Statement of the Problem:

1. The ASPRS standard, when first developed, was based on film-based aerial cameras and
paper maps, therefore it does not address the needs of the mapping community who
are dealing with new generation of digital (imaging and not imaging) sensors;

2. The NSSDA is intended for use with more recent mapping products such as digital
geospatial data in either raster, point, or vector format derived from sources such as
aerial photographs, satellite imagery, and ground surveys. Although the intent behind
the development of the NSSDA was introduced as “A Data Usability Standard” to
express “the applicability or essence of a dataset or data element” and includes
“data quality, assessment, accuracy, and reporting or documentation standards”, it
fails short in defining the actual accuracy of a geo-spatial dataset. According to the
standard documents, it is the responsibility of users to define the accuracy for the
products they intended to use “the standard does not define threshold accuracy values.
Agencies are encouraged to establish thresholds for their product specifications and
applications and for contracting purposes. Ultimately, users identify acceptable
accuracies for their applications. Data and map producers must determine what
accuracy exists or is achievable for their data and report it according to NSSDA”.
3. NSSDA offers guidelines for data accuracy reporting methodology and it is not a
standard as many people thinks. The NSSDA documents clearly states “The NSSDA was
developed to provide a common reporting mechanism so that users can directly
compare datasets for their applications.”

Objective:
To expand on the contents and combine both the ASPRS mapping standard and NSSDA in order
to develop a comprehensive and robust national geo-spatial data testing and acceptance
standard.

Methodology
Several paths can be followed in pursuing the objective. The team needs to decide on the
following:

1. Whether we want to combine data accuracy* and data quality** in one standard;
2. Whether we want to include best practices in data collection and processing in the
standard;
3. Whether to design it as a modular standard that can evolve with current and future
advancements in technologies. Modularity also means that standard will supports
different types of geo-spatial data, imaging, lidar, radar, sounding, etc.
4. If there is agreement on point 3, then we need to name different types of sensors and
derived data to be endorsed by the standard;
5. Whether we need to adopt the USGS’s “lidar Guidelines and Base Specifications”, after
modifications, for the new standard;
 6. Whether we want to run a survey, beside the panel discussions, on the draft of
whatever we are going to agree upon.

Definitions:
* Data Accuracy: Results from any statistical analysis in determining the geometrical
accuracy of a dataset when compared to a set of control data of higher quality.

** Data Quality: Results of any activities of testing and evaluating the following:
1. Radiometric and geometric quality of seams lines in the map if the map is
constructed from multiple sub-maps (i.e. mosaiced)
2. Colors and radiometric balance through out the project area covered by the map;
3. Noise and other anomalies that may cause radiometric or geometric artifacts in the
data and that is not included in the geometrical accuracy testing

Proposed Strategies
There are different ways that could shape the new standard. I will provide few options, for the
sake of discussions, in the following few paragraphs.

Name: American Standard for Geospatial-Data Evaluation & Testing (ASGET)

Requirements:

1. The new standard should be useful on a national level – this means we need
coordination with FGDC and other agencies involved in maintaining existing standards;
2. The new standard should be modular;
3. The new standard should apply one of the following three measures to classify the
accuracies of final products:
a) Accuracy according to the resolution of the final delivered products: The problem
with this approach which is currently employed is that accuracy and GSD are not always
closely related especially with the rapid advancements in sensor technologies.
b) Accuracy according to national map classes for both accuracy and quality with
specified details on GSD.
c) Accuracy according to national map classes for quality with general formula to
reference the accuracy to the specified GSD of the product.

The concepts given in 3-b and 3-c are probably the most practical way to deal with the
fast evolving geo-spatial products. The user can mix and match between quality
(resolution) and geometrical accuracy. For example and according to 3-b, map quality
classes for imagery-based map could look like this regardless of the accuracy of the
products:

 Class I quality:
To serve applications that requires very fine details or high resolution. The
standard can specify the ground resolution for this class of maps to be one of the
following subclasses:
 IA: GSD= 2.5cm (1.0in.)
IB: GSD= 5.0cm (2.0in.)
IC: GSD= 7.5cm (3.0in.)

