Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 5 No. 01 (2024)

Articles

Comparative Analysis of Smartphones and Survey-Grade GNSS Receivers for Parcel Boundary Determination

https://doi.org/10.38094/jastt501179

Published 2024-02-06

  • Caleb Olutayo Oluwadare
    • ,
  • Mary Idera Salami

Caleb Olutayo Oluwadare
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Mary Idera Salami
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Journal of Applied Science and Technology Trends

Abstract

This paper advances the existing body of knowledge on the suitability of the accuracy derivable from the use of smartphones for cadastral mapping. Zenvus App software was installed on two smartphones of a different make. A set of dual-frequency GPS Promark 3 receivers and two different smartphones of different makes were used for data acquisition. Observations were carried out at the boundaries of ten parcels of land, comprising 46 boundary points. The coordinates of these points were obtained using Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) observation in static mode and two Android smartphones (the Samsung A70 and the Tecno Spark 3 Pro).  Mean score, root mean square error, and one-way analysis of variance were used to show significant differences in the equipment used.  Overall, both the accuracy (mean) and precision (RMSE) were lower than those obtained by Differential GPS. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated on the values of both X and Y.  For X, the analysis was not significant; F (1, 45) = 0.88, p = 0.419 and for Y, the analysis was also not significant; F (1, 45) = 0.97, p = 0.383. The total RMSE shows that the coordinates of points as obtained by the Samsung smartphone (3.368) were more precise than those obtained by Tecno (4.041). However, the two smartphones (Tecno and Samsung) were less accurate than differential GPS. This implies that there is a 95% chance that the errors in the estimates are less than 6.993m (for Tecno) and 5.848m (for Samsung), respectively. The variation in the observations obtainable with smartphones affects both linear and polygon estimates. The study concluded that the magnitude of these errors is significant in cadastral survey practices and hence not suitable for use. It is recommended that further studies be carried out on the use of the Zenvus app on centimeter grade smartphones; probably this could yield a better result suitable for cadastral mapping.

