Survey Review

ISSN: 0039-6265 (Print) 1752-2706 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ysre20

Using UAVs for map creation and updating. A case

study in Rwanda

M. Koeva, M. Muneza, C. Gevaert, M. Gerke & F. Nex

To cite this article: M. Koeva, M. Muneza, C. Gevaert, M. Gerke & F. Nex (2018) Using UAVs
for map creation and updating. A case study in Rwanda, Survey Review, 50:361, 312-325, DOI:
10.1080/00396265.2016.1268756

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2016.1268756

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 30 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7015

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ysre20
 Using UAVs for map creation and updating.
A case study in Rwanda
M. Koeva∗ 1, M. Muneza1,2, C. Gevaert1, M. Gerke1 and F. Nex1
Aerial or satellite images are conventionally used for geospatial data collection. However,
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are emerging as a suitable technology for providing very high
spatial and temporal resolution data at a low cost. This paper aims to show the potential of using
UAVs for map creation and updating. The whole workflow is introduced in the paper, using a
case study in Rwanda, where 954 images were collected with a DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus
quadcopter. An orthophoto covering 0.095 km2 with a spatial resolution of 3.3 cm was produced
and used to extract features with a sub-decimetre accuracy. Quantitative and qualitative control
of the UAV data products were performed, indicating that the obtained accuracies comply to
international standards. Moreover, possible problems and further perspectives were also
discussed. The results demonstrate that UAVs provide promising opportunities to create high-
resolution and highly accurate orthophotos, thus facilitating map creation and updating.
Keywords: UAV, Mapping, Photogrammetry, Urban, Surveying, Updating
Introduction
Geospatial data play an important role in an estimated
80% of our daily decisions (Heipke et al. 2008) and in
various urban planning activities. For example, in the
context of the recently accepted Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals, the UN emphasises the need for high-
quality and usable data, as ‘data are the lifeblood of
decision-making’ (IEAG 2014). Moreover, there is an
initiative from UN on Global Geospatial Information
Management which aims to promote the use of geospa-
tial information to address key global challenges. Unfor-
tunately, as discussed by the Regional Centre for
Mapping of Resources for Development in Rwanda,
lack of funding is a major bottleneck in many develop-
ing countries and the required data are often unavailable
or outdated (Ottichilo and Khamala 2002). To ensure
the usability of spatial data as well as to provide a
solid basis for informed decision-making and planning,
map updating is imperative. Map updating consists of
three main steps: (i) comparing a new data source
against the existing basemap, (ii) identifying changes
and updating the database and (iii) verifying the logical
consistency of the updated version with the old version
(Heipke et al. 2008). Aerial or satellite imagery obtained
through remote sensing or earth observation is used as a
data source for many basemap updating activities. Pre-
vious research has demonstrated the use of satellite
and aerial imagery as means to extract information for
1
Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, University of
Twente, P.O.Box217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
2
Rwanda Natural Resources Authority (RNRA), Kigali, Rwanda
∗
Corresponding author, email m.n.koeva@utwente.nl
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
Received 23 May 2016; accepted 28 November 2016
312 DOI 10.1080/00396265.2016.1268756
creating and updating maps (Alexandrov et al. 2004a,
2004b; Ali et al. 2012) as well as to provide input for
urban models (Herold et al. 2003). Important features
of the urban environment, such as roads and buildings,
may then be digitised in the imagery either by experts
(e.g. Ottichilo and Khamala 2002) or by a wider public
in participatory mapping exercises (Mourafetis et al.
2015). Over the past two decades, considerable research
has also focused on automatic feature extraction from
high-resolution satellite and aerial images (Liu and
Jezek 2004; Babawuro and Beiji 2012; Gruen et al.
2012; Awad 2013; Horkaew et al. 2015). However, the
temporal resolution of conventional sensors is limited
by the restricted availability of aircraft platforms
and the orbit characteristics of satellites (Turner et al.
2012). Another disadvantage is cloud cover, which
impedes image acquisition through these platforms.
Such limitations restrict the use of satellites or manned
aircrafts for map updating purposes, as it may increase
cost and production time. In order to provide the high-
quality and up-to-date information required to support
urban governance and informed decision-making,
Van der Molen (2015) calls for land surveyors to make
use of the potential of new affordable, geo-spatial
technologies.
A suitable example of such emerging technology is
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which are proving
to be a competitive data acquisition technique designed
to operate with no human pilot on board. The term
UAV is commonly used, but other terms, such as drones,
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Remotely Piloted Air-
craft (RPA) or Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems (RPAS),
have also been frequently used in the geomatics commu-
nity (Nex and Remondino 2014). UAV refers to the
Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361

