5. EXAMPLES
Two examples may be an elucidation of the consequences of the ideas
of this article.
5.1 Example |
Small scale mapping: altimetry tolerance == 10 metres
Senn ERE
: constant — 0333 9
2. order stereo-instrument: i constant 0.333 9,
|cfactor — — 1000
European method: 0.333/1000 - h — 10/3, h — 10.000 metres
American method: 1000 - e = 10.000, e — 10 metres or 33 feet
5.2 Example II
Large-scale mapping: altimetry tolerance == 0.5 metres
i-constant — 0.185 %o
|e-factor = 1800
1. order stereo-instrument:
European method: 0.185/1000 - h — 0.5/3, h = 900 metres
American method: 1800 - e = 900, e — 0.5 metres or 1.7 feet
6. CONSEQUENCES AND CONCLUSIONS
What will the difference 0.2 96 of the two P-values mean concerning
the economy of aerial mapping?
6.1 Economical Consequences
The table of the »Solution I» indicates that the flight altitude will be
calculated by means of a c-factor of 1500 instead of 1667, i. e. an amount
of 90 %.
Since the number of photographs change in a square relation to the
flight altitude the increase in this case will be in the proportion of
1:0.81, equal to 1.23. Considering that the main part of the mapping
work will increase in the same way it is reasonable to estimate the in-
crement of the costs to about 20 %.
As a consequence, the increase of the accuracy from the P-value
99.7 % (European method) to 99.9 % (American method) resulting in a
reduction of the three (3) points to one (1) point outside the accuracy
top level will increase the total mapping cost approximately 20 %.
171