Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysis
Mobile laser scanners are vital for intelligent transport infrastructure, capturing detailed 3D road representations, but their accuracy depends on factors like sensor positioning and environment. This study compares two van-mounted Mobile Laser Scanners (MLS): the dual head Lynx Mobile Mapper and t...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | European Journal of Remote Sensing |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/22797254.2024.2316304 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850247426248540160 |
|---|---|
| author | Rabia Rashdi Iván Garrido Jesús Balado Pablo Del Río-Barral Juan Luis Rodríguez-Somoza Joaquín Martínez-Sánchez |
| author_facet | Rabia Rashdi Iván Garrido Jesús Balado Pablo Del Río-Barral Juan Luis Rodríguez-Somoza Joaquín Martínez-Sánchez |
| author_sort | Rabia Rashdi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Mobile laser scanners are vital for intelligent transport infrastructure, capturing detailed 3D road representations, but their accuracy depends on factors like sensor positioning and environment. This study compares two van-mounted Mobile Laser Scanners (MLS): the dual head Lynx Mobile Mapper and the single head VUX-1 HA, along with the terrestrial laser scanner Faro Focus XX30. Using point cloud reference data from Faro Focus XX30 and GNSS data from Trimble R8, performance is assessed in road, urban, and semi-urban environments. Accuracy is measured by the difference between Trimble GNSS and MLS coordinates. Geometric features of each LiDAR are compared, and mapping tasks in road and urban areas are performed using a machine learning classifier. Results show the MLS-single head scanner achieves satisfactory accuracy in roads and semi-urban areas, while Faro performs better in urban settings for classification. MLS-single head excels in road environments, while Faro is superior in urban ones. This analysis aids researchers and professionals in selecting the appropriate mobile laser scanner for mapping transport infrastructure, providing valuable insights into MLS systems’ comparative performance across different environments. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9f621d08233744d6bd1ea94dc2b8fa80 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2279-7254 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Journal of Remote Sensing |
| spelling | doaj-art-9f621d08233744d6bd1ea94dc2b8fa802025-08-20T01:58:55ZengTaylor & Francis GroupEuropean Journal of Remote Sensing2279-72542024-12-0157110.1080/22797254.2024.2316304Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysisRabia Rashdi0Iván Garrido1Jesús Balado2Pablo Del Río-Barral3Juan Luis Rodríguez-Somoza4Joaquín Martínez-Sánchez5CINTECX, Applied Geotechnologies Group, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, SpainDefense University Center at the Spanish Naval Academy, Marín, SpainCINTECX, Applied Geotechnologies Group, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, SpainCINTECX, Applied Geotechnologies Group, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, SpainCINTECX, Applied Geotechnologies Group, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, SpainCINTECX, Applied Geotechnologies Group, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, SpainMobile laser scanners are vital for intelligent transport infrastructure, capturing detailed 3D road representations, but their accuracy depends on factors like sensor positioning and environment. This study compares two van-mounted Mobile Laser Scanners (MLS): the dual head Lynx Mobile Mapper and the single head VUX-1 HA, along with the terrestrial laser scanner Faro Focus XX30. Using point cloud reference data from Faro Focus XX30 and GNSS data from Trimble R8, performance is assessed in road, urban, and semi-urban environments. Accuracy is measured by the difference between Trimble GNSS and MLS coordinates. Geometric features of each LiDAR are compared, and mapping tasks in road and urban areas are performed using a machine learning classifier. Results show the MLS-single head scanner achieves satisfactory accuracy in roads and semi-urban areas, while Faro performs better in urban settings for classification. MLS-single head excels in road environments, while Faro is superior in urban ones. This analysis aids researchers and professionals in selecting the appropriate mobile laser scanner for mapping transport infrastructure, providing valuable insights into MLS systems’ comparative performance across different environments.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/22797254.2024.2316304LiDARrandom forestterrestrial laser scanninggeometric featuresGNSS |
| spellingShingle | Rabia Rashdi Iván Garrido Jesús Balado Pablo Del Río-Barral Juan Luis Rodríguez-Somoza Joaquín Martínez-Sánchez Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysis European Journal of Remote Sensing LiDAR random forest terrestrial laser scanning geometric features GNSS |
| title | Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysis |
| title_full | Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysis |
| title_short | Comparative Evaluation of LiDAR systems for transport infrastructure: case studies and performance analysis |
| title_sort | comparative evaluation of lidar systems for transport infrastructure case studies and performance analysis |
| topic | LiDAR random forest terrestrial laser scanning geometric features GNSS |
| url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/22797254.2024.2316304 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rabiarashdi comparativeevaluationoflidarsystemsfortransportinfrastructurecasestudiesandperformanceanalysis AT ivangarrido comparativeevaluationoflidarsystemsfortransportinfrastructurecasestudiesandperformanceanalysis AT jesusbalado comparativeevaluationoflidarsystemsfortransportinfrastructurecasestudiesandperformanceanalysis AT pablodelriobarral comparativeevaluationoflidarsystemsfortransportinfrastructurecasestudiesandperformanceanalysis AT juanluisrodriguezsomoza comparativeevaluationoflidarsystemsfortransportinfrastructurecasestudiesandperformanceanalysis AT joaquinmartinezsanchez comparativeevaluationoflidarsystemsfortransportinfrastructurecasestudiesandperformanceanalysis |