Peer Reviewed

High-Resolution Mapping with Unmanned

Aerial Systems
Grenville Barnes and Walter Volkmann
ABSTRACT: The fusion and miniaturization of spatial technologies such as GPS and the emergence of
affordable platforms to carry these technologies has opened up new opportunities for high-resolution
mapping. In this paper we discuss the results of pilot tests carried out in Albania at the end of 2013 through
an Innovation Grant from the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) division of the World Bank. Our objective
was to design and test a methodology based on an unmanned aerial system (UAS) for producing high-
resolution orthophotos that could be used for urban planning, infrastructure routing, and environmental
monitoring and as a basis for improving existing cadastral data. We outline the methodology in terms of:
(a) prefield preparation and mobilization; (b) field work (including premarking, geodetic and ground
control, and flying); (c) postfield processing (Multiview Stereopsis, production of orthophotos and 3D
models, quality control and assessment).

KEYWORDS: UAV, UAS work flow, orthophoto, cadastral map

Introduction Several publications have dealt with the potential

application of UASs. Everaerts (2009) lists numer-

“U nmanned aerial systems” (UASs),

“unmanned aerial vehicles”
(UAVs), and “drones” are regu-
larly making news headlines as sales of small
UASs increase. Unfortunately, these three terms
are often conflated and confused with large mili-
tary drones. The UAS we discuss in this paper
have nothing to do with warfare and are a frac-
tion of the size and weight. Small UASs should
therefore not be confused with military drones or
even classified as a similar technology. We believe,
however, that this technology represents another
technological leap much like we experienced with
GPS in the late 1980s. By providing current, high-
resolution imagery, UASs have the capability to
create accurate, large scale 3D models of the land-
scape that can be used to measure and map land
features in a fraction of the time of conventional
approaches. The potential application of UASs for
mapping is vast, including delineating cadastral
boundaries, monitoring the construction of roads
or buildings, urban planning, upgrading informal
settlements, precision agriculture, environmental
monitoring, asset management, and many other
activities that rely on high-resolution geospatial data.
Grenville Barnes, University of Florida, PO Box 110565,
Gainesville, FL 32611. Tel: 352-392-4998. E-mail: <gbarnes@
ufl.edu>. Walter Volkmann, Micro Aerial Projects, 4509 N.W.
23rd Ave., Suite 8, Gainesville, FL 32606. E-mail: <walter@
unirove.com>.
ous application areas including archeology,
agriculture and monitoring of fires and traffic.
Other applications include property appraisal
(Cunningham et al. 2011), and modeling of build-
ings to develop a 3D cadastre (Jazayeri et al. 2013).
In a number of cases, UASs have been field tested
but on a very limited area or on just one or two
buildings (Manyoky et al. 2011; Baiocchi, Dominici
and Mormile 2013; Neitzel and Klonowski 2011).
The test described in this paper covered a large
enough area for us to assess the feasibility of
using this technology for land adjudication and
regularization of property rights. We collaborated
with the private sector in Albania and involved
local inhabitants and administrators as much as
possible. We also presented the results of our
tests to a group of technical employees of the land
registry office (IRPO) and to a broader group of
government decision makers in Albania.
In this paper we briefly describe the compo-
nents of a UAS, focusing on vertical take-off and
landing (VTOL) vehicles. We outline the work
flow of a typical UAS-based mapping job, includ-
ing initial testing of the UAS on a control site.
Finally, we describe and analyze pilot tests carried
out in Albania in December 2013.
UAS Components
In broad terms UASs consist of the vehicle (UAV)
carrying navigation and sensing devices (e.g.,