Keywords

Demarcation, Accuracy, Zenvus, GPS

PDF

References

  1. A. Sharma and D. Gupta, Smartphone as a Real-time and Participatory Data Collection Tool for Civil Engineers, vol. 2, no. 5. 2014, pp. 22–27.
  2. K. R. Pratama, Widyawan, and R. Hidayat, Smartphone-based Pedestrian Dead Reckoning as an Indoor Positioning System. Bandung, Indonesia, 2012.
  3. P. Dabove, “What are the actual performances of GNSS using a smartphone?,” GNSS, pp. 1–4, 2014.
  4. N. Ekekwe, “Survey or Map your Farm, Land and House by Yourself with Zenvus Boundary,” TEKEDIA, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://www.zenvus.com/products/boundary/
  5. K. Egbo, “Smart Farming in 2017 and Beyond: Zenvus Smart Farm Technology for Innovative Farming in Africa,” Commonw. Sch. UK - Image, 2017.
  6. SURCON, Cadastral Survey Regulations. 2005.
  7. A. Dasgupta, “Surveying: A radical shift,” Geomat. World, no. 20(6), 2012.
  8. S. Basiouka and C. Potsiou, “VGI in Cadastre: a Greek experiment to investigate the potential of crowdsourcing techniques in Cadastral Mapping,” Surv. Rev., vol. 44, no. 325, pp. 153–161, 2012.
  9. V. Cetl et al., “New Trends in Geospatial Information: The Land Surveyors Role in the Era of Crowdsourcing and VGI,” in International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) Publication No.73, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.fig.net/resources/publications/figpub/pub73/figpub73.asp
  10. J. Liu, R. Chen, L. Pei, R. Guinness, and H. Kuusniemi, A Hybrid Smartphone Indoor Positioning Solution for Mobile LBS, vol. 12. 2012, pp. 17209–17233. [Online]. Available: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
  11. S. Sunda, B. M. Vyas, S. V. Satish, P. V. Khekale, and K. S. Parikh, Improvement of positional accuracy with GAGAN and the impact of scintillation on GNSS, vol. 4. 2013, pp. 282–288.
  12. M. A. Hossain, J. Canning, S. Ast, P. J. Rutledge, and A. Jamalipour, “Early Warning Smartphone Diagnostics for Water Security and Analysis Using Real-Time pH Mapping,” Photonic Sens., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 289–297, 2015.
  13. J. Yang, Z. Wang, G. Wang, J. Liu, and Y. Meng, Clock jumps of GPS receiver, vol. 27. 2007, pp. 123–127.
  14. M. Werner, M. Kessel, and C. Marouane, Indoor Positioning Using Smartphone Camera. Guimar Aes, Portugal, 2011.
  15. L. Pei, J. Liu, R. Guinness, Y. Chen, H. Kuusniemi, and R. Chen, Using LS-SVM Based Motion Recognition for Smartphone Indoor Wireless Positioning, vol. 12. 2012, pp. 6155–6175. [Online]. Available: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
  16. P. M. Laarakker and W. T. de Vries, www.opencadastre.org: exploring potential avenues and concerns. Marrakech, Morocco: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), 2011, pp. 16-.
  17. C. Roberts, P. Davis-Raiss, D. Lofberg, and G. Goodman, Is Neo-Cadastral Surveying on your Smart Phone Feasible? Canberra, Australia, 2013.
  18. J. Pesyna, J. Heath, and T. E. Humphreys, Centimeter positioning with a smartphone-quality GNSS antenna. 2014.
  19. S. Basiouka, C. Potsiou, and E. Bakogiannis, “The OpenStreetMap for cadastral purposes: An application using VGI for official processes in urban areas,” in FIG Commission 3 Workshop on Geospatial Crowdsourcing and VGI: Establishment of SDI & SIM, Bologna, Italy, Nov. 2014.
  20. J. Paek, J. Kim, and R. Govindan, Energy-efficient rate-adaptive GPS-based positioning for smartphones. 2010.
  21. F. Iyiola, R. Ogundele, C. O. Oluwadare, and O. Kufoniyi, “Integrity Check on Ground Control Points Using NIGNET Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS),” in Proceedings of FIG International Congress, Abuja, Nigeria, May 2013.
  22. C. O. Oluwadare, “Assessment of Space-enhanced Systematic Land Titling and Registration in Ondo State, Nigeria,” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ile-Ife, 2016.
  23. C. O. Oluwadare and F. O. Oguntade, Positional accuracy of Zenvus boundary application for cadastral mapping. Ile-Ife, 2019, pp. 605–614.
  24. C. Lemmen, R. M. Bennett, R. McLaren, and S. Enemark, A new era in land administration emerges, vol. 29, no. 1. 2015, pp. 22–25.
  25. J. Pesyna, J. Heath, and T. E. Humphreys, Accuracy in the palm of your hand: Centimeter positioning with a smartphone quality GNSS antenna, vol. 26, no. 2. 2015, pp. 16–31.
  26. T. E. Humphreys, M. Murrian, F. Diggelen, S. Podshivalov, and K. M. P. Jr, “On the feasibility of cm-accurate positioning via a smartphone’s antenna and GNSS chip,” in IEEE/ION PLANS Conference, Savannah, GA, Apr. 2016.
  27. G. Navratil and A. U. Frank, VGI for land administration–a quality perspective, vol. 1, no. 1. 2013, pp. 159–163.
  28. W. T. D. Vries, R. M. Bennett, and J. A. Zevenbergen, “Neo-cadastres: Innovative solution for land users without state-based land rights, or just reflections of institutional isomorphism?,” Surv. Rev., vol. 47, pp. 220–229, 2014, doi: 10.1179/1752270614Y.0000000103.
  29. K. L. A. El-Ashmawy, “Testing the positional accuracy of OpenStreetMap data for mapping applications,” Geod. Cartogr., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 25–30, 2016.
  30. C. C. Counselman, R. I. A. III, S. A. Gourevitch, R. W. King, and A. R. Paradis, “Centimeter-level relative positioning with GPS,” J. Surv. Eng., vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 81–89, 1983.
  31. S. Mohiuddin and M. L. Psiaki, High-altitude satellite relative navigation using carrier-phase differential global positioning system techniques, vol. 30, no. 5. 2007, pp. 1628–1639.
  32. U. Robustelli, V. Baiocchi, and G. Pugliano, Assessment of Dual Frequency GNSS Observations from a Xiaomi Mi 8 Android Smartphone and Positioning Performance Analysis, vol. 8, no. 1. 2019, p. 91. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics8010091

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...