reviving this one where all would a guy go if he wanted to get pricing on fresh data collection? ie hiring one of these drone/blimp/plane firms?
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:57 PM Chuck Hogg <ch...@allpointsbroadband.com> wrote: > Nice, I was curious if any Common people would be on here. Welcome to the > farm, where pigs fly. > > Best Regards, Chuck Hogg | *SVP/Director of Acquisitions* > *ALL POINTS* *BROADBAND *| *Live Connected.* > mobile 502.435.6649 > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 6:11 PM Dan Spitler <d...@common.net> wrote: > >> Just to chime in here: Nearmap is doing yearly, higher-res >> photogrammetry captures of major (sub)urban areas across the US. You can >> purchase pre-rendered surface models from which you can do all sorts of fun >> things with. >> Also, Google's SAS program has a network planner included which allows >> you to get elevation profiles *with* clutter using the same data as seen on >> Google Earth. My only problem with it is it only does low-rez RF >> propagation (no simple viewesheds) and the data is of unknown vintage. >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:19 PM Chuck Hogg <ch...@allpointsbroadband.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Here's 2 examples of 2m vs 30m data as well for Google Earth. If the >>> list serv strips them, let me know. >>> >>> Look at the shadows created by buildings and trees as far as coverage >>> goes in the 2M data. >>> >>> These are random locations in Louisville. The City of Louisville >>> released their data for free. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:14 PM Chuck Hogg <ch...@allpointsbroadband.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Also, check your states/counties/cities. Some states have had >>>> initiatives to map this data. The forestry fire service also maps this >>>> data. There are also point clouds created with this data. Ky for example >>>> has this data from 2013 to 2018. The 2018 data is still being compiled. >>>> It's also free. Virginia had whole portions of the state done in 2017. >>>> >>>> One good resource is: >>>> https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/3dep >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM Chuck Hogg < >>>> ch...@allpointsbroadband.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The LIDAR data processing for a 2M resolution of an OMNI on the >>>>> platform I'm using takes about 45-75 seconds. The same 30M resolution is >>>>> typically a done in a second. These are done using 10km radiuses >>>>> currently, but I'm increasing it to 20km. As you know this will cause it >>>>> to be significantly heavier on the processing. A geotiff file for one >>>>> access point using 2M data at 10km radius is about 18MB. The same GeoTIFF >>>>> for 30M data is under 1MB. 30M is 900Meters squared. 2M is 4M squared. >>>>> Roughly 225x more datapoints in 2M. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, Chuck Hogg | *SVP/Director of Acquisitions* >>>>> *ALL POINTS* *BROADBAND *| *Live Connected.* >>>>> mobile 502.435.6649 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:45 PM Brian Webster < >>>>> i...@wirelessmapping.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I do not know the answer to that but I suspect that they are just >>>>>> using the images from multiple angles. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank You, >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Webster >>>>>> >>>>>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam >>>>>> Moffett >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 18, 2019 3:23 PM >>>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Good question >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/18/2019 3:05 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Does Google actually have LIDAR or are they just running the images >>>>>> that they collect from multiple angles through an algorithm to guess at >>>>>> the >>>>>> obstructions? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>>>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>>>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>>>> *To: *af@af.afmug.com >>>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:53:10 PM >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like no 3D building/trees in the profile. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/18/2019 1:57 PM, Brian Webster wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you draw a line between the AP and the address point and then >>>>>> right click to show elevation profile, does it look like it’s including >>>>>> the >>>>>> 3D building/tree as part of the profile or just terrain. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We are lucky in NY that the state has mapped every 911 address to the >>>>>> rooftop and they make it available for download. Not everyone has data >>>>>> that >>>>>> accurate. 911 address collection quality varies county by county. Not >>>>>> every >>>>>> county has put it in the public domain for download either. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank You, >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Webster >>>>>> >>>>>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com <af-boun...@af.afmug.com>] >>>>>> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:09 PM >>>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> NY State makes E911 address points available online. Imported a >>>>>> subset of that, turned on the "3D Buildings" layer in Google Earth, and >>>>>> then adjust the view until I'm looking from where the hypothetical AP >>>>>> would >>>>>> be. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can click on each point to get the street address, but I'm not keen >>>>>> to sit here and do that one point at a time. Seems like a job for a >>>>>> computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/18/2019 12:33 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thats really cool, how did you get that? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:13 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the USGS LIDAR/clutter data available in a format that you could >>>>>> open in Manifold GIS? >>>>>> >>>>>> See the Google Earth screenshot below. Wouldn't it be nice to just >>>>>> have one more command to select only the address points that are >>>>>> "visible" >>>>>> based on the 3D clutter? I'm betting I could make that work in Manifold. