DRAPP 2016 Project Update Presented by: Ashley Summers March 2, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
drapp 2016
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

DRAPP 2016 Project Update Presented by: Ashley Summers March 2, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 12, 2023 44 likes •287 views

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style DRAPP 2016 Project Update Presented by: Ashley Summers March 2, 2017 Click to edit Master title style Agenda Click to edit Master title style DRAPP 2016 Project

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

DRAPP 2016

Project Update

Presented by:

Ashley Summers

March 2, 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Agenda

  • DRAPP 2016
  • Project stats
  • Deliverables recap
  • Successes and challenges
  • Lessons learned
  • Survey results
  • DRAPP 2018
  • Planning
  • Next Steps
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

2016 Project Stats

  • Who’s Involved?
  • 50 Partners
  • 7 DRCOG Member Counties
  • 30 DRCOG Member Cities/Towns
  • 13 Regional Partners
  • What did we get?
  • 852 sqmi of 3 in resolution 4-band imagery
  • 2,877 sqmi of 6 in resolution 4-band imagery
  • 3,174 sqmi of 12 in resolution 4-band imagery
  • How much did it cost?
  • $846,000 (1% increase over 2014 cost)
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Deliverables

  • Tiled and/or mosaicked imagery – delivered on hard drive
  • Web map services -
  • Sanborn (Google-hosted WMS/WMTS)
  • 2016 Final imagery
  • Harris MapMart
  • 2002 to 2016 Final imagery
  • Associated shapefiles
  • http://gis.drcog.org/datacatalog/search/node/drapp%202016
  • Meeting materials
  • https://drcog.org//services-and-resources/data-maps-and-

modeling/gis-maps/denver-regional-aerial-photography- project

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Timeliness of Deliverables

Deadline Deliverable Actual Delivery Date 8/1/2016 Interim imagery in WMS 7/29/2016 12/19/2016 Final imagery in WMS 1/24/2017 12/30/2016 20 orders delivered 1/6/2017 1/15/2017 20 orders delivered 1/30/2017 1/30/2017 Remaining orders delivered 1/31/2017

Note that not all of the above orders were complete. Some partners with SID orders received the remainder of their data in February.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Successes

  • In 2016, we maintained participation & costs while increasing

quality and access options:

  • Adopted the latest ASPRS positional accuracy standards for digital

geospatial data (which is 2x stricter than before)

  • Used a color survey and committee to determine aesthetic

preferences at the beginning and middle of the project to better inform processing procedures

  • Used client deliverable checklists to make sure orders were filled

correctly

  • Provided 2 WMS options
  • Hosted by Harris
  • Hosted by Sanborn
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Challenges

  • Two major snow events in the Front Range in the flight window
  • DIA air traffic control limited our access due to other flight requests,

which delayed start times on several days

  • Sanborn’s Interim and Final WMS’ took more time to load than

expected

  • Tiles projected into State Plane North originally experienced black

edges at resolution boundaries

  • Creating multi-resolution SIDs (LizardTech bug)
  • Radiometry at resolution boundaries
  • Differing expectations/needs amongst partners?
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Issue Summary

Aesthetics 16% SIDs 24% North Projection 34% Sanborn WMS 18% Other 8%

  • Fewer issues than

DRAPP 2014

  • 16% of issues

(aesthetics) don’t impact usability for analysis

  • 58% of issues could

be mitigated by changing delivery

  • ptions
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Challenge: Seamline Issue

  • What:

Radiometric differences at resolution boundaries

  • Why: Flown
  • n difference

days with snow event in between

  • Color is a true

reflection of ground conditions

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Challenge: Expectations

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Things to Consider

  • Challenging conditions and specs:
  • ~25 flight days required to complete spring DRAPP
  • Spring flight window occurs in our snowiest month and is only

46 days long

  • Imagery must be completely snow-free and leaf-free
  • Only so much can be done with color when ground condition

change

  • Examples of trade-offs with image processing:
  • Increasing sharpness decreases visibility in shadows.