Surveying and Land Information Science, Vol. 74, No. 1, 2015, pp. 5-13
camera), a laptop computer which is used for flight
planning and for monitoring the performance of
the UAV, and a remote control (RC) transmitter
which can be used to manually control the UAV
and monitor the telemetry and battery status.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
UAVs can be divided into two general categories—
copters (known as VTOL) and fixed wing vehicles.
VTOL vehicles are designed as multirotor copters
with 3, 4 (“quadcopter”), 6 (“hexacopter”), or
8 propellers (“octocopter”). We used a quadcopter
for the pilot tests described here and almost all of
our experience has been with these types of UAVs.
Fixed wing UAVs are designed and fly much
like conventional aircraft. Unlike VTOLs, they
require a significant area to take-off and land and
must maintain forward motion to stay in the air.
VTOL vehicles, as the name implies, can take off
vertically and therefore require very little space
for take-off and landing and have the ability to
hover if necessary. VTOLs are therefore preferable
for smaller areas where high-resolution imagery is
required. Fixed wing UAVs are more productive
over larger areas, although the imagery will gener-
ally be at a lower resolution because of the higher
speeds required to stay aloft as well as the restric-
tions on camera shutter speeds and continuous
exposure rates. When selecting a UAV it is impor-
tant to consider whether coverage of a whole area
is needed at the same time, or whether mapping
incrementally on an as-needs basis is better. The
advantage of the latter approach is that it pro-
duces more current spatial data which can be an
issue in rapidly developing areas, such as informal
settlements in developing countries.
UAS Mapping Methodology
The sequence of tasks involved in UASs mapping
is summarized in Figure 1 and described more
fully in the following sections.
Figure 1. UAS mapping procedure.
6 Surveying and Land Information Science
Project Preparation
The boundary of the mapping area should be
defined [Google Earth (GE) can be used to do
this] prior to any other planning and a decision
made on required resolution, typically expressed
in terms of ground sampling distance (GSD). Once
these have been specified several other preparatory
steps should be taken, as summarized below:
Field Testing
It is crucial that the entire UAS be tested and
evaluated prior to embarking on a project. In
our case we set out some 50 control points at an
easily accessible site and accurately surveyed
these with a dual frequency global navigation sat-
ellite system (GNSS). This resulted in coordinates
determined to within an accuracy of 1-2 cm. This
control site was then flown, imagery acquired at
different flying heights, and resulting data pro-
cessed using Multiview Stereopsis (MvS) software
(in our case we used Photoscan from Agisoft). A
small number of the control points were used as
ground control for the processing and the remain-
ing points served as check points to evaluate the
spatial quality of the resulting orthophotos.
Regulatory Limitations
The regulatory requirements should be researched
before any decisions are made on the equipment
and operational approach for the project. The reg-
ulatory requirements may depend on the take-off
weight of the UAV. In Germany, for example,
UAVs heavier than 25 kg are prohibited, but
general authorization can be obtained to fly
UAVs with take-off weights of less than 5 kg. In
other countries, like the U.S., the federal govern-
ment through the FAA has taken a heavy-handed
regulatory stance by prohibiting all commercial
UAS flights until such time as they establish regu-
lations. In 2008, the FAA issued guidelines enti-
tled “Interim Operational Approval Guidance”
(FAA 2008) which outlined the process for apply-
ing for a Certificate of Authorization (COA).
This authorization is only available to public enti-
ties. Generally, model airplanes are
restricted to flying below 400 ft,
more than 3 miles from an airport,
and away from highly populated
areas (FAA 2014). The FAA is sup-
posed to finalize regulations for the
operation of UASs in the U.S. by the
end of 2015.
However, a judge with the National
Transportation Safety Board ruled
that the FAA had over-reached its authority in
fining a UAS user $10,000 for flying over the
University of Virginia campus. The judge stated
that the FAA only had an advisory not a regula-
tory capacity over model airplanes. The FAA has
appealed this decision, but at the time of writing
this appeal had not been processed.
Transportation Considerations
If the project is in another country, import/export
restrictions and customs and duty arrangements
should be investigated as part of project prepara-
tion. Equipment manufactured outside of the mil-
itary for strictly nonmilitary purposes generally
has fewer restrictions. When traveling on com-
mercial airlines it is much more convenient to
use a UAV that can be fitted into carry-on lug-
gage. Larger UAVs require prior shipping by air-
freight, which increases the logistical complexity
and the risk of delays in customs. Very strict
packaging and shipping specifications apply to
lithium-polymer (LiPo) batteries which should be
transported as carry-on luggage in a fire-proof case.
Reconnaissance
Even though GE provides a good initial view of
the project area, an on-site reconnaissance is
essential to identify dangerous obstructions such
as cell towers, power lines, or other objects not
visible on the GE imagery. The reconnaissance is
Figure 2. Mission planner interface showing flight lines (yellow) for one flight.
Vol. 74, No. 1
also used to identify a take-off and landing area
which is open and centrally located. With VTOL
UAVs this area does not have to be larger than
about 10 square meters.
