It will be noted that the figure above indicates the technique to be used to achieve a given accuracy and not the range of accuracies that a technique makes it possible to obtain. In other words, if the range of precision sought is within the limits of a technique (for example, metric), it will be a question of establishing an order of priority between this desired final precision of the survey, the material and human means available. , the time needed to implement a method.
The suitability of using a semi-kinematic, rapid static, or conventional static GPS survey for a project requiring decimeter to meter level of accuracy depends on the nature of the location and the and the spacing points. Semi-kinematic surveys pose the greatest number of constraints since they require that the paths followed when moving from one point to another be free of any obstacle.
A semi-kinematic survey would therefore be ideal if a large number of points must be positioned in an open area such as a large field for exemple.
Fast static surveys should, as a general rule, be limited to short vector, if centimeter accuracy is desired. For fast semi-kinematic and static surveys, the chance of success are much hisg accuracy over longer distances or when satellite geometry is poor, it may be wiser to use traditional static GPS techniques.
Moreover, it will be noted that the previous figure illustrates the techniques to be used according to planimetric accuracy rather than altimetric accuracy. The corresponding altimetric accuracies depend on the nature of the magnitude. Their relationship is illustrated in paragraph 3.2.3.
The cost of GPS positioning is closely linked to the technique used, which itself depends mainly on the level of accuracy required. The two main variables that influence the costs for the same technique are the observation time required at each location and the cost of the receivers required. As a general rule, the shorter the observation period required at each point, the less costly the survey will be.
0 Comments