Sara,+707 720 - 31860 88667 1 CE

e-ISSN : 2657-2664, Vol.
5, Issue 4, September 2022”

https://revues.imist.ma/index.php/AJLP-GS/index
https://doi.org/10.48346/IMIST.PRSM/ajlp-gs.v5i4.31860 Category of the manuscript : Articles

Received in: April 11 , 2022
th rd
Revised in: July 3 , 2022 Accepted in: August 30th, 2022
THE USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES FOR CADASTRAL MAPPING IN

GHANA:
Assessing the Effect of Varying Sensor Types, Flying Height, Image Overlap and Ground
Control Point Density
1Mark Brookman-Amissah, 2Bernard Kumi-Boateng, 3Saviour Mantey, 4Nana Asiedu Boamah

ABSTRACT
1Accra Technical University,
In Ghana the predominant method for performing cadastral surveys is through
mbamissah@atu.edu.gh1, the use of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) static surveys and to a lesser
Accra, Ghana. extent Total Stations. This work investigates the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAV) for performing cadastral surveys and investigate the effects of varying
2 University
of Mines and sensor types, flying height, image overlap and number of ground control points in
the acquisition of imagery for producing acceptable cadastral maps for use in
Technology, bkumi-
Ghana.
boateng@umat.edu.gh2,
Tarkwa, Ghana Goal and Objectives:
The main aim of this study is therefore to assess some defining parameters for the
3 University
of Mines and use of UAV surveys for cadastral mapping and hence suggest some guidelines for
the geomatic community in Ghana. The objectives of this work are : i/to determine
Technology,
in generic terms UAV types that are appropriate for cadastral mapping in Ghana,
smantey@umat.edu.gh3, ii/to identify some threshold flight parameters necessary for obtaining desirable
Tarkwa, Ghana accuracies for cadastral mapping from UAV data, and iii/to investigate the optimal
number of ground control points necessary for accurate cadastral mapping work.
4Accra
Technical University, Methodology:
naboamah@atu.edu.gh4,
A quantitative method was adopted where two sources of primary data were used.
Accra, Ghana The control dataset was obtained by using static GNSS methods to obtain the
boundary coordinates of the 20-acre study area. This control data was compared
to 20 different data sets of boundary coordinates obtained from UAV imagery
resulting from a permutation of different UAV types, varying flight heights,
forward/side overlap and number of GCPs used for georefencing.
Results:
Optimal results were achieved when georeferenced with 8 Ground Control Points
(GCPs) with average Root Mean Square Error (RMSEX) and RMSEY values of 1.106
ft and 0.828 ft respectively. There was no marked improvement in increasing
GCP's to 12 thus a minimum of 1 GCP per 2.5 acres is suggested for georeferencing
to achieve the ± 3 ft required tolerance stipulated by Surveying and Mapping
Division of Ghana. The results suggest that UAVs with sensor resolutions of at
least 12 mega-pixels (MP) operating with parameters that result in images with
ground sample distances (GSD) of 0.0646ft/pixel or better are suitable.
Additionally, maintaining a minimum forward lap of 70% is adequate for
obtaining imagery for cadastral mapping in Ghana.
Keywords:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Global Navigation Satellite Systems, Ground
Control Points, Orthomosaics, Root Mean Square Error, Ground Sample
Distance
African Journal on Land Policy and Geospatial Sciences ISSN:2657-2664, Vol.6 Issue 4 (September 2022)
707
AJLP&GS, e-ISSN: 2657-2664, Vol.5 Issue 4, https://doi.org/10.48346/IMIST.PRSM/ajlp-gs.v5i4.31860
1. INTRODUCTION
Ghana is located in West Africa along the Gulf of Guinea and the Atlantic Ocean specifically between
latitudes 4°30'00" N and 11° N and longitudes 3°15'00" W and 1°12'00" W (Oppong and Oppong,
2009) with the total area of land and inland waters being 238,539 square kilometres (Anon, 1999
and Gocking, 2005).
The regulation and practice of land surveying and mapping in Ghana is one of the functions of the
Lands Commission of Ghana established by article 258 of the 1992 Constitution and the Lands
Commission Act, 2008, (Act 767). With respect to cadastral mapping and production, Section 20 of
the Lands Commission Act (Act 767) states the functions of the Survey and Mapping Division of the
Lands Commission as follows: Supervise, regulate and control the survey and demarcation of land
for the purposes of land use and land registration and take custody of and preserve records and
operations relating to the survey of any parcel of land (“Organizational Structure-Lands
Commission”).
In spite of the global emergence and use of Unmanned Aerial System Technology as a cheaper and
faster alternative for capturing and producing spatial data in the area of land administration (Kelm
2014, Barnes et al 2014, Ramadhani 2016, Mumbone 2015) as well as the fact that UAV applications
have been found to achieve desirable positional accuracy for cadastral mapping in other jurisdictions
(Manyoky et al, 2011, Zrijinski et al, 2019, Yuwono et al, 2018, Ramadhani 2016), the predominant
technique used for cadastral surveys in Ghana is either by static Global Navigation Satellite Systems
(GNSS) or Total Station methods or a combination of both.
Mantey and Tagoe (2019) has found the use of UAV’s to be suitable for performing cadastral surveys
in Ghana. The work however used one kind of UAV/sensor (i.e. Phantom 4 +/ Vision 4000 Camera)
and did not test other parameters that are known to affect the quality and accuracy of UAV data for
survey and mapping purposes.
The main aim of this study is therefore to assess some defining parameters for the use of UAV surveys
for cadastral surveying and propose some guidelines for the geomatic community in Ghana. The
objectives of this work are as follows:
i. To determine in generic terms UAV types that are appropriate for cadastral mapping in Ghana
ii. To identify some threshold flight parameters necessary for obtaining desirable accuracies for
cadastral mapping from UAV data
iii. To investigate the optimal number of ground control points necessary for accurate cadastral
mapping work
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Study Area
The study area (Figure 1) is approximately twenty (20) acres in size and currently the Accra/Tudu
Campus of Accra Technical University bounded by latitudes 005°33'20.16"N and 005°33' 05.4"N and
longitudes 000°12'29.16"W and 000°12'19.8"W. The site was chosen for ease of access by research
708
team and also because it has a total of twenty-nine (29) boundary turning points thereby allowing a
comparison of several coordinate pairs between coordinates derived from GNSS and those derived
by UAV. The size of this site is the equivalent of over one hundred (100) plots considering the fact
that by convention the average plot size in Ghana is approximately 0.16 acres. The observations made
and results obtained can therefore be assumed to mimic a scenario where a UAV has been used to
perform cadastral mapping for a hundred or more contiguous plots with visible boundaries.
Figure 1. Study area (shown in red outline).

