ calibration has been applied.
Completeness Report
Elevation data has been collected for all areas inside project boundaries.
Conceptual Consistency
Puget Sound Lidar Consortium evaluates logical consistency of high-resolution lidar elevation data with three tests: examination of file names, file formats, and mean and extreme values within each file; internal
consistency of measured Z values in areas where survey swaths overlap; and visual inspection of shaded-relief images calculated from bare-earth models. File names, formats, and values: All file naming convention
and file formats are check for consistency.
Internal Consistency Analysis This analysis calculates and displays the internal consistency of tiled multi-swath (many-epoch) LiDAR data. The input for this analysis is the All-return ASCII data, but it only uses the
first returns. The data is divided into swaths, or flightlines, and they are compared with each other. Since the contract specifications require 50% sidelaps, it means that all areas should have been flown twice. The
results of this analysis is to verify that the data was generally flown to obtain the 50% sidelaps, that there are no gap between flightlines and also that overlapping flightlines are consistent in elevation values.
Visual inspection of shaded-relief images: During the visual inspection, hillshades are derived from the bare earth DEMs. The hillshades are examined for any obvious data errors such as blunders, border artifacts,
gaps between data quads, no-data gaps between flight lines, hillscarps, land shifting due to GPS time errors, etc. The data is examined a scale range of 1:4000 to 1:6000. During this process we also compare the data
to existing natural features such as lakes and rivers and also to existing infrastructure such as roads. Orthophotos area also used during this phase to confirm data errors. If any of these data errors are found,
they are reported to TerraPoint for correction.
Acquisition.
Lidar data were collected in leaf-off conditions (approximately 1 November - 1 April) from a fixed-wing aircraft flying at a nominal height of 1,000 meters above ground surface. Aircraft position was monitored by differential
GPS, using a ground station tied into the local geodetic framework. Aircraft orientation was monitored by an inertial measurement unit. Scan angle and distance to target were measured with a scanning laser rangefinder. Scanning
was via a rotating 12-facet pyramidal mirror; the laser was pulsed at 30+ KHz, and for most missions the laser was defocussed to illuminate a 0.9m-diameter spot on the ground. The rangefinder recorded up to 4 returns per pulse.
Flying height and airspeed were chosen to result in on-ground pulse spacing of about 1.5 m in the along-swath and across-swath directions. Most areas were covered by two swaths, resulting in a nominal pulse density of about 1
per square meter.
2004-01-01T00:00:00
Processing.
GPS, IMU, and rangefinder data were processed to obtain XYZ coordinates of surveyed points.
For data acquired after January, 2003 (NW Snohomish, Mt Rainier, Darrington, and central Pierce projects), survey data from areas of swath overlap were analysed to obtain best-fit in-situ calibration parameters that minimize
misfit between overlapping swaths. This reduces vertical inconsistency between overlappoing swaths by about one-half.
Heights were translated from ellipsoidal to orthometric (NAVD88) datums via GEOID99
2004-01-01T00:00:00
Post-processing.
Return points were then classified semi-automatically as ground (and water), not-ground (vegetation and structures) and blunder. For 2000 and 2001 data, the despike virtual deforestation algorithm described by Haugerud and
Harding (2001) was used. After 2001, TerraPoint shifted to Terrascan software, which includes additional classification algorithms, allows for greater intervention by a human operator, and generally produces better bare-earth
surface models.
2004-01-01T00:00:00
ASCII file generation
The X,Y,Z values of the ground returns were exported into ASCII files. These were divided into USGS quarter quads (3.25 minute by 3.25 minute).
2004-01-01T00:00:00
Breakng down ASCII files
TerraPoint shipped data in USGS quarter-quads (3.25 minute by 3.25 minute). To reduce the file size and make them more user friendly, each quarter quad files was further broken down into 25 smaller tiles.
2004-01-01T00:00:00
The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received topographic files in ASCII .txt format. The files contained lidar elevation measurements only. The data were received in Washington State Plane North Zone 4601,
NAD83 coordinates and were vertically referenced to NAVD88 using the Geoid99 model. The vertical units of the data were feet. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes:
1. The parsed ASCII .txt files were converted to LAS version 1.2 using LAStools' txt2las tool.
2. The topographic las files' classifications off all points were changed from Class 0 (Never Classified) to Class 2 (Ground).
3. The topographic las files were converted from orthometric (NAVD88) heights to ellipsoidal heights using Geoid99.
4. The topographic las files were converted from a Projected Coordinate System (WA SP North) to a Geographic Coordinate system (NAD 83).
5. The topographic las files' vertical units were converted from feet to meters.
6. The topographic las files' horizontal units were converted from feet to decimal degrees.
2013-08-01T00:00:00