aircraft itself which is intended to be operated without a
pilot-on-board, whereas UAS refers to the aircraft and
other components that could be required, such as naviga-
tion software and communication equipment. According
to ICAO Standards1, RPAS are a subset of UAS which
are specifically piloted by a ‘licensed “remote pilot” situ-
ated at a “remote pilot station” located external to the air-
craft’. RPAS refers to the entire system, whereas RPA
refers to the aircraft itself. The pilot’s license should
address legal, operational and safety aspects. In the geo-
matics community, the terms UAS and RPAS are often
used interchangeably, and will be considered as synonyms
in the current paper.
For photogrammetric applications, the payload of the
whole system is composed of a camera, Global Naviga-
tion Satellite System (GNSS) and Inertial Measurement
Unit (Colomina and Molina 2014). The camera takes
overlapping images as it flies over a study area. These
images may be processed through a photogrammetric
workflow to obtain a point cloud (or a Digital Surface
Model), an orthophoto or a full 3D model of the
scene. An on-board GNSS device allows these data pro-
ducts to be georeferenced. However, in the context of
low-cost UAVs, the accuracy of such GNSS is often lim-
ited. Therefore, supplementary Ground Control Points
(GCPs) are usually acquired in the study area, in order
to maintain the accuracy of the image block orientation
and derived mapping products, such as orthophotos,
and to facilitate its integration with other spatial data.
These GCPs have to be carefully selected and well dis-
tributed, and they should be visible in many images, as
well as easily identifiable in the images after the acqui-
sition and measurable with accurate technology, such
as survey-grade GNSS. With the current study, we
aim, in particular, to analyse the process of orthophoto
production using UAVs for map creation and updating
as a low-cost solution which can be affordable for
many developing countries. Moreover, an important
step is to assess the obtained accuracy quantitatively
and qualitatively. To address this aim, we make use of
a case study in Rwanda.
The paper structure is as follows: first, we introduce
the background, regulation framework and the method-
ology for true-orthophoto creation and feature extrac-
tion. Using the case study in Rwanda, we perform a
quantitative and qualitative control of the UAV data
products. For this purpose, we conduct experiments
with and without the use of GCPs for the qualitative
analysis of the product. This in-depth analysis gives
insight to the quality of the data products and thus
their fitness for various applications, the importance of
GCPs, as well as to describe possible deformations in
the orthophotos and how these may be avoided. Finally,
we describe a feature extraction framework of digitis-
ation rules which can be applied to ensure the logical
consistency for map creation and a subsequent updating
procedure. This last step is very important as the con-
siderably higher resolution of the UAV images, as
opposed to the previous scale of the basemap, allows
new features to be visible, and existing features to be rep-
resented in different ways. The accuracy of digitisation is
also assessed and described. General quantitative and
1 2
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf
Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
qualitative control of the UAV data products and the
final outputs are shown. Finally, possible problems and
further perspectives are also discussed.
Background and regulatory framework
UAVs were first created and used in military applications
where flight recognition in enemy areas, unmanned
inspection, surveillance, reconnaissance and mapping
of enemy areas without any risk for human pilots were
the primary military aims (Nex and Remondino 2014).
Nowadays, UAVs are increasingly being used in civil
and scientific research activities in different fields of
application. For example, for agriculture (Grenzdörffer
and Niemeyer 2011), mapping (Nex and Remondino
2014), surveying and cadastral applications (Cunning-
ham et al. 2011; Manyoky et al. 2011; Cramer et al.
2013; Barnes et al. 2014), archaeology and architecture
(Chiabrando et al. 2011), geology (Eisenbeiss 2009),
coastal management (Delacourt et al. 2009), disaster
management (Choi and Lee 2011; Molina et al. 2012),
damage mapping (Vertivel et al. 2015) and cultural heri-
tage (Remondino et al. 2011; Rinaudo et al. 2012). With
this paper, we aim to investigate the suitability of UAVs
for map creation and updating. Other examples for
applications have been demonstrated for monitoring for-
est fire. Zarco-Tejada and Berni (2012) used a fixed-wing
UAV with thermal and hyperspectral sensors. Exper-
iments have also been reported for tree classification
(Agüera et al. 2011), Normalised Difference Vegetation
Index calculation (Lucieer et al. 2012) and monitoring
stream temperatures (Costa et al. 2012).
Technically, UAVs can fly almost everywhere. Their
flexibility is high and this fact allows them easily to
change the observed location and viewing angle in a
short time. For that reason, it is important to pay atten-
tion to the safety of the users of aerial spaces, including
manned or other unmanned aircraft, to the people and
property on the ground, as well as their impact on the
environment (Watts et al. 2012). This emerges from a
concern regarding how this flying system, which does
not have pilots on board, can be safely deployed in pub-
lic space. With the ability to carry cameras, infrared sen-
sors and facial recognition technology, they can present
a serious threat to privacy. However, in daily practice,
one obstacle is a missing or unfavourable regulatory fra-
mework. Great diffusion and commercialisation of
UAVs have pushed several national and international
associations to analyse the operational safety of UAVs
through the formulation of clear regulations. Motiv-
ations behind such regulations include the safety of
people on the ground and security against the misuse
of UAVs which can result in accidents and privacy
violations as they are flying in shared public space.
Also, having clearly formulated regulations is important
in order to provide a legislative environment which
enables the formulation of proper insurance policies.
However, in the past years, each country has defined a
different implementation of the UAV regulations and a
comprehensive and common set of rules is still missing.
In August 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)2, defined a new set of rules (Washington, DC
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/
Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361 313
Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
1 UAV workflow
20591). Operational limitations, such as maximal
weight of the vehicle (less than 25 kg.), visual line-of-
sight over rural or uninhabited areas during daylight,
maximum ground speed of 100 mph, maximum altitude
of 400 feet above the ground, minimum weather visi-
bility of 3 miles from control station, were defined.
The rules concerning the responsibilities and certifica-
tion of the pilot were set as well. The same year, the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) developed
Advance Notice of Proposed Amendment 2015–103
categorising the vehicles into three classes: open (low
risk), specific operation (medium risk) and certified
(higher risk). Regulations at European level usually con-
sider the following three elements: (i) the security and
technical specifications of the UAV (ability to perform
safe flights and the weight of the UAV) (ii) the skills of
the pilot (who must be certified) and (iii) the surveyed
area which can be uncritical (without humans or impor-
tant infrastructure) and critical (with humans etc.).
These three elements determine where flights are
allowed and under which conditions (Dolan and Ii
2013; Nex and Remondino 2014). At the time when
this project was done, there were no particular restric-
tions or regulations for the usage of UAVs in Rwanda,
the location of our case study, and flights could be per-
formed after an application for flight permission from
the Rwanda Civil Aviation Authority (RCAA) and con-
tact with landowners.
3
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/A-NPA%202015-10.pdf
314 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361
This overview shows that all over the world efforts are
being undertaken to find a suitable regulatory frame-
work for the (professional) civil use of UAVs. From
our point of view, it is thus worthwhile to investigate
into the use of UAV-based imagery for mapping pur-
pose, even if today conditions for their usage are not
defined everywhere.
Methodology
In this section, we describe the general UAV workflow.
Using the case of Rwanda, we perform quantitative
and qualitative control of the final UAV data products
for map updating. As block deformations can be
observed owing to missing or poorly distributed GCPs
and insufficient camera calibration (Gerke and Przybilla
2016), the importance of GCPs is analysed. Then using
the high-resolution output, the feature extraction pro-
cess based on clear feature digitisation rules is described
and their accuracy assessed. Such rules ensure the con-
sistency in the updates by various technicians as well
as the compatibility between the previous map and
updated version. A schematic overview of the UAV
workflow is shown in Fig. 1.
Flight planning, image acquisition and GCP
collection
For every aerial surveying project using UAVs or classical
acquisition techniques, the first obligatory part is to start

