Hello,
In this forest surveying project, we're interested in having the best relative spatial accuracy possible. We collected GCP coordinates using a Trimble RTK system that gives vertical/horizontal accuracy for each coordinate. I'm interested in your opinion between two processing scenarios:
1) GCPs as truth. Use the default 0.005m accuracy for GCPs/markers, thus treating the GCPs as close to 'truth' as possible. Then for any analyses we do on the dense cloud, we can use the Trimble accuracies as the spatial error.
2) Use measured accuracy in processing. Use the Trimble-provided accuracy as the accuracy in Agisoft. Then for any analyses we do on the dense cloud, we use the MetaShape errors as the spatial error. However, in this scenario, I'm unsure how the Trimble accuracy and Agisoft error would interact for a given GCP coordinate.
I'm curious which of these two workflows you'd recommend.
Thank you,
Anna
Topic: What GCP accuracy to use for best quantification of uncertainty? (Read 1693 times)