2.2 Static GNSS Survey
Trimble GPS R8 Model 2 (Figure 2) receivers with a capability of achieving 8 mm horizontal and 15
mm vertical precision, static GNSS survey techniques were used to obtain coordinates of all 29
boundary turning points in addition to 12 easily identifiable ground control points. These surveyed
points were processed using a combination of three (3) government approved, continuously
operating reference stations (CORS) which are used by licensed surveyors for work within the
709
Greater Accra Region. Table 1 shows the station names and coordinates of the three (3) government
approved CORS.
Figure 2. Trimble R8 Model 2

(courtesy precision-geosystems.com)
REFERENCE NORTHING(X) EASTING(Y)

(Feet) (Feet)
SGGA.EX/2019/1 333465.499 1199646.418
SGGA.C2600/17/4
363758.812 1199747.92
SGGA.C2600/17/6 364495.947 1199762.427
Table 1: Government control points in Ghana (Grid Coordinate System -Feet)
2.3 UAV Survey

Three different UAVs namely, Phantom 3 Pro, Phantom 4 Pro and Mavic 2 Pro with sensor resolutions
of 12.4 and 20 megapixels respectively were used for this research. They were chosen because
similar work had been done to establish a generic workflow for cadastral mapping using a Mavic Air
UAV equipped with a 12 megapixel sensor and operating with parameters to obtain images with a
GSD of at least 0.0685 ft/pixel (Brookman-Amissah et al, 2021).
Table 2 shows some selected specifications for the UAVs used for this work. The following
parameters - flying heights, image overlap, flight control software in addition to the number of
ground control points used for image rectification were varied to assess their impact. With regards
to overlap, Wolf et al, 2014, recommends between 55 to 65 % fore/end lap as well as a side lap of
approximately 30% for taking aerial photographs for photogrammetric work. One of the flight
control software employed for the work, Pix4D does not allow users to capture UAV imagery at a
lower value than 70% forward lap. This is to compensate for platform instability and variations in
baseline and to ensure better matching. The other software used - Drone Deploy strongly
recommends a value of 70% even though users are at liberty to use lower values depending on the
710
use of the imagery acquired. In all there were five (5) different test flights/scenarios, details of which
are summarized in Table 3.
2.4 Image Processing and Georeferencing
Agisoft Metashape Professional software was used for the processing the images obtained with the
software going through the various processes of 1) aligning photos, 2) building dense clouds 3)
importing ground control points 4) building meshes 5) building tiles models 6) building digital
elevation models and finally 7) building orthomosaics -with total of twelve (12) ground control
points used for georeferencing. For every set of images/flight, four (4) separate georeferenced
orthomosaics were created and georeferenced using zero, four, eight and twelve GCP’s respectively.
This was done to determine the optimal number of GCP’s required to achieve the desired accuracy
for preparing cadastral maps and Figure 3 shows the spatial distribution of the GCP’s. Table 4 shows
the summary of root mean square errors (RMSE) obtained for four, eight and twelve GCP’s after the
georeferencing process as well as ground resolutions. When no GCPs are used the resulting
orthophoto is georeferenced based solely on the navigational GPS data used to align and position
images. These XY error values and ground resolution in ft/pixel are as reported in processing report
generated by Agisoft Metashape Professional.
Front Flight
UAV Flight
UAV Type Test Overlap/ Side Control
Type Height
Overlap Software
