Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Hydrographic Survey Validation and Chart Adequacy Assessment Using Automated Solutions

16,245 views

Published on

Authors: G.Masetti, T.Faulkes, C.Kastrisios
The presentation was given at the U.S. Hydro 2019 Conference.
Abstract:
The rising trend in automation is constantly pushing the hydrographic field toward the exploration and the adoption of more effective approaches for each step of the ping-to-public workflow. However, the large amount of data collected by modern acquisition systems - especially when paired with the force multiplier factor provided by autonomous vessels - conflict with the increasing timeliness expected by today’s final users. Such a situation represents a processing challenge for the largely human-centered solutions that are currently available, and the adoption of automated and semi-automated data quality procedures seems the only scalable and long-term solution to the problem. At the same time, there is an inherent value in propagating the application of such procedures upstream in the survey workflow. In fact, capturing potential issues close (in time and space) to their occurrence has the advantages of reducing the efforts required for their solution and limiting their extent. As such, modern surveys should rely more and more on robust data quality procedures that are applied in near real-time.

With the challenge to automate and standardize a large portion of the quality controls used to analyze hydrographic data, NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey and the UNH Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping have jointly developed (and made publicly available) a pair of software solutions - QC Tools for quality control and CA Tools for chart adequacy - that collect algorithmic implementations for a number of these tasks. Their aim is to verify whether the acquired data satisfy the adopted agency standards (and, in a more general sense, fit for the intended purpose). These standards usually focus on data quality aspects like data density, coverage, and uncertainty evaluation which are largely automated by the developed tools discussed in this paper, leaving to the experienced hydrographer the duty to review the results and supervise the validation process. After an overview of the tools (and the relevant recent improvements driven by field feedback), this work focuses on a new chart adequacy algorithm as well as an experimental approach for bathymetric anomaly detection and classification. A number of examples that use the publicly available solutions in real-world scenarios are also illustrated.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Hydrographic Survey Validation and Chart Adequacy Assessment Using Automated Solutions

  1. 1. USING AUTOMATED SOLUTIONS T. FAULKES, NOAA OFFICE OF COAST SURVEY G. MASETTI AND C. KASTRISIOS, UNH CCOM/JHC SURVEY VALIDATION AND CHART ADEQUACY
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. IS CODING LIKE MOUNTAINEERING? ▪ A task to achieve … ▪ … usually a bit daunting! ▪ You get some help ▪ Results == satisfaction! 3
  4. 4. A NOAA Python Distribution PYDRO UNIVERSE A Collection of Open-Source Hydrographic Tools A Growing Community of People with Interests in Ocean Mapping
  5. 5. PYDRO UNIVERSE & HYDROFFICE HYDROFFICE A Research Framework to facilitate R2O in Ocean Mapping
  6. 6. HYDROFFICE APPS
  7. 7. QC TOOLS ▪ Performs automated quality control checks on surfaces and final feature files. 7 ▪ Find Fliers ▪ Holiday Finder ▪ Grid QA ▪ Feature Scan ▪ Many more!
  8. 8. CA TOOLS ▪ Performs chart adequacy tasks by comparing survey data and current ENCs 8
  9. 9. 9
  10. 10. 10
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. 12 Favorite Tools
  13. 13. 13 Which tool to improve first?
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. 16
  16. 16. 17 Depth Proxies Identified Fliers Flier Heights Identified Fliers
  17. 17. 18 Which tool to improve first?
  18. 18. 19 z
  19. 19. 20 z
  20. 20. TRIANGULATED IRREGULAR NETWORK 21
  21. 21. 22 z 10.2 4.5 4.8
  22. 22. 23 z 10.2 4.5 4.8 5.1
  23. 23. 24 z 10.2 4.8 5.1 4.5
  24. 24. 25 z 10.2 4.8 5.1 4.5
  25. 25. 26 z 10.2 4.5 4.8 5.1
  26. 26. TILTED TRIANGLE 27
  27. 27. FLAT TRIANGLES > POINT-IN-POLYGON TEST 28
  28. 28. 29
  29. 29. 30
  30. 30. 31 THANKS! Any questions? ▪ Visit: https://www.hydroffice.org

×