with flight planning. For mapping purposes, this part
requires activities, such as getting the flight permission,
the software selection, the detailed analysis of the area
and required pixel size on the ground (ground sample dis-
tance, GSD), among others. Some important aspects,
such as flying height, use of GNSS and Inertial Naviga-
tion System (INS) on board, measurements of GCPs on
the ground with required technical equipment, should
be considered as well. The quality of the final product
that will be used for mapping – usually the orthophoto
– depends greatly on the quality of the acquired images.
High overlaps (such as 80%) between images are generally
used to improve the quality of the final products, in par-
ticular, the dense image matching results. The high over-
lap is also recommended in order to avoid gaps owing
to platform instability induced by possible turbulence.
Image orientation
The main objective of photogrammetry is to extract 3D
information from 2D images. For this purpose, the
interior orientation, IO, (defining the position of the pro-
jection centre of the camera with respect to the image, the
principal distance or focal length and lens distortions) and
exterior orientation, EO, (defining the position of the
camera projection centre and the rotation of the assembly
of its optical axis with respect to the mapping frame) of
the images have to be computed. In the traditional
(manned) airborne photogrammetry, the adopted sensors
are metric cameras. These cameras have stable interior
orientation parameters, usually estimated by the producer
through a camera calibration. The first examples of low
weight metric frame cameras (Kraft et al. 2016) for
UAVs have been recently developed, but in the current
study we focus on the low-cost solutions as they still rep-
resent the large majority of the sensors installed on UAVs.
These solutions are non-metric consumer cameras and are
already largely used for photogrammetric mapping pro-
jects (Barnes et al. 2014). The consequence of using cam-
eras of this category is that IO parameters need to be
estimated from the captured data themselves (self-
calibration).
To perform camera calibration and image orientation,
the extracted common features (tie points) visible in mul-
tiple images are needed. The selection of homologous
points in the images is nowadays performed automatically
using the dedicated algorithm of feature extraction
(Barazzetti et al. 2010). The mathematical relationship
between images, camera geometry and ground space is
computed during block triangulation, which is commonly
combined with an error minimisation strategy and is then
referred to as bundle block adjustment (BBA). This
includes the following tasks: (1) determine the EO infor-
mation for each camera in the project as it was at the
time of its exposure including the IO parameters for
each device, (2) determine the ground coordinates of the
tie points measured in the image overlapping area. In a
global error minimisation procedure, the errors associated
with the image and camera geometry and associated
image measurements are distributed. If GCPs are pro-
vided, they help to geometrically support the overall
image block, and at the same time define a proper
datum for the object space. If the GNSS/INS information
on board the UAV is available, then the collected data help
in the automatic tie point extraction because a prediction
Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
of the image in overlap is possible in advance. The naviga-
tion information also supports the georeferencing of the
whole image since the image projection centres are then
already estimated (GNSS-assisted sensor orientation).
When these data are not available or of bad quality,
then indirect sensor orientation is done by incorporating
GCPs. The distribution of GCPs is of high importance
not only for the image orientation but also for the preven-
tion of block deformation effects which may result from
the remaining systematic errors in the camera calibration.
As concluded by Gerke and Przybilla (2016), to avoid
block deformations, it is suggested to plan cross-flight
(different flight directions and altitude) for some parts
of the study area. This procedure will be especially helpful
for the enhancement of the results in flat terrain owing to
a more reliable self-calibration.
Dense point cloud generation and DSM
generation
A dense matching technique should be applied after accu-
rate IO and EO parameters are available in order to rep-
resent the object space through dense point clouds. These
point clouds should, later on, be structured, interpolated
if needed, simplified and textured for photo-realistic rep-
resentation and visualisation (Nex and Remondino
2014). A large number of image matching techniques
have been developed and presented in the photogram-
metric and computer vision communities over the last
decade. These can be divided into two main classes: (i)
patch-based approaches and (ii) semi-global approaches.
An example of the first class is the multi-image approach
presented in Furukawa and Ponce (2010), while an
example of the second group is given by Hirschmuller
(2008) and subsequent refinements (Rothermel et al.
2012; Wenzel et al. 2013). Patch-based approaches are
very often multi-image (i.e. they use many images simul-
taneously to determine homologous points and their 3D
position), while semi-global approaches work with
stereo-pairs and then merge the generated point clouds
into a single dataset afterwards. Their quality is influ-
enced by flight parameters, such as resolution on the
ground (GSD), image overlap and sensor quality. The
presence of occlusions, shadows and regions with reduced
texture might lead to gaps and increases the noise of the
generated DSM, which is interpolated from the point
cloud. For a more detailed description of matching algor-
ithms, refer to Remondino et al. (2014).
True-Orthophoto creation
The final representation to be used for mapping is created
through orthorectification, which requires precise surface
information to remove projective distortions of the orig-
inal images. The orthophoto represents all objects in a
map-like projection. The required surface may be
obtained using a Digital Terrain Model, or DSM: in
this last case, the result of the orthorectification is called
a true-orthophoto. The depiction of the scene in the air-
borne images, combined with its accurate geometry
given by the orthogonal projection, allows even users
unskilled in cartography to understand, read and accu-
rately measure objects present in the image (Biasion
et al. 2004). However, in order to use this final product
as a reliable source for feature extraction, the created
orthophoto should be free from distortions and
Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361 315
Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
2 An example of facade visibility in the original image a, which should be removed to obtain a true orthophoto b
misprojections. Therefore, qualitative and quantitative
assessments and correction of the orthophoto might be
necessary. For example, building facades should not
be visible in true orthophotos, although they might be vis-
ible in the original images or conventional orthophotos
(Fig. 2).
Feature extraction
The final orthophoto and the DSM are very useful for
manual or semi-automatic feature extraction for map cre-
ation or updating. Highly accurate photogrammetric pro-
ducts acquired through traditional platforms, such as
satellites or aircraft, have been used for feature extraction
for decades (Madzharova et al. 2008; Gruen et al. 2012).
Their added value compared to the conventional survey-
ing methods in terms of time, costs and accuracy has been
proved, even though there are some disadvantages due to
the lack of attribute data (street names) or occluded fea-
tures. The current study aims to investigate the suitability
of orthophotos, specifically those produced from UAV
images, for map creation and updating. To obtain high-
quality vectorised maps in ordered, clear and complete
way, the feature extraction procedure should be guided
by well-formulated rules. In practice, such rules and guid-
ing explanations are combined in so-called extractions
guides. Before the manual feature extraction is actually
undertaken, these rules should be accepted and approved
by the authorised specialist (such as head of departments
working in municipalities). During digitisation, a unique
identifier should be assigned to each extracted feature in
the database, along with the attributes defined by the
extraction guides.
Geometric quality assessment
The quality of the image orientation and orthophoto was
analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Possible defor-
mations of the orthophoto include radiometric errors
caused by imperfect image blending and radiometric
316 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361
differences between the individual UAV images. Defor-
mation could also be visible due to the imperfections in
the DSM, causing faulty orthorectification of the individ-
ual images. Through visual inspection, deformation and
artefacts are presented. Their respective causes are dis-
cussed, along with measures which can be taken to
avoid or ameliorate the defects.
Case study in Rwanda
Existing geospatial data
During recent years, Rwanda has been growing in terms
of population and economic development, which raises
the need for up-to-date geospatial information to facili-
tate timely and efficient planning. To support this idea,
a traditional aerial photogrammetric mission was per-
formed over the entire country in 2008 and 2009.
Elevation data were generated and orthophotos with
high accuracy were produced. A basemap, covering the
whole country of 26.338 km2, was created through man-
ual digitisation. It includes the following features:
. Boundaries (administrative boundaries)
. Hydrography (rivers and lakes)
. Elevation (contours lines every 25 m, DEM)
. Physical infrastructure (railways, roads network, air-
port, powerlines, harbours, signposts)
. Social infrastructure (schools, health, facilities, govern-
ment offices, markets, place names)
. Thematic data (land cover, land use, built-up, parcels)
In 2010, the orthophoto was also used for the pro-
duction of the Rwanda National Land Use Master Plan
at a scale of 1:250 000 and the creation of topographic
maps at a scale of 1:50 000. This represented a significant
progress for the country since, in most of the developing
countries, the maps in use are from the 1970s. Unfortu-
nately, there have been no efforts for updating this infor-
mation since then. Hence, this case study aims to apply
a state-of-the-art acquisition technique to partially update
 Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating

3 Location of the study area and distribution of GCPs

the derived information and thus supports future
development.
Study area
The area for the current study covers an informal settle-
ment located in Nyarutarama cell, City of Kigali,
Rwanda (Fig. 3). This area was selected as there have
been major changes since the orthophoto was produced
(2009), and it thus illustrates the importance of updating
the national basemap which forms the foundation of
many policy and development decisions.
Results
Data acquisition, image processing and
orthophoto creation
In May 2015, UAV flights were operated over the area
using a DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus quadcopter, the
main characteristics of which are shown in Table 1.
Using the Pix4DCapture app4, a flight plan was defined
above the study area. The UAV flew autonomously at
an altitude of 50 m above the ground, resulting in an aver-
age GSD of 3.3 cm. A common problem while using
Phantom is that there is a difference between planned
number of images and the one performed. For our
study, a total of 1172 geotagged nadir images were
planned and only 954 were obtained. However, an average
of 85% forward and 75% side-overlaps were achieved. The
duration of the flight over the study area, including take-
off and landing, was approximately 2 hours and the
identification and marking of the GCPs in the images
and image orientation, dense image matching and
4 Geolocation
https://pix4d.com/
orthophoto creation took about 2 days on a decent desk-
top computer.
In the case of these non-metric cameras, a self-cali-
bration is mandatory, so pre-calibration is not an option,
hence in our case the indirect georeferencing cannot be
decoupled from the sensor calibration. The acquired
images were processed using the Pix4D Mapper photo-
grammetric software. The camera installed on the Phan-
tom 2 is a fish-eye lens that acquires the images using a
rolling shutter sensor. Fish-eye lenses have the advantage
of acquiring images with large fields of view and high res-
olution, but they require dedicated camera calibration
models to generate results comparable to conventional
perspective cameras (Strecha et al. 2015). As already dis-
cussed, the cameras installed on a UAV are non-metric
and a self-calibration in the BBA is, therefore, mandatory.
The electronic shutter, also called ‘rolling shutter’, adopts
a sensor that is exposed and reads the scene line-by-line,
instead of exposing the entire image at once. Additional
distortions have to be considered and modelled when
the UAV is flying too fast or when there are dynamic
objects to be captured (Baker, et al. 2010; Grundmann
et al. 2012). In the case of UAVs, the effect of the rolling
shutter cameras can be modelled by assuming some
Table 1 UAV properties
Model DJI Phantom 2 Vision +
Camera PhantomVisionFC 2000
Resolution 16 MP
Sensor width × height 6.48525 × 4.86394 mm
Image width × height 4608 × 3456 pixels
Pixel size 1.4 µm
Focal length 5 mm
Maximum flight time 25 min
On-board GNSS

Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361 317

Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
constant motion speed, and it was demonstrated that this
model might provide results comparable to the results of
the global shutter cameras as reported in Vautherin
et al. (2016). The rolling shutter model presented in this
paper is also implemented in Pix4D and it was, therefore,
adopted for the processing of the image block as an
additional experiment.
The Phantom 2 carries a consumer grade GNSS (L1,
code signal, expected absolute position accuracy 5–
10 m), so high-quality GCPs were collected in order to
be able to produce accurately georeferenced products.
These points should be measured on static objects which
are easily identifiable in the UAV imagery. Figure 3
shows the layout of the points which were surveyed on
ground using a Real-Time Kinematic GNSS with an
approximate accuracy of 2 cm. The local coordinate sys-
tem, TM_Rwanda, was utilised. The GCPs were split
into two groups: 7 GCPs were used as GCPs for the
image block and 6 points were used as Check Points
(CPs) to assess the accuracy. All points were marked in
at least 14 UAV images.
After the image orientation, the dense matching process
was initiated using the full resolution of the images to gen-
erate a very dense point cloud. The employed software
uses a patch-based approach. This process led to the gen-
eration of millions of points that were interpolated into
the DSM. Using the obtained DSM, the orthorectifica-
tion process was performed in order to remove relief dis-
tortions and to produce a true-orthophoto.
Image orientation experimental results
Three experiments were conducted for the quantitative
analysis. For image orientation, the first is GNSS-assisted
sensor orientation where no GCPs captured with geodetic
receivers are involved. It provides an indication of the
accuracy which can be achieved by this UAV in situations
where no external GCPs are available. As UAVs may be
utilised for rapid mapping applications in areas with
hazardous or limited human accessibility, thus making
4 RMSE obtained with experiment 1 (GNSS-assisted sensor orientation), experiment 2 (Indirect sensor orientation including
GCPs without rolling shutter correction) and experiment 2b (Indirect sensor orientation including GCPs with rolling shutter
correction)
318 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361
it difficult or impossible to take GCPs, knowing the accu-
racy of the orthophoto obtained, using only the on-board
GNSS, will help to estimate how accurate the obtained
model is. This procedure might be very useful for mapping
tasks where lower accuracy is acceptable. As Fig. 4 shows,
the image orientation with only geotags resulted in a low
geolocation accuracy: achieving an RMSE at checkpoints
of 0.19 m in X, 0.77 m in Y and 5.67 m in Z although this
accuracy may be adequate for some mapping appli-
cations, it is still very high compared to the spatial resol-
ution of the orthoimagery. The low accuracy is primarily
due to the insufficient accuracy of the navigation-grade
GNSS units used to record camera position at the time
of image acquisition. Regarding the low vertical accuracy,
the error may also be due to the fact that the UAV used for
the present study did not record the absolute altitude of
the drone in the image geotags, but rather the relative
height above the take-off location. Here, the absolute
height was obtained by extracting the elevation of the
take-off point from a national DEM (with a spatial resol-
ution of 5 m), introducing errors in the final model. In
order to mitigate the systematic shift induced by this pro-
cedure, one could simply shift the whole block according
to the mean error. This, however, requires some sort of
ground truth.
The second experiment includes high-precision GCPs
in the image orientation phase, thus maximising the accu-
racy of the image orientation and subsequent orthophoto
production. After including the 7 GCPs in the image
orientation, the accuracy improved significantly (Fig. 4).
The model achieves an RMSE at CPs of 0.13 m (3.94
GSD) in X, 0.07 m (2.12 GSD) in Y and 0.07 m (2.12
GSD) in Z, thereby meeting the requirements of the pre-
sent study. The third experiment not only includes the
high-precision GCPs but also introduces the rolling shut-
ter correction. Here, we can see that this greatly increases
planimetric accuracy, reducing the RMSE at CPs to
0.04 m (1.21 GSD) in X and 0.05 m (1.51 GSD) in Y,
though slightly increases the RMSE in Z to 0.20 m
(6.06 GSD). The minimum, maximum, mean and
 Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating

