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