General Phantom Phantom Mavic 2 1 Phantom 50 m 70% / 63% Pix 4D
Specification 3 Pro 4 Pro Pro 3 Pro
Diagonal Size 350 mm 350 mm 214 mm 2 Phantom 50 m 70% / 63% Pix 4D
(Propellors 4 Pro
excluded)
1280 g 1388 g 907 g 3 Phantom 50 m 75%/ 65 % Drone
Weight 4 Pro Deploy
(Batteries and
Propellors
Included)
Maximum 16 m/s 20 m/s 20 m/s 4 Phantom 70 m 70% / 63% Pix 4D
Speed 4 Pro
Sensor 12.4MP 20 MP 20 MP 5 Mavic 2 70 m 75%/ 65 % Drone
Resolution Pro Deploy
Focal Length 20 mm 24 mm 28 mm
Field of View 94° 84° 78.8°
Table 2: UAV Specifications Table 3: Summary of flight scenarios
711
Figure 3. Locations of natural ground control points
Table 4: RMSE of Ground Control Points (XY feet) and Ground Resolution (from Agisoft
Metashape Professional image processing report)
712
2.5 On Screen Digitizing and Extraction of Boundary Turning Pont Coordinates
The visible boundaries of the study area as seen in the various orthomosaics were digitized on-screen
and saved in shapefile format within the ArcGIS Software environment. The vertices of these digitized
boundaries corresponding to the boundary turning points, as would have been obtained from a static
GNSS survey. Even though Crommelinck et al (2017) and Fetai et al 2019 outline processes for
automatic delineation of boundaries from orthoimages, these methods do not provide total
completeness and require an appreciable amount of manual intervention and verification. The on-
screen digitizing therefore provides a good approach especially when boundaries are clearly defined
and visible as was the case for the study area. Once on-screen digitizing of the boundary was
completed the Feature Vertices to Points feature within the ArcToolbox extension was used to extract
X and Y coordinates of the boundary turning points. These coordinates were then imported as
attributes using the Add XY Coordinates feature also in the ArcToolbox extension.
Figure 4. Flow-chart of digitizing and boundary coordinate extraction process
713
2.6 Accuracy Checks
Root-mean-square error (RMSE) is used to estimate positional accuracy and is the square root of the
average of the set of squared differences between dataset coordinate values and coordinate values
from an independent source of higher accuracy for identical points. Equations 1 and 2 below was
used to calculate the RMSE in the X and Y direction (“ASPRS Geospatial Positional Accuracy Standards
for Digital Geospatial Data”, 2014) and (Agüera-Vega et al, 2017).
n
1
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑋 = √n ∑ (Xi(map) − Xi(surveyed) )2 (1)
i=1
n
1
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑌 = √n ∑ (Yi(map) − Yi(surveyed) )2 (2)
i=1
Where Xi(map) (or Yi(map)) is the coordinate of the ith check point in the data set, Xi(surveyed) (or Yi(surveyed))
is the coordinate of the ith check point in the independent source of higher accuracy, n is the number
of checkpoints tested and i is an integer ranging from 1 to n. For this study, Xi(map) (or Yi(map)) values
were the digitized boundary coordinates whiles Xi(surveyed) (or Yi(surveyed)) values were the static GNSS
coordinates of the boundary turning points.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter shows samples of static GNSS survey, orthomosaics, digitized maps, tables showing
coordinate differences and RMSEX and Y values calculated from the coordinate differences between
GNSS derived coordinates and those obtained from digitizing visible boundaries from the various
orthomosaics.
714
Table 5: Static GNSS Boundary Turning Point Coordinates
Figure 5. Sample Orthomosaic (Mavic 2Pro) Figure 6. Sample Digitized Map
715
Table 6: Sample Coordinate Difference
Table 7: Summary of Coordinate Difference Averages
716
Table 8: RMSE Values for Boundary Turning Points