Table 2 The minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviations of the CP residuals for all three experimental set-ups

Exp 2: Indirect sensor orientation Exp 2b: Indirect sensor orientation

Exp 1: GNSS-assisted sensor including GCPs without rolling including GCPs with rolling shutter
orientation shutter correction correction

Error X Error Y Error Z Error X Error Y Error Z Error X Error Y Error Z

Residual error (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Minimum −0.207 −1.301 −9.997 −0.187 −0.041 −0.107 −0.078 −0.077 −0.403
Maximum 0.348 1.065 −0.629 0.089 0.157 0.079 0.024 0.060 −0.019
Mean −0.033 −0.315 −4.830 −0.073 0.025 −0.032 −0.024 −0.028 −0.157
Standard 0.189 0.700 2.974 0.105 0.067 0.061 0.033 0.046 0.129
deviation
RMSE 0.192 0.768 5.672 0.128 0.072 0.069 0.041 0.054 0.203

5 The orthophoto obtained from UAV imagery of the study area in Kigali

standard deviations of the CP residuals for the three
experiments are also provided in Table 2.
After the image orientation, the dense matching was
performed. The image matching results of the third exper-
iment, including GCPs and rolling shutter correction,
have been published and can be freely viewed online5.
Qualitative assessment of the orthophoto
The processing steps as explained in the previous section
resulted in a high-quality RGB orthophoto (Fig. 5) with a
GSD of 3.3 cm and a radiometric resolution of 8 bits. A
visual inspection of the image indicates that it is suitable
for visual interpretation, as features are clearly visible
and objects can be easily extracted.
5
The point cloud visualisation is available at: https://www.itc.nl/eos_public/
rwanda2015/portal.html. Please note that the compatibility has been veri-
fied with Google Chrome on a Windows platform.
However, some minor deformations were detected
and will be further analysed here with the purpose of
illustrating which types of errors may be present in
orthophotos obtained from UAV imagery. Examples
of such distortions are given in Fig. 6. Problems with
facade visibility caused by DSM imperfections were
observed (Fig. 6a). This can be mitigated by improving
the image overlap during the UAV flights. Moving
objects, such as cars, may be located in different areas
due to the slight time delay between the acquisition of
sequential images. This may cause the problem that
moving objects appear multiple times in the orthophoto
(Fig. 6b). Such effects can be manually removed if there
is sufficient overlap between the images. For the current
study, this problem was solved using the ‘mosaic editor’
in Pix4D Mapper, which allows the user to select which
image is used to produce a section of the orthophoto.
Distortions attributed to the fish-eye lens of the UAV

Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361 319

Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
6 Possible distortions in the UAV orthophoto include: a facade visibility, b moving objects, c feature distortion due to insuffi-
cient overlap and lens distortions d distortions of high poles, e distortions due to the DSM interpolation method used such as
grainy roof edges f rounded roof corners
camera were visible in areas at the border of the image
block. (Fig. 6c). Also, standing objects, such as light
poles and pylons, may cause difficulties in the dense
matching and DSM generation steps, which results in
wrong reconstructions in the orthomosaic (Fig. 6d ).
Finally, the DSM interpolation method influences the
orthophoto as well. For example, using a direct interp-
olation method may cause noise at overhanging roof
edges (Fig. 6e), whereas Inverse Distance Weighting
interpolations may cause rounded roof corners (Fig.
6f ). This final aspect is further addressed in the discus-
sion section of this paper.
Quantitative assessment of the orthophoto
The quantitative assessment of the orthophoto consists of
two aspects: (i) the accuracy at the measured control
points and (ii) the geometric accuracy of objects measured
in the orthophoto. The same control points utilised to ver-
ify the image orientation step yield an RMSE of 4.8 cm in
X and 3.7 cm in Y, corresponding to a planimetric accu-
racy of 6.0 cm. The result shows that the level of detail
and the radiometric quality of the orthophoto is comple-
tely comparable to the quality of the input images.
According to the new standard, the obtained error
meets the requirements for the horizontal accuracy class
of 7.5 cm (ASPRS 2015).
The horizontal accuracy obtained without GCPs with
the GNSS-assisted sensor orientation method was
around 80 cm. Similar studies that use various UAVs
to obtain orthophotos report accuracies of: 1 m (8 cm
320 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361
GSD) using on-board GNSS (Skarlatos et al. 2013),
90 cm accuracy (Haitao and Lei 2010), 2–8 m for 130–
900 m flying altitude was reported by Küng et al.
(2012) and 2–4 m with 50–100 m flying height by Eug-
ster and Nebiker (2007).
The second part of the quantitative assessment con-
sisted in analysing the geometric accuracy of the produced
orthophoto on an object level. A number of permanent
objects were actually measured in the field as well as digi-
tised over the orthophoto (see Fig. 7). Results indicate
that measurements in the orthophoto replicated the field
measurements to an error of less than 0.6% of the actual
dimensions (Table 3).
Map creation and basemap updating
The orthophoto was then used to extract features to
update the existing basemap. The original basemap was
used to define the extraction guides for updating existing
layers. However, the high resolution and level of detail of
the UAV orthophoto enables additional objects of interest
to be visible. This provides the opportunity for creating
new vector datasets representing topological features
(such as drainage and narrow footpaths), potentially
enabling a more informed decision-making for various
urban planning activities. Extraction guidelines were
also developed for: road centrelines, roads, built-up
areas, footpaths and drainage. For each of these datasets,
the extraction guide provided a definition and description
of the features to be included, and mandated how these
should be digitised. The guide also described the
 Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating

