AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Hey, GPS gurus

6 Posts
5 Users
0 Reactions
323 Views
Stephen Calder
(@stephen-calder)
Posts: 456
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

When processing PPK, I have one processing instruction that says to process it once, and then look at a graph of the Standard Deviation and of the RMS, and then reprocess it with a new value for the SD that is down near to the level of the RMS. I have a couple of other instructions that make no mention of this step. Does performing this step actually help anything?

Stephen


 
Posted : February 7, 2013 10:33 pm
agrimensor
(@agrimensor)
Posts: 53
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I may have misunderstood the question but I think reprocessing the GPS data does not alter the positional accuracy of each PPK point. If the RMS is 1 reprocessing it using another accuracy filter will still produce the same results.

What I do for PPK processing is to process it at default values & select or delete the points that I think are outside of my accuracy requirements.


 
Posted : February 8, 2013 5:27 am
Stephen Calder
(@stephen-calder)
Posts: 456
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Thanks for responding Agrimensor. I probably should have worded the question with more detail and specificity...

The software we are using is GrafNav and we are using it for mobile mapping truck-mounted scanner trajectories. We received these instructions from a UK tech who was training us in this particular system.

You add your rover and base files and then let it process once. Then you look at two charts: "RMS - C/A Code" and the "RMS - Doppler" which show a Standard Deviation line and an RMS line. For both charts the goal is to bring the SD line down to close proximity with the RMS line. Reprocess it, but this time go to Advanced Settings and in the Measurements tab, under Measurement Standard Deviations, change the Code and Doppler setttings to lower numbers, what you judge to be very close to the RMS numbers from the charts you looked at. Further we were told to not make the Doppler setting any lower than 0.1m/s. Then you re-process it and then the charts show the lines very close together, which again, is what we were trying to achieve.

This week, we are with a senior tech who has been processing helicopter trajectories a long time, and this was new to him and he doubts that it has any real effect on the results. Which may be true, and also is probably easily tested, but I was just wondering if others have encountered this.

Stephen


 
Posted : February 8, 2013 6:25 am
geeoddmike
(@geeoddmike)
Posts: 1556
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Howdy,

It seems to me that what is being recommended is "merely" a rescaling of the weight matrix to reflect the reality that the computed weights were too optimistic.

If weights were correctly determined the variance of unit weight would be one (hence the term "unit weight"). The rescaling will "force" the adjustment to better approach one. Statistics and variances will be impacted generally not derived positions.

HTH,

DMM


 
Posted : February 8, 2013 10:40 am
Cliff Mugnier
(@cliff-mugnier)
Posts: 1220
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I agree. That is correct.


 
Posted : February 8, 2013 12:26 pm

holy-cow
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25672
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Not a GPS guru

I thought PPK stood for Punt, Pass and Kick.........the nationally sponsored competition for kids held each year.


 
Posted : February 8, 2013 7:57 pm