As a result of the different permutations involving different UAV types, varying flight heights, forward
overlap and number of GCP’s used for georeferencing, a total of twenty (20) separate boundary
coordinate data sets were obtained. These coordinates were compared to boundary coordinate data
obtained from static GNSS coordinate data. The following discussion proposes some minimum
threshold values and parameters that can serve as a guide for surveyors towards the adoption of UAV
imagery for cadastral surveys in Ghana.
i. A UAV with a camera having a sensor resolution of at least 12 megapixels (MP) with
appropriate focal length and operating at altitudes resulting in imagery with GSDs of 0.0646
ft/pixel or better, is suitable for obtaining imagery for cadastral mapping in Ghana, though
others like Barry and Oakley (2013) recommend higher resolution sensors like 24MP to
match Real Time Kinematic (RTK) surveys.
ii. There does not appear to be much of a difference in image quality obtained at a flying height
of 50 m (approximately 160 ft) and 70 m (approximately 230 ft). The choice of flying height
should therefore be guided more by obstacles and set to the lowest possible value to increase
the likelihood of obtaining sharper images, as UAVs are less likely to be affected by strong
winds. The maximum flying height of 400 feet (approximately 120 m) should be borne in mind
as specified in the Ghana Civil Aviation, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Directives, Part 28,
of November 2018. Ground resolution was found to increase marginally in the range of
hundredths of a foot, with an increase in flying height from 50 to 70 m. Udin and Hamad
(2014) in assessing the accuracy of photogrammetric maps while varying flying heights
ranging from 40 to 100 metres establishes a direct relationship between the root mean square
error (RMSE) values and flying height.
iii. There was no significant difference in results obtained from a 70% image overlap and 75%
overlap. It is worth noting that the Pix4D flight control software does not allow users to go
717
below a value of 70% while the Drone Deploy software recommends to users the need to use
a minimum forward overlap value of 70%.
iv. Coordinate differences obtained from georeferencing with eight (8) and then twelve (12)
GCPs are consistently smaller as compared to those from zero (0) and four (4) GCPs. More
importantly the coordinate differences from the datasets obtained from georeferencing with
8 and 12 GCP’s are generally well under the threshold value of ± 3 ft stipulated by the Survey
and Mapping Division of the Lands Commission. There was however no marked difference
between coordinate differences obtained from georeferencing with 8 GCPs and then 12 GCPs.
The conclusion therefore is that no clear advantage could be seen by increasing the number
of GCP’s from 8 to 12. An optimal number of 8 GCPs for a 20-acre parcel is therefore suggested.
This further suggests at least 1 GCP per 2.5 acres for plots exceeding 20 acres. Calculated
RMSEX values ranged from 0.642 to 1.712 ft with RMSEY values ranging from 0.413 to 1.596
ft after georeferencing with 8 GCP's. Georeferencing with 12 GCPs yielded calculated RMSE X
values ranging from 0.747 to 1.762 ft and RMSEY values ranged from 0.425 to 1.268 ft. (See
Table 8)
v. The differences in the RMSE values in Table 8, for the same number of GCPs can be attributed
partly to the different UAV camera resolutions, focal lengths and flying heights which are
factors known to affect the ground resolution of the imagery. Additionally, the UAV weight
and hence the stability as well as blurring and noise due to weather conditions are also known
to affect spatial resolution of imagery (Pyung-Chae et al, 2018).
4. CONCLUSION
The study uses data from three multi-rotor UAVs, namely Phantom 3 Pro, Phantom 4 Pro and Mavic
2 Pro, and shows that under the parameters and conditions specified they can be employed to
produce cadastral maps that meet the accuracy specifications stipulated by the Surveying and
Mapping Division of the Lands Commission of Ghana. It must be noted however that the cadastral
boundaries that are extracted from imagery must be clearly visible to achieve the desired results.
5. FUNDING
SELF FUNDED
6. REFERENCES
Anon, (1999), “National Land Policy”, Ministry of Lands and Forestry, pp 5.
“ASPRS Geospatial Positional Accuracy Standards for Digital Geospatial Data”, 2014,
https://www.asprs.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/ASPRS_Positional_Accuracy_Standards_Edition1_Version100_Novem
ber2014.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2022
Agüera-Vega, F., Carvajal-Ramírez, F. and Martínez-Carricondo, P. (2017), “Assessment of
photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation ground control points number using
unmanned aerial vehicle”, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement
Confederation, Vol. 98, pp. 221–227.
Barnes, G., Volkmann, W., Sherko, R., & Kelm, K. (2014). “Drones for Peace: Part 1 of 2: Design and
Testing of a UAV-based Cadastral Surveying and Mapping Methodology in Albania” Annual World
