Jeyapalan, Kandiah
, two identifying height from road surface, center line offset, location (x,y,z), color, shape and clarity. Fig 9 gives the design
] from and GPS coordinates.
y unit.
m the
Comparison of Mandli with Ground truth
Site 22 ( WA-1)
« Features by Mandli
^. / Features by Mandli
gh for d £X Poir Kestues
* | - BusStop Shelter
use of = Cover
« Hyd
Total © Dich Pole
ngs à Power Box
area e
… "Tel Box
e GIS Road Features
Approach
MM Bike Path
Median
EE Parking
Road lane
ES Walkway
unknown
N
MA m : T 00 Ker 3c
S
Fig 7. Comparison Map Fig 8. Test Range
The test range was used to calibrate the Mandli's GPS and INS system.
Initially the video logging vehicle was parked over the station 07-00 so
mem Tm © we that the GPS antenna was directly over it, thus initializing its system.
>, i The vehicle was then driven through the test range collecting video
ie m. images and GPS coordinates. Table 2 gives the error in the Mandli's
ecmnama X Ym soe ms wo system and fig 10 shows a video image it obtained as it drove through
S. Ci the test range.
Jt
WW It can be concluded from the analysis of these tables and figures that by
using the video logging system the positional accuracy of the roadside
features along the center line of the road can be estimated to within a
meter under different conditions. Mandli’s images showed satisfactory
ee nes clarity even at distances more than 100 ft. As the van moved through
COURSE the test range, clarity remained good and all aspects of the road signs
TIT TON LAY—OUT
pride dE SR ME were readable.
le to Fig 9. Design of Test Range
ed in
ation
tion.
Mandli Photo | Camera| Coordinate | Ground truth | Mandli |Coordinate
Number | Position Coordinates GPS Differences
long Coordinates
ature F 00001 of E 134246.477| 134245.066 1411
lance N ADMO EL 1097448.877 -2.596
is of Elev 274.921
"ig 5 F 00005 25f E 134247.433| 134246.362 1.071
N 1097420.908| 1097423.342 -2434
Elev 273.325
] the F 00008 50f E 134249.171| 134242.659 6.512
7395 7402.78 -
| test ; Er 1097402.786 6.848
ange Elev 271.7 E i
EI Table 2. Comparison of Ground Survey Fig 10. Image Clarity of Videologger
ment with Videologger
] for
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXIII, Part B5. Amsterdam 2000. 409
