Volume XLII-2/W2
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLII-2/W2, 107-114, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W2-107-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLII-2/W2, 107-114, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W2-107-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

  06 Oct 2016

06 Oct 2016

UAV PHOTOGRAMMETRY IMPLEMENTATION TO ENHANCE LAND SURVEYING, COMPARISONS AND POSSIBILITIES

R. El Meouche1, I. Hijazi2, P. A. Poncet1, M. Abunemeh1, and M. Rezoug1 R. El Meouche et al.
  • 1Université Paris-Est, Institut de Recherche en Constructibilité, ESTP-Paris, 94230, Cachan, France
  • 2An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

Keywords: Land Surveying, UAV, Photogrammetry, Point Cloud, 3D Model

Abstract. The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for surveying is now widespread and operational for several applications – quarry monitoring, archeological site surveys, forest management and 3D modeling for buildings, for instance. UAV is increasingly used by land surveyors especially for those kinds of projects. It is still ambiguous whether UAV can be applicable for smaller sites and property division. Therefore, the objective of this research is to extract a vectorized plan utilizing a UAV for a small site and investigate the possibility of an official land surveyor exploiting and certificating it. To do that, two plans were created, one using a UAV and another utilizing classical land surveyor instruments (Total Station). A comparison was conducted between the two plans to evaluate the accuracy of the UAV technique compared to the classical one. Moreover, other parameters were also considered such as execution time and the surface covered. The main problems associated with using a UAV are the level of precision and the visualization of the whole area. The results indicated that the precision is quite satisfactory with a maximum error of 1.0 cm on ground control points, and 4 cm for the rest of the model. On the other hand, the results showed that it is not possible to represent the whole area of interest utilizing a UAV, due to vegetation.