Flight Planning
Flight planning is determined by several factors
which may vary from one application to the next.
These are: (1) the desired ground resolution
expressed in terms of GSD [the ground footprint
of one image pixel (p)]; (2) the focal length ( f ),
sensor dimensions and resolution of the camera;
(3) the flying height (H ) calculated as GSD ( f/p);
+
and (4) the required forward and lateral overlap.
In our pilot tests at Albania, we used a 20 Mega-
pixel camera with a 16 mm focal length and a
23.5 15.6 mm sensor with a pixel size of 4.8 mm.
+
Flying at a height of 75 m above the ground gave
us a GSD of 18 mm in the agricultural test area.
In the urban test area, we flew 50 m above the
rooftops using the same camera giving us GSDs
varying from 13 mm on the rooftops to 20 mm at
ground level.
Flight planning was done with Mission Planner,
an open source software package (which can be
downloaded at http://ardupilot.com/downloads/
?did=82). Flight plans can be edited through
either a graphical or tabular interface (see
Figure 2). Flight plans can be rendered in GE
to verify intended waypoint coordinates and to
7
identify potentially dangerous obstacles. Flight station are activated and the flight plan uploaded
plans are automatically referenced to the WGS84 to the UAV flight controller.
datum, the same spatial reference frame used by It is good practice to use the manual mode for
UAVs for navigation. the first take-off to test for radio interference and
good communication between the RC transmit-
ter and the UAV. Manual control over the UAV
Ground Control after take-off depends on this communication.
With VTOL UAVs this is done by hovering about
Ground control can be eliminated or drastically
2 m above the ground to check for stability and
minimized if the UAV has a dual frequency GNSS
the early detection of site-specific conditions
receiver on board so that precise camera exposure
that may affect the safety and completion of the
positions (CEPs) are determined for each photo-
planned flights.
graph. These positions can be determined by
The UAV may be launched in a manual or auto-
recording the time of the exposure and sub-
matic mode. If done in automatic mode, there
sequently interpolating the exposure position
should be a clear path between the take-off point
between the two corresponding adjacent points
and the first way point in the flight plan. Once it
on the flight trajectory. This produces an accuracy
is switched over to automatic mode the UAV
equivalent to that of real time kinematic (RTK)
should be observed at all times and the operator
surveying (10 mm  1 ppm), assuming (1) appro-
should be ready to override the automatic mode
priate compensation of the offset vector between
if necessary. Where this is not possible, the prog-
GNSS antenna phase center and optical center of
ress and flight telemetry of the UAV should be
the camera, and (2) resolution of the integer
closely monitored on the RC transmitter and the
ambiguity in the GNSS solution of the flight tra-
base station computer (see Figure 3). It is partic-
jectory. CEP accuracy depends on flight stability
ularly important to monitor the power levels of
and measurement frequency of the GNSS system.
the UAV flight batteries and to look out for other
Faster and erratic ground speeds require higher
air traffic. Because batteries will only power small
recording frequencies. This accuracy can be
UAVs for 10-15 min, larger projects will generally
improved by reducing and stabilizing the airspeed
require several individual flights. In Figure 3
and increasing the recording frequency of the
below, the take-off site (home) is located on top
GNSS receiver.
of a 6-storey building some distance away from
If CEPs cannot be fixed, ground control points
the flight lines of the first flight. The UAV will
(GCPs) that can be positively identified in the
automatically fly to the start point (1) and then
aerial images need to be premarked and sur-
follow the designated flight lines for that particu-
veyed. Ideally, they should be premarked imme-
lar flight. Once it has completed those flight lines
diately before flying by placing targets that are
(at point 10 on Figure 3), it will automatically
evenly distributed across the project area. The
return to the home site, or a location close to
shape, size and color should be carefully selected
home from which it can be landed in a manual
so that they are easily and distinctly visible. In our
mode. A manual landing is safer where there are
case we used white cardboard discs that were
obstructions around the landing site.
approximately 6 inches in diameter. Existing nat-
Immediately after landing the UAV motors and
ural or artificial features on the landscape can
electronics should be inspected to detect any
also be used provided they can be clearly identi-
signs of overheating. The aerial images should
fied in the aerial photographs. In most cases
also be inspected for quality after the first flight
GCPs are surveyed in the official coordinate sys-
and any required adjustments made to the cam-
tem using dual frequency differential GNSS to an
era settings before further flights.
accuracy of 2 cm or better.
If the aerial images are geo-referenced directly
with an on-board GNSS receiver, the CEPs can be
checked by plotting them on GE or in a GIS.
Acquire Aerial Imagery
Before take-off it is a good idea to mentally
rehearse the planned flight routine and to iden-
Image Processing
tify possible landing sites should a manually exe- Flights that are designed with generous (e.g.,
cuted emergency landing be necessary during 80 percent forward and 70 percent lateral) over-
the flight. Just prior to take-off the connections laps generate a large number of overlapping pho-
between the UAV, the RC transmitter, and base tographs (see Figure 4) amounting to large