718
Bank Conference on Land and Poverty: Integrating Land Governance into the Post 2015 Agenda:
Harnessing Synergies for Implementation and Monitoring Impact. Washington DC, pp. 1-28.
Barry, P. and Coakley, R., (2013), “Accuracy of UAV Photogrammetry Compared with Network
RTK GNSS”, International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. XL-
1/W2, pp. 27-28.
Brookman-Amissah, M., Mantey, S., Kumi-Boateng, B., Aikins, B., & Masoud, A. (2021). “Developing a
Workflow for the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Cadastral Mapping in Ghana” Journal of
Environment and Earth Science, ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online) Vol.11, No.2,
2021
Crommelinck, S., Höfle, B., Koeva, M. N., Yang, M. Y., & Vosselman, G. (2018). “Interactive Cadastral
Boundary Delineation From UAV Data”, ISPRS TC II Mid-term Symposium Towards
Photogrammetry 2020. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences. Volume IV-2. Riva del Garda, Italy, pp1-8.
Fetai, B., Oštir, K., Fras, M. K., & Lisec, A. (2019). “Extraction of Visible Boundaries for Cadastral
Mapping Based on UAV Imagery”, www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing,
doi:10.3390/rs11131510, pp 1-20.
Gocking, R., (2005), “The History of Ghana”, Greenwood Publishing Group, pp 1
Kelm, K., Tonchovska, R., & Volkmann, W. (2014). “Drones for Peace: Part 2 of 2- Fast and Inexpensive
Spatial Data Capture for Multi-Purpose Use.” Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty:
Integrating Land Governance into the Post 2015 Agenda. Harnessing Synergies for
Implementation and Monitoring Impact. Washington DC, pp. 1-26.
Mantey, S., and Tagoe, N. D. (2019), “Suitability of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Cadastral Surveys”,
Ghana Mining Journal 19 (1), 1-8.
Manyoky, M., Theiler, P., Steudler, D., & Eisenbeiss, H. (2011), “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Cadastral
Applications” International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences 38 (1/C22), 4-5. 2011 ISPRS Zurich Workshop, September 14-16, Zurich,
Switzerland
Mumbone, M. (2015). “Innovations in Boundary Mapping: Namibia, Customary Land and UAV’s”.
Master’s Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation,
University of Twente, pp 44-45.
“Organizational Structure-Lands Commission.” Lands Commission-To Become a Center of Excellence
for Land Delivery Services, https://www.lc.gov.gh/about-us/organizational-
structure/surveying-mapping-division-smd/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022
Pyung-Chae, L., Taejung, K., Sang-Il, N., Kyung-Do, L., Ho-Yong A., Jaeyoung H., (2018). “Analysis of
UAV image Quality using Edge Analysis”, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry,
Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018 ISPRS TC IV Mid-term
Symposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The
Netherlands
Udin, W. S., & Ahmad, A. (2014). “Assessment of Photogrammetric Mapping Accuracy Based on
Variation Flying Altitude Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle”. 8th International Symposium of the
Digital Earth (ISDE8). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Volume 18-1.
719
Wolf, P.R., Dewitt B.A., & Wilkinson, B (2014), “Elements of Photogrammetry with Applications in
GIS”, (4th Ed.) McGraw Hill, (pp6).
Yuwono, B.D., Suprayogi, A., Azeriansyah, R., & Nukita, D. (2018), “UAV Photogrammetry Based on
GNSS CORS UDIP to Enhance Cadastral Surveying and Monitoring Urban Development (Case
Study: Ngresep Semarang)”, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 165 (2018)
012031, 1-11 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/165/1/012031.
Zrinjski, M., Barković, D., Tupek A., & Kober, S. (2019), “Accuracy Analysis of the Applicability of UAV’s
in Cadastral Surveys” 7th International Conference, Contemporary Achievements in Civil
Engineering, April 23-24, Subotica, Serbia, 9.
7. KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Global Navigation Satellite System: refers to a constellation of satellites providing signals from
space that transmit positioning and timing data to GNSS receivers.
Ground Control Point: are places on the ground that have a precise known location associated
with them and can be easily identified in the imagery. They may be artificial or natural.
Orthomosaic: is a large image, having the characteristics of a map with high detail and resolution
obtained by combining many smaller images.
Root Mean Square Error: estimates positional accuracy and is the square root of the average of
the set of squared differences between dataset coordinate values and coordinate values from an
independent source of higher accuracy for identical points
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without any human pilot,
crew, or passengers on board. It may be equipped for a sensor or camera for obtaining imagery.
Ground Sample Distance: is a metric used in drone mapping and surveying projects and is defined
as the distance between the venters of two adjacent pixels measured on the ground.
720