 Class II quality:
To serve applications that requires good details or high resolution. The standard
can specify the ground resolution for this class of maps to be one of the
following subclasses:

IIA: GSD= 10cm (4in)

IIB: GSD= 12.5cm (5.0in.)
IIC: GSD= 15cm (6in.).

 Class III quality:

To serve applications that requires acceptable details or medium resolution. The
standard can specify the ground resolution for this class of maps to be one of the
following subclasses:

IIIA: GSD= 20cm (8in.)

IIIB: GSD= 25cm (10.0in.)
IIIC: GSD= 30cm (12in.)

While geometrical quality classes for imagery-based map could look like this regardless
of the resolution of the products:
 Class-I Accuracy:
To serve applications that require a high horizontal and vertical accuracy as
specified in the following subclasses:

IA: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 3.8 cm (1.5in.)

IB: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 7.6cm (3in.)
IC: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 11.4cm (4.5in.)

 Class-II Accuracy:
To serve applications that require a medium range of horizontal and vertical
accuracy as specified in the following subclasses:

IIA: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 15 cm (6in.)

IIB: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 19cm (7.5in.)
IIC: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 22.8cm (9in.)

 Class-III Accuracy:
To serve applications that require a horizontal and vertical accuracy range as
specified in the following subclasses:
 IIIA: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 23 cm (9in.)
IIIB: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 38cm (15in.)
IIIC: RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 46cm (18in.)

 Class-IV Accuracy:
To serve all other products with resolution not included in the three quality classes.
Such products should meet horizontal and vertical accuracy according to the following
formula:

RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 1.5 Ground Sampling Distance of the final product

And so on.

While according to 3-c, the quality will be defined as in 3-b but the accuracy will be
given three classes specified in terms of the GSD of the final product as shown in the
following categories:

Class-I Accuracy
Product should meet horizontal and vertical accuracy according to the following
formula:
RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 1.5 Ground Sampling Distance of the final product
Class-II Accuracy
Product should meet horizontal and vertical accuracy according to the following
formula:
RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 3.0 Ground Sampling Distance of the final product
Class-III Accuracy
Products should meet horizontal and vertical accuracy according to the following
formula:
RMSEx = RMSEy = RMSEv = 4.5 Ground Sampling Distance of the final product

Again, methods presented in 3-b and 3-c provide flexibility to both users and providers
as many applications requires high resolution map but not as high geometrical accuracy
and the opposite is true. This can translate into lowering the cost of geo-spatial
products. According to the latter methods of ordering geo-spatial data, future RFP will
read as follow when ordering ortho-rectified imagery or planimetric maps and terrain
data:

Product specifications: Aerial data shall be acquired over the entire project to support the
production of maps according to the following specifications:
- Image Specification: Class 1C quality (GSD=7.5cm (3in.) according to ASGET mapping
standard;
- Horizontal accuracy: Class IIA accuracy according to ASGET(or RMSE=15 cm (6in.));
- Vertical Accuracy: Class IIC accuracy according to ASGET (or RMSEv = 22.8cm
(9in.)); (DTM needs different quality definitions as it will be given when we discuss
terrain/lidar data specs)
In the user specifies a high-resolution imagery (GSD=7.5cm) with looser horizontal and vertical
accuracy than that can be obtained from the 7.5 cm imagery.
4. The new standard should address accuracies of aerial triangulation and sensor position
and orientation
5. The new standard should support data from non-imaging sensors, such as lidar and
IFSAR
6. The new standards should be based on RMSE and 95% confidence level

Sections of the Standard:

1. Imaging Products Standard:

For 2D/3D maps products derived from imaging sensors and cameras of all types
(vertical, oblique, thermal, etc.) such as:

1. Ortho;
2. Oblique;
3. Planimetric and land use/land cover maps.

2. Terrain Products Standard:

For 3D terrain products derived from LiDAR, IFSAR, and photogrammetric compilation
such as:
1. DTM;
2. DSM;
3. Breaklines.

3. Ground Control Network Standard

4. Others,