8 Surveying and Land Information Science

Figure 3. Base station computer display of the telemetry (Komuna Farke, Albania).
Figure 4. Overlapping UAS photos of Fushe Milot (Albania).
datasets (each photograph varies from 4 to 5 mega-
bytes in size). In Albania, for example, to cover
an area of approximately 24 hectares (58 acres)
in size at a flying height of 75 m required
492 overlapping aerial photos amounting to
2.3 gigabytes of data storage space. Because of
this huge volume of data, the image processing
is usually the most time-consuming part of the
UAS work flow.
Because nonmetric cameras are not geometri-
cally stable (a basic requirement for classic photo-
grammetric mapping), the imagery is processed
using a combination of classical photogrammetry
and MvS. Photoscan, a Russian program by
Agisoft that employs the MvS algorithm, follows
a fairly simple work flow which includes:
importing aerial imagery, photo alignment,
introducing ground control (if necessary), build-
ing models of the terrain in the form of sparse
and dense point clouds, triangulated irregular
Vol. 74, No. 1
network (TIN), and texture atlas as shown below
in Figure 5.
Once the original images are uploaded, the
processing software reads the basic camera geom-
etry (focal length and sensor dimensions) from
the EXIF header of the image files and performs
a photo alignment. This produces relative camera
exposure coordinates, a camera calibration for
each and every image as well as a sparse point
cloud. For low accuracy requirements this may be
all that is required to build a model if the final
product does not have to be referenced to some
spatial reference frame. However, the process of
determining the CEPs is significantly accelerated
if approximate positions are introduced into
the photo alignment procedure. Typically, these
approximate positions are obtained from the
stand-alone navigation GPS receiver mounted on
board the UAV. However, if the product is to be
accurately geo-referenced to a defined coordinate
9