geometry type, unique code and required attributes of

each feature.
In total, 948.7 m of roads, 16553.0 m² of buildings,
778.8 m of drainage, 1510.3 m of footpaths and
1078.0 m² of schools were digitised. After digitisation,
their spatial accuracy was checked by comparing a num-
ber of digitised coordinates with those measured in the
field. The features were digitised with an average error
of 1.3 cm in X and 3.2 cm in Y, and a planimetric
RMSE of 8.8 cm. This is acceptable for mapping accord-
ing to the new combined standard (ASPRS 2015). The
augmented resolution greatly enhanced the interpretabil-
ity of the orthophoto for feature extraction purposes. It
was observed that not only a variety of features can be
identified and distinguished more easily, but also the
high resolution also allows convenient extraction of new
features. For example, features such as drainage lines
(man-made and eroded gullies) and structures such as
lamp posts and electricity poles were very clearly visible.
Metadata was added to the vector layers according to
ISO 19115 (2003) to document their quality and facili-
7 Example for measured distances on the ground tate future analyses using the updated basemap. Two
examples of 1:1000 scale maps were produced for dem-
onstration purposes: a cadastral (Fig. 8) and a topo-
Table 3 Comparison between physical objects measured in graphic map (Fig. 9). Furthermore, generalisation
the field (L field) and in the orthophoto (L ortho)
procedures were applied to rescale the features digitised
Object L field (m) L ortho (m) Error (m) Error (%) over the orthophoto at the scale of the national basemap
(1:50 000) and update the existing basemap (Fig. 10). A
1 56.200 56.221 0.021 0.037 topological control and metadata creation (ISO 2003
2 0.700 0.704 0.004 0.568 Template) were conducted before completing the updat-
3 1.820 1.822 0.002 0.110
ing procedure.

8 Cadastre map 1:1000 scale

Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361 321

Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
9 Topographic map 1:1000 scale
Discussion
The results indicate that with a low-cost UAV and
photogrammetric techniques, it is possible to obtain
high-quality products. The final orthophoto with a pos-
itional accuracy of 6.0 cm proves to be suitable to
extract features (accuracy of 8.8 cm), which is accepta-
ble for mapping according to the new combined stan-
dard (ASPRS 2015). Compared to the time and cost of
traditional photogrammetric surveys, this technique
represents a promising alternative. Unclear or restrictive
legislation and computer processing requirements for
large projects are two of the main challenges faced by
the application of UAVs for large-scale basemap updat-
ing. However, there are projects currently addressing
such issues, for example by reducing the computational
requirements of processing (NLeSC 2016) in MicMac,
an open source photogrammetric software6 (IGN,
France). Furthermore, technological developments,
such as GPU, processing are continuously reducing the
computational bottleneck.
The quality obtained by UAV photogrammetric pro-
ducts depends on a number of factors. Visual errors in
the final orthophoto were mainly due to DSM defor-
mation. This deformation was caused by lack of suffi-
cient overlap during image acquisition. Therefore, the
generated point cloud lacked the required density to per-
form the geometric reconstruction of certain objects.
This stresses the importance of rigorous flight planning
6
http://logiciels.ign.fr/?Micmac
322 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361
and precise image acquisition in order to guarantee the
quality of the final product. Other deformations, such
as the duplication of moving objects, can be removed
by manually adjusting the input images selected for the
creation of the orthophoto. Such manual processes, how-
ever, are also necessary for conventional manned air-
borne-based products.
The orthophoto quality also depends on which algor-
ithm is used to interpolate the DSM from the point
cloud. A common method is triangulation, which may
result in noise around overhanging roof edges (Fig. 6e).
Other interpolation methods, such as Inverse Distance
Weighting, improve the visual appearance of overhanging
roof edges, but cause rounded roof corners (Fig. 6f ). Such
observations stress that quality of the DSM and ortho-
photo also depend on which software and algorithms
are utilised.
Regarding the georeferencing accuracy, a comparison
was made between using only on-board GNSS and
including external GCPs for image orientation. The
achieved results indicate that GNSS-assisted sensor orien-
tation using the coordinates provided by the UAV resulted
in low accuracy (see Fig. 4). This is due to the use of a con-
sumer grade GNSS. This demonstrates that for maximal
accuracy, there is still a dependency on high-quality
GCPs. GCP quality can be influenced by the precision
of the surveying equipment used, their distribution
throughout the study area and positioning error intro-
duced when manually marking GCPs in the UAV images
is performed. Errors incurred in any of these elements will
have an impact on the accuracy of the final product.

