[Qgis-user] wishing for accurate latitude/longitude from a cell phone (QGIS.USER)

[Jan Becket]

Hi Ray,
I photograph archaeological sites in Hawaiʻi under heavy canopy, and fortunately donʻt need the sub-meter accuracy you do. I went through a lot of consumer-level devices and finally settled on the combination of a Garmin GLO receiver and a $20 iOS app called Map Plus, which can import and reassemble QGIS map tiles, and also export in shapefile format, among others. As for GLO accuracy, the graphs on the review linked below are impressive - for a $99 device. The GLO is marketed to small plane pilots but seems to excel in static readings rather than tracks.

https://gpstracklog.com/2013/04/garmin-glo-review.html <https://gpstracklog.com/2013/04/garmin-glo-review.html>

best wishes,
Jan Becket

> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 16:19:00 +0100
> From: "QGIS.USER" <qgis.user at raycar.plus.com>
> To: "'Garth Fletcher'" <garth at jacqcad.com>,
> 	<qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Qgis-user] wishing for accurate lattitude/longitude
> 	from,	a cell phone
> Message-ID: <007d01d6343a$26f471f0$74dd55d0$@raycar.plus.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="UTF-8"
> 
> Hi Garth,
> 	Thank you for the correction and the additional information. Much appreciated.
> 
> My current thinking is that in the archaeology we do, the intra-site (relative) measurements are quite good but what is inaccurate is the absolute measurements. We can set out our grids with cm accuracy but can only locate them on the ground with 10s of metre accuracy. It would be good to have a low cost way of establishing the absolute position even if that took time and/or was off-line.
> 
> Ray Carpenter,
> Chapel Archaeology
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garth Fletcher [mailto:garth at jacqcad.com] 
> Sent: 27 May 2020 15:25
> To: QGIS.USER; qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [Qgis-user] wishing for accurate lattitude/longitude from, a cell phone
> 
> Hi Ray,
> 
> Apologies for the typo - I had typed iGS3, but iG3s is the right number.
> 
> iGage <www.igage.com> iG3s, now replaced by the iG4 which adds Galileo
> tracking but otherwise seems very similar to the iG3s. $2400 US.
> 
> These track satellites from the US GPS, Russian GLONASS, Chinese BeiDou
> and, with the iG4, European Galileo constellations.
> 
> Their sole function is to record from all the satellites they can track.
> 
> They produce a RINEX format file which can be sent to a post processing
> service such as Canada's Geodetic Surveys' CSRS-PPP:
> <https://webapp.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/geod/tools-outils/ppp.php?locale=en>
> 
> The longer the observation (recording) duration, the better CSRS-PPP can
> converge to an accurate location.  In my experience in New Hampshire's
> heavily wooded environment, a 30 to 45 minute observation time generally
> gets me to better than ± 1 meter accuracy.  Yesterday a 6 hour long
> observation in a small field surrounded by forest converged to within 1
> inch.  Dense forest canopy reduces the number of satellites that can be
> tracked. Also, some times of day are better than others in terms of the
> number of satellites and their geometry, see:
>   <https://www.gnssplanning.com/#/charts>
> 
> The iG3s was perfect for my specific conditions, but I think it is not
> optimal where many locations within a site must be accurately measured
> ** relative ** to each other.
> 
> Such sites would be better served by differential measuring where two
> receivers are used.  One is the "Base" which is kept in a fixed location
> while the other is the "Rover" which is moved from place to place.
> 
> The Base constantly transmits its data to the Rover over a RF link.  As
> long as both are fairly close (within a few kilometers of each other),
> both see essentially identical satellite errors which can be cancelled
> out to produce a very precise ** difference ** in location between Base
> and Rover.
> 
> Note that the absolute accuracy of their positions may not be as high,
> but the relative accuracy can be at centimeter level.  In other words,
> the absolute accuracy might be ± several meters, but the relative
> accuracy will be ± centimeters.
> 
> Relative location is all that is needed for site mapping. Accurate
> absolute location can then be determined by carefully measuring the
> location of the Base, which only needs to be done once.
> 
> The major advantage is speed as there is no need for long observation
> times at each location.  There is also no need for internet or cell
> phone connectivity - the only requirement is that the Base be able to
> transmit its data to the Rover at all locations of interest.
> 
> Earlier in this thread <https://emlid.com/reachrs/> was mentioned as one
> source of such Base/Rover systems.  At $ 1600 per pair they woud be
> less expensive than a single iG3s or iG4 and could be much more
> effective.  However, I do not have any personal experience with such
> instruments.
> 
> On 5/27/20 9:11 AM, QGIS.USER wrote:
>> Hi Garth,
>> 	Thank you for some very useful data. Mine own experience in archaeology fully supports your findings. Like most things in archaeology, money is scare, time is plentiful:-)  So when you talk about getting sub-metre accuracy using something called "iGS3", my interest peaked:-)  However, despite a reasonably thorough Google, nothing relevant turned up. What is a "iGS3" please?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance.
>> 
>> Ray Carpenter
>> Chapel Archaeology.
> 
> Cordially
> -- 
> Garth Fletcher
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/attachments/20200527/266e631b/attachment.html>