Sara,+707 720 - 31860 88667 1 CE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sara,+707 720 - 31860 88667 1 CE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

e-ISSN : 2657-2664, Vol.

5, Issue 4, September 2022”

https://doi.org/10.48346/IMIST.PRSM/ajlp-gs.v5i4.31860 Category of the manuscript : Articles

THE USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES FOR CADASTRAL MAPPING IN

1Mark Brookman-Amissah, 2Bernard Kumi-Boateng, 3Saviour Mantey, 4Nana Asiedu Boamah

Figure 1. Study area (shown in red outline).

Figure 2. Trimble R8 Model 2

REFERENCE NORTHING(X) EASTING(Y)

SGGA.C2600/17/6 364495.947 1199762.427

Table 1: Government control points in Ghana (Grid Coordinate System -Feet)

2.3 UAV Survey

Figure 3. Locations of natural ground control points

Figure 4. Flow-chart of digitizing and boundary coordinate extraction process

Table 5: Static GNSS Boundary Turning Point Coordinates

Figure 5. Sample Orthomosaic (Mavic 2Pro) Figure 6. Sample Digitized Map

Table 6: Sample Coordinate Difference

Table 7: Summary of Coordinate Difference Averages

Table 8: RMSE Values for Boundary Turning Points

You might also like