A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms
With the progression of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) towards a mainstream resource management tool, it has become necessary to understand how best to process and analyze the data. While most ground surface identification algorithms remain proprietary and have high purchase costs; a few are op...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2011-03-01
|
| Series: | Remote Sensing |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/3/638/ |
| _version_ | 1819281252814946304 |
|---|---|
| author | Danny G Marks Nancy F. Glenn Timothy E. Link Andrew T. Hudak Rupesh Shrestha Michael J. Falkowski Alistair M. S. Smith Hongyu Huang Wade T. Tinkham |
| author_facet | Danny G Marks Nancy F. Glenn Timothy E. Link Andrew T. Hudak Rupesh Shrestha Michael J. Falkowski Alistair M. S. Smith Hongyu Huang Wade T. Tinkham |
| author_sort | Danny G Marks |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | With the progression of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) towards a mainstream resource management tool, it has become necessary to understand how best to process and analyze the data. While most ground surface identification algorithms remain proprietary and have high purchase costs; a few are openly available, free to use, and are supported by published results. Two of the latter are the multiscale curvature classification and the Boise Center Aerospace Laboratory LiDAR (BCAL) algorithms. This study investigated the accuracy of these two algorithms (and a combination of the two) to create a digital terrain model from a raw LiDAR point cloud in a semi-arid landscape. Accuracy of each algorithm was assessed via comparison with >7,000 high precision survey points stratified across six different cover types. The overall performance of both algorithms differed by only 2%; however, within specific cover types significant differences were observed in accuracy. The results highlight the accuracy of both algorithms across a variety of vegetation types, and ultimately suggest specific scenarios where one approach may outperform the other. Each algorithm produced similar results except in the ceanothus and conifer cover types where BCAL produced lower errors. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-24T00:56:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-883e9ea173b7473799acd85fa3f82174 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2072-4292 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-24T00:56:45Z |
| publishDate | 2011-03-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Remote Sensing |
| spelling | doaj.art-883e9ea173b7473799acd85fa3f821742022-12-21T17:23:28ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922011-03-013363864910.3390/rs3030638A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification AlgorithmsDanny G MarksNancy F. GlennTimothy E. LinkAndrew T. HudakRupesh ShresthaMichael J. FalkowskiAlistair M. S. SmithHongyu HuangWade T. TinkhamWith the progression of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) towards a mainstream resource management tool, it has become necessary to understand how best to process and analyze the data. While most ground surface identification algorithms remain proprietary and have high purchase costs; a few are openly available, free to use, and are supported by published results. Two of the latter are the multiscale curvature classification and the Boise Center Aerospace Laboratory LiDAR (BCAL) algorithms. This study investigated the accuracy of these two algorithms (and a combination of the two) to create a digital terrain model from a raw LiDAR point cloud in a semi-arid landscape. Accuracy of each algorithm was assessed via comparison with >7,000 high precision survey points stratified across six different cover types. The overall performance of both algorithms differed by only 2%; however, within specific cover types significant differences were observed in accuracy. The results highlight the accuracy of both algorithms across a variety of vegetation types, and ultimately suggest specific scenarios where one approach may outperform the other. Each algorithm produced similar results except in the ceanothus and conifer cover types where BCAL produced lower errors.http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/3/638/LiDARalgorithmfilteringDTMMCCBCAL |
| spellingShingle | Danny G Marks Nancy F. Glenn Timothy E. Link Andrew T. Hudak Rupesh Shrestha Michael J. Falkowski Alistair M. S. Smith Hongyu Huang Wade T. Tinkham A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms Remote Sensing LiDAR algorithm filtering DTM MCC BCAL |
| title | A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms |
| title_full | A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms |
| title_short | A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms |
| title_sort | comparison of two open source lidar surface classification algorithms |
| topic | LiDAR algorithm filtering DTM MCC BCAL |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/3/638/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dannygmarks acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT nancyfglenn acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT timothyelink acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT andrewthudak acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT rupeshshrestha acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT michaeljfalkowski acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT alistairmssmith acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT hongyuhuang acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT wadettinkham acomparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT dannygmarks comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT nancyfglenn comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT timothyelink comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT andrewthudak comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT rupeshshrestha comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT michaeljfalkowski comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT alistairmssmith comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT hongyuhuang comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms AT wadettinkham comparisonoftwoopensourcelidarsurfaceclassificationalgorithms |