Figure 5. Typical workflow of multiview stereopsis (MvS).
system (e.g., WGS84/UTM), then GCPs need to
be used.
For accurate geo-referencing, the absolute
coordinates of GCPs should be measured to an
accuracy equivalent to the GSD of the imagery.
GCPs are measured quite simply by identifying
each GCP target in every photo on which it
appears and centering a flag on each of those
locations (this is the only manual task in the
entire process). With forward and lateral overlaps
of 80 percent and 70 percent, a single GCP can
appear on as many as 10-16 different photos.
These measurements are used to compute linear
transformation parameters to transform the model
from an arbitrary local system to the spatial refer-
ence framework of the GCPs. The software does
an error analysis and displays the results enabling
the user to identify and eliminate any blunders.
Figure 6. Dense point cloud of Fushe Milot (Albania).
10
After this step, the sparse point cloud
is retransformed for optimum posi-
tioning in the coordinate system of
the GCPs and the camera positions
are adjusted accordingly.
The software uses the optimized
sparse point cloud and improved
camera positions to generate a dense
point cloud of the project area (see
Figure 6). This usually takes the lon-
gest time of all the processing steps.
From this point it is relatively sim-
ple, although time consuming, to
generate a surface model in the form
of a TIN as well as a texture atlas that is
used to create a true color orthophoto
(see Figure 7).
Pilot Tests in Albania
In December 2013, with the help of funding from
an ECA Innovation Grant within the World Bank
(Kelm et al. 2013), we were able to test the use
of UASs for mapping and modeling in three pre-
selected areas in Albania:
 An agricultural area (called Fushe Milot) com-
prising approximately 24 hectares located on
the coastal plain about 40 km from the capital
city of Tirana. This was selected because it is
the proposed site of a new urban water supply
scheme and it has recently been subject to
expropriation to allow for the construction of
a new highway.
 A dense high-rise urban area (Komuna Farke)
located on the southern fringe of Tirana covering
Surveying and Land Information Science
Figure 7. Orthophoto of Fushe Milot (Albania).
approximately 65 hectares. This site was chosen
to test the performance of the UAS in high
density urban environments.
 A strip of the Elbasan national highway (800 m
long) approximately 10 km from Tirana that
had been partially constructed. This was selected
to investigate the application of UAS for moni-
toring and managing linear features such as
roads, powerlines or pipelines.
A flying height of 75 m above the ground was
used for Fushe Milot and the Elbasan Highway,
while at the Komuna Farke site we flew at a height
of 50 m above the tops of the buildings. In all,
we flew a total of 21 flights covering a distance of
about 40 km and acquiring some 4200 aerial photo-
graphs with a ground resolution of approximately
2 cm.
We were able to produce DEMs, orthophotos
and 3D models for each of these areas. In the
case of the agricultural area of Fushe Milot we
returned to the area a week after we flew the
photography for that area and conducted a rapid
boundary adjudication of approximately 29 par-
cels. The high resolution of the current spatial
data shown in the orthophoto (see Figure 7) made
Vol. 74, No. 1
it easy for landholders and their family members
to identify their parcel boundaries. The resulting
parcel boundaries for a section of the coverage
area are shown in Figure 8 below.
Although Albania is fortunate enough to have
reasonably high-resolution (GSD = 20 cm) ortho-
photos for that area, these are based on photogra-
phy taken in 2007 and a number of changes have
taken place since that time. This can be clearly seen
in the comparison of a small portion of our UAS-
derived orthophoto with the same area in the 2007
orthophoto (see Figure 9).
We tested the spatial quality of the UAS-derived
orthophoto by exporting it into ArcGIS and mea-
suring the coordinates of all GCPs. Since we only
used 9 out of the 52 GCPs for geo-referencing
the imagery, the remaining control points can
be regarded as independent checks on the
orthophoto. Table 1 below summarizes the com-
parison of the resulting coordinates with those
that we measured using kinematic GPS (regarded
as known).
While these statistics are reasonably good and
consistent with other tests (Eisenbeiss et al. 2013),
we are concerned about a handful of GCPs
11
Figure 8. Property boundaries identified using high-resolution orthophoto.

Figure 9. Portion of UAS-derived orthophoto (left) compared with 2007 orthophoto (right).

(meters) GCPs in Model Independent GCPs

Mean Linear Error (XY) 0.056 0.061
Mean Z Error 0.009 0.012
CEP50* 0.051 0.057
* Circular error probable at 50 percent confidence level.
Table 1. Error analysis of GCPs.

which had positional errors between 10 and We are currently conducting additional analyses
14 cm. Other studies have managed to achieve of these data to identify possible sources of
“precisions” of 2-3 cm in the horizontal and 4- error and to improve the 3D modeling of com-
10 cm in the vertical (Devriendt 2014, p. 23). plex landscapes.