Increasing visibility in shadows makes the imagery look “hazy.”

  • Blending at seamlines and matching histograms across large

areas can degrade tile quality elsewhere.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Flight Timing

March April May June

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Assumptions for Trade-offs

  • Asset visibility is a priority:
  • Visibility in shadows OVER sharpness
  • Visibility on white rooftops OVER brightness
  • No leaves/snow OVER sequential flight dates
  • Survey-grade specs are a priority:
  • Horizontal positional accuracy OVER aesthetics
  • Zoomed-in quality OVER zoomed-out quality

Should we reassess these assumptions?

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Lessons Learned

  • More scrutiny on the boundaries between resolutions:
  • Do not segment municipalities or urbanized areas
  • WMS prep must start earlier

due to the time required to load tiles

  • Project must be set up from

the beginning to accommodate north projections

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Lessons Learned

  • We need to meet with DIA ATC prior to the flight window to

ensure they won’t deny our requests to fly at peak times.

  • We should do a comprehensive review of flight planning.
  • We should reconsider the flight window.
  • Modify pilot areas to better reflect scene content of entire

area

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Survey Results: 2016 Partner Satisfaction

Very Good Good Fair Poor Overall Experience 42% 54% 4% 0% Communication 88% 13% 0% 0% Quality 35% 43% 17% 4% Timing of Deliverables 17% 58% 17% 8% DRCOG’s Performance 70% 30% 0% 0% Sanborn’s Performance 29% 46% 25% 0% Harris’ Performance 29% 54% 17% 0%

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Survey Results: 2016 Partner Satisfaction

  • Partner Uses for Data:
  • Basemap for visual interpretation, reference, webmapping
  • Publications
  • Desktop and mobile mapping
  • Public safety – police, fire, dispatch
  • GIS analysis
  • Heads-up digitizing
  • Vegetation analysis
  • Change detection

Reasonable Somewhat High Much too High Cost 76% 16% 8% Aesthetics Positional Accuracy Both Equally Which is more important? 9% 17% 74%

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

DR DRAPP APP 20 2018 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Survey Results: 2018 Planning

Yes No Don’t Know Planning 2018 participation? 74% 0% 26% Collect entire region every year? 39% 13% 48% Consider including

  • ff-season imagery?

30% 35% 35% Mandatory inclusion

  • f planimetrics?

57% 17% 26% Continue including WMS? 70% 9% 21% Adjust flight windows? 65% 9% 26%

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Survey Results: 2018 Planning

February (1 month earlier) January (2 months earlier) October (5 months early) Spring flight window adjustment 60% 35% 5% To July (1 month extra) To August (2 months extra) Spring flight window adjustment 65% 35%

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Considerations

If we adopt new things for 2018, what would the pros/cons be? Pros Cons Don’t collect the entire region every year Could speed up delivery of high priority areas Some partners (counties) wouldn’t get full coverage of their AOI Mandatory inclusion of planimetrics Could create consistent, regional datasets that can be used for analysis, change detection etc. Some partners don’t want the features nor the cost increase Include off-season imagery Could leverage the success

  • f DRAPP to supply more

frequent imagery sources Could be expensive and time consuming Adjust flight windows Could improve delivery times and image quality May put more time in between flight dates and make imagery less comparable to other years.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

More Discussion Questions

  • Other strategies for success?
  • Further simplifying deliverables (e.g. no SIDs, less

projections?)

  • Area outside your AOI delivered only as a WMS
  • Should we have a steering committee to figure these

questions out? Or just refer to survey and email polls?

  • Do we want to do training for image manipulation –

ArcGIS, Global Mapper, Photoshop?

  • What else?
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

Next Steps

  • Determine 2016 vendors (option to continue with existing)
  • Finalize 2018 project requirements
  • Vendor contracts
  • LOIs and partner contracts Note: License agreements all

expire this year and will need to be reissued for 2018!

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style

QU QUESTIONS IONS/COMM /COMMENT ENTS?