10 Map update 1:50000 (before and after: inserted)
Conclusions and recommendations
This work demonstrates that UAVs provide promising
opportunities to create a high-resolution and highly
accurate orthophoto, thus facilitating map creation
and updating. Through an example in Rwanda, the
photogrammetric process of obtaining an orthophoto
from the individual UAV images is explained. With the
support of external high-precision GCPs, the ortho-
photo created for the case study has planimetric and
vertical accuracies less than 8 cm, thus meeting the
requirements for 1:1000 scale maps. A number of factors
that influence the quality of the orthophoto are high-
lighted, as well as possible strategies which can be adopted
to mitigate these imperfections.
This important part of the study shows that due to the
high resolution of the UAV orthophoto, new features can
be easily extracted and various outputs can be produced.
For the basemap updating task of the case study area,
clear digitisation rules for feature extraction were defined
in order to ensure the logical consistency. A so-called
extraction guide was created to guide the feature extrac-
tion process. It consists of a clear description of the object,
requirements for their attributes and specifically defined
digitisation rules.
The important role of GCPs on increasing the accuracy
of the obtained orthophoto is also demonstrated here.
As reported, the geolocation accuracy without external
GCPs is relatively low. This can be resolved through the
Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
collection of additional high-quality GCPs in the field,
which require extra time for collection and insertion in
the software. Therefore, UAVs are currently more suitable
for map updating projects over a limited study area and
incremental map updating. However, rapid developments
in both UAV platforms, increasing the area covered per
flight and improving the accuracies of the on-board
GNSS (Gerke and Przybilla 2016), as well as photogram-
metric software will likely facilitate the processing of lar-
ger projects in the foreseeable future.
Acknowledgement
The authors express their gratitude to ITC (https://www.
itc.nl/) which financed the UAV image acquisition,
Rwanda Natural Resources Authority and the support
of the officials in the City of Kigali for their support.
We thank also Pix4D for providing us with the research
license of Pix4dmapper.
Notes on contributors
Mila Koeva is an Assistant Professor working in 3D Land
Information. She holds a PhD in 3D modelling in archi-
tectural photogrammetry from the University of Univer-
sity of Architecture, Civil engineering and Geodesy in
Sofia. She also holds an MSc. degree in Engineering
(Geodesy) from the same institution obtained in 2001.
Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361 323
Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
After her work in Municipality company GIS-Sofia Ltd.
and later on in the private company Mapex JSC., combin-
ing multidisciplinary approach for cadastre needs, she
moved to University of Twente at the faculty of Geo-
Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
where she was teaching topics of Photogrammetry and
Remote sensing. Her main areas of expertise include 3D
modelling and visualisation, 3D Cadastre, 3D Land
Information, UAV, digital photogrammetry, image pro-
cessing, large-scale topographic and cadastral maps,
GIS, application of satellite imagery among others. She
is co-chair of the ISPRS working group WG IV/10:
Advanced geospatial applications for digital cities and
regions.
Muneza Jean Maurice is currently working as photo-
grammetrist in Rwanda Natural Resources Authority.
He obtained his Bsc. degree in 2010 at National Univer-
sity of Rwanda and later on in 2014 his Master’s degree
in Environmental studies at the Open University of Tan-
zania. In 2015, he successfully obtained his second Mas-
ter’s degree in Geoinformatics at Faculty of Geo-
Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) of
the University of Twente. His main interests are in photo-
grammetry, surveying, disaster and humanitarian relief,
economic empowerment, science and technology.
Caroline M. Gevaert is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree
at the Faculty ITC, University of Twente in the Nether-
lands. The objective of the research is to investigate how
UAVs may be useful for informal settlement mapping.
Her research interests span a wide range of topics from
image and point cloud feature extraction methods to
advanced machine learning techniques, as well as the
potential societal impact and ethics of the use of UAVs
in this context. She previously received an M.Sc. degree
in Remote Sensing from the University of Valencia
(Spain) and an M.Sc. degree in Geographic Information
Science from Lund University (Sweden).
Markus Gerke has been an Assistant Professor since 2007
in the Department of Earth Observation Science (EOS) at
the University of Twente. He specialises in geometric and
semantic information extraction from airborne image
sequences, photogrammetry and 3D modelling. He
obtained Master’s and PhD degrees at the Leibniz Uni-
versity of Hannover, and contributes to projects, including
projects funded nationally and by the European Commis-
sion, on 3D topography, virtual city modelling, use of un-
calibrated airborne imagery and close-range photogram-
metry. He is the co-chair of the ISPRS working group
II/4 on ‘3D Scene Reconstruction and Analysis’ and PI
and Co-PI of two well-recognised benchmark tests in
the field of photogrammetry and remote sensing.
Francesco Nex received his master’s degree in Environ-
mental Engineering (2006) and his PhD degree (2010)
from the TU Turin (Italy). From 2011 to 2015, he was
with the 3DOM unit of FBK (Italy) working as Marie-
Curie Post-Doc in the CIEM Project from 2011 to 2014
and then as Researcher. In 2015, Francesco moved to
the University of Twente, where he is currently Assistant
Professor at the faculty of Geo-Information Science and
Earth Observation (ITC), department of EOS. His main
research interests are in the use of UAV platforms and
oblique imagery as well as the automation in the feature
extraction from these data. He is currently involved in
324 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361
three European research projects dealing with UAV ima-
gery. He is the Chairman of the ICWG I/II (UAVs: sensors
and applications) of the ISPRS and he was the PI of the
ISRPS scientific initiative on the integration of UAVs
and oblique imagery.
References
Agüera, F., Carvajal, F., and Pérez, M., 2011. Measuring sunflower nitro-
gen status from an unmanned aerial vehicle-based system and an on
the ground device. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XXVIII-1/C2, 33–37.
Alexandrov, A., et al., 2004a. Application of QuickBird satellite imagery
for updating cadastral information. The International Archives of
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, XXXVPart B2, 386–391.
Alexandrov, A., et al., 2004b. Application of satellite imagery for revision
of topographic map of Sofia. In 4th International PHOTOMOD
users conference (Proceedings), Minsk, pp. 3–10.
Ali, Z., Tuladhar, A., and Zevenbergen, J., 2012. An integrated approach
for updating cadastral maps in Pakistan using satellite remote sen-
sing data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation, 18, 386–398.
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS),
2015. ASPRS positional accuracy standards for digital geospatial
data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 81 (3),
1–26.
Awad, M.M., 2013. A morphological model for extracting road networks
from high-resolution satellite images. Journal of Engineering, 2013,
1–9.
Babawuro, U. and Beiji, Z., 2012. Satellite imagery cadastral features
extractions using image processing algorithms: a viable option for
cadastral science. International Journal of Computer Science
Issues, 9 (4(2)), 30–38.
Baker, S., et al., 2010. Removing rolling shutter wobble. In: 2010 IEEE
conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR),
pp. 2392–2399.
Barazzetti, L., Scaioni, M., and Remondino, F., 2010. Orientation and
3D modelling from markerless terrestrial images: combining accu-
racy with automation. The Photogrammetric Record, 25 (132),
356–381.
Barnes, G., et al., 2014. Drones for peace : Part 1 of 2 design and testing
of a UAV-based cadastral surveying and mapping methodology in
Albania. In: World bank conference on land and poverty,
Washington DC, USA, 24–27 March 2014.
Biasion, A., Dequal, S. and Lingua, A., 2004. A New procedure for the
automatic production of true orthophotos. The International
Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences, 35, 1682–1777.
Chiabrando, F., et al., 2011. UAV and RPV systems for photogrammetric
surveys in archaeological areas: two tests in the piedmont region
(Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science, 38 (3), 697–710.
Choi, K. and Lee, I., 2011. A UAV based close-range rapid aerial moni-
toring system for emergency responses. ISPRS – International
Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences, XXXVIII-1/C22, 247–252.
Colomina, I. and Molina, P., 2014. Unmanned aerial systems for photo-
grammetry and remote sensing: a review. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 92, 79–97.
Costa, F.G., et al., 2012. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles and wireless
sensor network in agricultural applications. In: IEEE international
geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), Munich,
Germany, 22–27 July 2012.
Cramer, M., et al., 2013. On the use of RPAS in national mapping—The
EUROSDR point of view. ISPRS – International archives of the
photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences,
XL-1/W2, 93–99.
Cunningham, K., et al., 2011. Cadastral audit and assessments using
unmanned aerial systems.’ In: UAV-g: conference on unmanned
aerial vehicle in geomatics. Zurich, Switzerland, 14–16 September
2011.
Delacourt, C., et al., 2009. DRELIO: an unmanned helicopter for ima-
ging coastal areas. Journal of Coastal Research, 56 (SI), 1489–1493.
Dolan, A.M. and Ii, R.M.T., 2013. Integration of drones into domestic
airspace : selected legal issues. Current Politics and Economics of
the United States, Canada and Mexico, 15 (1), 107–137.