12 Surveying and Land Information Science

 Conclusions
Our pilot tests in Albania confirmed that UASs
offer a radically new approach for acquiring and
producing high-resolution maps and 3D models
of the landscape. However, we do not see it as a
good option for mapping large areas of land like
whole counties or states. It is best deployed over
small areas where high resolution and current
spatial data are required.
The advent of UASs essentially personalizes
mapping, enabling individuals or small enter-
prises to acquire mapping capacities which can
deliver current spatial data at unprecedented res-
olutions. It also promises order of magnitude
savings over conventional mapping approaches
in terms of both time and cost. Interestingly,
Rijsdijk et al. (2013) came to the opposite conclu-
sion that “costs are too high at the moment, com-
pared to traditional methods.” We believe the
difference lies in what kind of UAV is used and
especially on how the workflow from image acqui-
sition to analysis and consumption of the geo-
spatial products is structured. Initially, only large,
expensive UAVs were available for mapping work.
But over the past 2–3 years the cost and size of
UAVs has dropped significantly, partly due to the
strong open source and do-it-yourself culture
(see http://diydrones.com/) that has arisen in
this sector. UAVs, such as the one used in our
Albanian tests, are now available at unit costs that
are lower than conventional total station or GNSS
rover prices. The real cost savings are in the
increased efficiencies, the incremental approach
to map production and the associated shortening
of the supply chain (Anderson 2006, 2012).
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. 2006. The long tail. New York,
New York: Hyperion.
Anderson, C. 2012. Makers: The new industrial revolution.
New York, New York: Random House.
Baiocchi, V., D. Dominici, and M. Mormile. 2013. UAV
application in post-seismic environment, presenta-
tion at UAV-g conference, Rostock University,
Rostock, Germany, 4–6 September 2013.
Vol. 74, No. 1
Cunningham, K., G. Walker, E. Stahlke, and R. Wilson.
2011. Cadastral audit and assessments using unmanned
aerial systems. In: Proceedings of ISPRS and UAV-g,
Zurich, Switzerland. [http://www.teamconsulting
.cc/images/uav-geomatics.pdf].
Devriendt, L. 2014. Low-speed and low-altitude UAS. GIM
International 1(28). [http://www.gim-international
.com/issues/articles/id2061-Lowspeed_and_Lowaltitude_
UAS.html].
Eisenbeiss, H., M. Sauerbier, and Ch. Wildi. 2013. Presen-
tation at UAV-g Conference. Rostock, Germany: Rostock
University. [http://www.uav-g.org/Presentations/
UAV-g_2013_%20Eisenbeiss_Web.pdf].
Everaerts, J. 2009. Unconventional platforms
(Unmanned Aircraft Systems) for remote sensing.
Research report no. 56, European Spatial Data
Research. pp. 57–102.
FAA. 2008. Interim operational approval guidance
08-01. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the
U.S. National Airspace System, FAA. [http://www
.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/
service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/
coa/faq/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf].
————. 2014. Fact Sheet - Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS). [http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_
story.cfm?newsId=14153].
Jazayeri, I., A. Rajabifard, and M. Kalantari. 2013. A
geometric and semantic evaluation of 3D data
sourcing methods for land and property information.
Land Use Policy 36: 219-30.
Kelm, K., G. Adlington, and R. Tonchovska. 2013. Multi-
purpose spatial data capture. ECA region 2013 innovation
grant proposal. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Manyoky, M., P. Theiler, D. Steudler, and H.
Eisenbeiss. 2011. Unmanned aerial vehicle in cadas-
tral applications. In: Proceedings of ISPRS and UAV-g,
Zurich, Switzerland. [http://www.geometh.ethz.ch/
uav_g/proceedings/manyoky].
Neitzel, F., and J. Klonowski. 2011. Mobile 3D mapping
with a low-cost UAV system. In: Proceedings of ISPRS
and UAV-g, Zurich, Switzerland. http://www.geometh
.ethz.ch/uav_g/proceedings/neitzel.
Rijsdijk, M., W. van Hinsbergh, W. Witteveen, G.
ten Buuren, G. Schakelaar, G. Poppinga, M.
van Persie, and R. Ladiges. 2013. Unmanned aerial
systems in the process of juridical verification of
cadastral borders. In: Presentation at UAV-g Conference,
Rostock University, Rostock, Germany. [http://
www.uav-g.org/Presentations/UAS_for_Cadastal_
Applications/Rijsdijk_M-UAS_in_the_process_of_
juridical_verification.pdf].
m
13