Eisenbeiss, H., 2009. UAV photogrammetry. Ph.D. Thesis. Institut für
Geodesie und Photogrammetrie, ETH-Zürich. Zürich, Switzerland.
Eugster, H. and Nebiker, S., 2007. Geo-registration of video sequences
captured from Mini UAVs approaches and accuracy assessment.
In: The 5th international symposium on mobile mapping technology.
Padua, Italy, 29–31 May, 2007.
Furukawa, Y. and Ponce, J. 2010. Accurate, dense, and robust multiview
stereopsis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence, 32 (8), 1362–1376.
Gerke, M. and Przybilla, H.J., 2016. Accuracy analysis of photogram-
metric UAV image blocks: influence of onboard RTK-GNSS and
cross flight patterns. Photogrammetrie - Fernerkundung -
Geoinformation, 2016 (1), 17–30.
Grenzdörffer, G.J. and Niemeyer, F., 2011. UAV based BRDF-measure-
ments of agricultural surfaces with pfiffikus. International Archives
of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, 38 (1/C22), 229–234.
Gruen, A., Baltsavias, E., and Henricsson, O., eds., 2012. Automatic
extraction of man-made objects from aerial and space images (II).
Boston: Birkhäuser.
Grundmann, M., et al., 2012. Calibration-free rolling shutter removal.
In: 2012 IEEE international conference on computational photogra-
phy (ICCP), Seattle, pp. 1–8.
Haitao, X. and Lei, T., 2010. Method for automatic georeferencing aerial
remote sensing (RS) images from an unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) platform. Biosystems Engineering, 108 (2), 104–113.
Heipke, C., Woodsford, P. A., and Gerke, M., 2008. Updating geospatial
databases from images. In: Advances in photogrammetry, remote
sensing and spatial information sciences: 2008 ISPRS congress
book. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 355–362.
Herold, M., Goldstein, N.C., and Clarke, K.C., 2003. The spatiotem-
poral form of urban growth: measurement, analysis and modeling.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 86 (3), 286–302.
Horkaew, P., Puttinaovarat, S., and Khaimook, K., 2015. River bound-
ary delineation from remote sensed imagery based on SVM and
relaxation labeling of water index and DSM. Journal of Theoretical
and Applied Information Technology, 71 (3), 376–386.
Hirschmuller, H., 2008. Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and
mutual information. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence, 30 (2), 328–341.
Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution for
Sustainable Development, 2014. A world that counts: mobilizing
the data revolution for sustainable development. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/A-
World-That-Counts2.pdf> [Accessed 19 April 2016].
Kraft, T., et al., 2016. Introduction of a photogrammetric camera system
for rpas with highly accurate gnss/imu information for standardized
workflows. ISPRS – International Archives of the Photogrammetry,
Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XL-3/W4, 71–75.
Küng, O., et al., 2012. The accuracy of automatic photogrammetric tech-
niques on ultra-light Uav imagery. In: UAV-g: conference on
unmanned aerial vehicle in geomatics. Zurich, Switzerland, 14–16
September 2011.
Liu, H., and Jezek, K. C., 2004. Automated extraction of coastline from
satellite imagery by integrating canny edge detection and locally
adaptive thresholding methods. International Journal of Remote
Sensing, 25 (5), 937–958.
Lucieer, A., et al., 2012. Using a micro-UAV for ultra-high resolution
multi-sensor observations of Antarctic moss beds. ISPRS –
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing
and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXIX-B1, 429–433.
Madzharova, T., et al., 2008. Mapping from high resolution data in GIS
SOFIA Ltd. ISPRS 2008: proceedings of the XXI congress: silk
road for information from imagery: the international society for
Koeva et al. Using UAVs for map creation and updating
photogrammetry and remote sensing, 3–11 July, Beijing, China.
Comm. IV, WG IV/9. Beijing: ISPRS, 2008. pp. 1409–1412.
Manyoky, M., et al., 2011. Unmanned aerial vehicle in cadastral appli-
cations. In: UAV-g: conference on unmanned aerial vehicle in geo-
matics. Zurich, Switzerland, 14–16 September 2011.
Molina, P., et al., 2012. Drones to the rescue! unmanned aerial search
missions based on thermal imaging and reliable navigation. Inside
GNSS, 7, 36–47.
Mourafetis, G., et al., 2015. Enhancing cadastral surveys by facilitating
the participation of owners. Survey Review, 47 (344), 316–324.
Nex, F. and Remondino, F., 2014. UAV for 3D mapping applications: a
review. Applied Geomatics, 6 (1), 1–15.
NLeSC, 2016. Improving open-source photogrammetric workflows for pro-
cessing big datasets. [online] Available at: <https://www.
esciencecenter.nl/project/improving-open-source-photogrammetric-
workflows-for-processing-big-datasets> [Accessed 18 April 2016].
Ottichilo, W. and Khamala, E. 2002. Map updating using high resolution
satelite imagery – A case of the kingdom of Swaziland.
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 34
(6/W6), 89–92.
Remondino, F., et al., 2011. UAV photogrammetry for mapping and 3d
modeling–current status and future perspectives. International
Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences, XXXVIII-1/C22 UAV-g 2011, 25–31.
Remondino, F., et al., 2014. State of the art in high density image match-
ing. The photogrammetric record, 29 (146), 144–166.
Rinaudo, F., et al., 2012. Archaeological site monitoring: UAV photo-
grammetry can be an answer. ISPRS – International Archives of
the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, XXXIX-B5, 583–588.
Rothermel, M., et al., 2012. SURE: photogrammetric surface reconstruc-
tion from imagery. In Proceedings LC3D workshop, Berlin (Vol. 8).
Skarlatos, D., et al., 2013. Accuracy assessment of minimum control
points for UAV photography and georeferencing. In: First inter-
national conference on remote sensing and geoinformation of the
environment (RSCy2013). Paphos, Cyprus, 8–10 April 2013.
Strecha, C., et al., 2015. Quality assessment of 3D reconstruction
using fisheye and perspective sensors. ISPRS Annals of
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, II-3/W4, 215.
Turner, D., Lucieer, A., and Watson, C., 2012. An automated technique
for generating georectified mosaics from ultra-high resolution
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery, based on structure from
motion (SFM) point clouds. Remote Sensing, 4 (5), 1392–1410.
Van der Molen, P. 2015. Rapid urbanisation and slum upgrading: what
can land surveyors do? Survey Review, 47 (343), 231–240.
Vautherin, J., et al., 2016. Photogrammetric accuracy and modeling of
rolling shutter cameras. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry,
Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, III-3, 139–146.
Vetrivel, A., et al., 2015. Identification of damage in buildings based on
gaps in 3D point clouds from very high resolution oblique airborne
images. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing, 105,
61–78.
Watts, A.C. Ambrosia, V.G., and Hinkley, E.A., 2012. Unmanned air-
craft systems in remote sensing and scientific research: classification
and considerations of use. Remote Sensing, 4 (6), 1671–1692.
Wenzel, K., Rothermel, M., and Fritsch, D. 2013. SURE–The ifp soft-
ware for dense image matching. Photogrammetric Week’13.
Belin: Wichmann/VDE Verlag.
Zarco-Tejada, P. and Berni, J., 2012. Vegetation monitoring using a
micro-hyperspectral imaging sensor onboard an unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV). In: Proceedings of the EuroCOW 2012, European
spatial data research (EuroSDR), Castelldefels, Spain, 8–10
February 2012.
Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 361 325