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not an RF projection of any sort, just filter out the address points >>>>>> that can't be "seen" due to 3D clutter. It's an imperfect approach for a >>>>>> lot of reasons, but it would give me hundreds of almost definite LOS >>>>>> households that I could sell 100mbps to if I wanted to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or Brian, if that's something you could do as a service that would be >>>>>> something I'd be willing to talk about offlist. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/18/2019 11:40 AM, Brian Webster wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t have that level of detail and haven’t personally done any of >>>>>> the processing, I just know that on the Google Fiber project they would >>>>>> drive a bunch of streets in a city and then the dedicated server would >>>>>> run >>>>>> for two or three days to create a usable point cloud data set. Then it >>>>>> had >>>>>> to be hosted on a separate server due to space requirements. This process >>>>>> was done by a company who specialized in these LIDAR projects so they had >>>>>> the tools to do it the most efficient way. I would guess the overall >>>>>> project file sizes were a couple of terabytes. If you think about it, you >>>>>> have to have a data record for everything you can see/reflect from >>>>>> because >>>>>> that data is used to recreate that object in 3D, so the latitude, >>>>>> longitude >>>>>> and elevation needs to be built for something as simple as a road sign, >>>>>> all >>>>>> the points on the post and all the points to be able to recreate the sign >>>>>> and on both sides. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank You, >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Webster >>>>>> >>>>>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com <af-boun...@af.afmug.com>] >>>>>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:49 PM >>>>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can either of you describe the data size, and processing time? say >>>>>> clutter per uban square unit (mile kilometers, etc) at this res takes x >>>>>> time to collect with this particular method, it takes roughly y time to >>>>>> process it, and it requires z storage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Generalization is all im looking for here like , current drone/blimp, >>>>>> sensor tied to an eagle can only collect an x meter wide path per sweep >>>>>> so >>>>>> it would take y number of sweeps to cover a square km, the average speed >>>>>> of >>>>>> collection is x meters per minute and it would take so many fuel stops to >>>>>> gain that coverage >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> assuming you have that detail of information >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:29 PM Brian Webster < >>>>>> i...@wirelessmapping.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes Chuck the post processing time it takes to create the 3 >>>>>> dimensional/axis point cloud data (points with a lat, long and height >>>>>> value) is massive. When I worked the Google Fiber projects in California >>>>>> we >>>>>> in cities like San Jose and the post processing took days on dedicated >>>>>> high >>>>>> end servers for the limited geographic areas we needed. If you have >>>>>> clutter >>>>>> data at 2 meter resolution you get a much better result of treating the >>>>>> clutter as a solid object than if doing that with 30 meter resolution >>>>>> data. >>>>>> The 2 meter resolution will have such high accuracy of being able to see >>>>>> each building and any single tree that might block a path. In the case of >>>>>> 30 meter data, the clutter gets classified as only one type. So in many >>>>>> non-dense urban areas, the 30 meter square gets classified as low density >>>>>> urban, but then you don’t get any information for a tree lined street or >>>>>> even the rural plains areas where it’s all open crop land with the >>>>>> exception of the single tree line planted to block wind on typical rural >>>>>> farm homes. So averaging the clutter classes becomes more necessary and >>>>>> not >>>>>> treating it all like solid objects. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When I worked for EarthLink and we were designing the outdoor Wi-Fi >>>>>> network, we did have the 2 meter resolution tree and building data in >>>>>> Philadelphia. It made a big difference but as I recall we also paid >>>>>> $250,000 just for that single city area clutter at that resolution. As >>>>>> you >>>>>> state there have been business models made on creating this type of data >>>>>> for years. It’s not cheap to create, so the cost justification vs. the >>>>>> added resolution accuracy of your intended project is a key >>>>>> consideration. >>>>>> I do know that NYC has LIDAR data for the whole city in the public >>>>>> domain, >>>>>> worked nice on the WISP propagations I did for the NY State broadband map >>>>>> when they had me produce the WISP coverage areas. In the end it’s all >>>>>> about >>>>>> who is paying to have that high resolution data created. If the >>>>>> government >>>>>> eventually pays for it, then it should be released in the public domain >>>>>> because the public funded it (just like their existing map data is >>>>>> today). >>>>>> It’s still going to take a lot of computing horsepower to digest and use >>>>>> that data in any RF propagation tool however. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank You, >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Webster >>>>>> >>>>>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck Hogg >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2019 12:46 PM >>>>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought I would chime in here a bit. Not disputing Brian or anyone >>>>>> else here, as many accurate statements have been made. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've done some LIDAR propagations at 2M vs 30M DEM data. I found in >>>>>> areas around mountains and hills (consistent in KY/VA markets) it is very >>>>>> helpful to treat "clutter" as obstructions. I have reviewed areas where >>>>>> 30M DEM data shows 400 homes serviced, and 2M LIDAR data shows 17. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Going back to the original question, I know 2 people here in KY that >>>>>> fly drones for Engineering, Architectural, and Construction firms and I >>>>>> talked to some of the people at Common Networks, who use some version of >>>>>> Drone Photogrammetry to create their own datasets. In the construction >>>>>> industry it is being used to track building things like bridges, tunnels, >>>>>> commercial buildings, etc. These photogrammetry drone setups are $2-25k. >>>>>> The Drone Lidar setups are $5-300k and require much larger drones. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, it takes a long time to take this data and compile it. I know >>>>>> they take anywhere from 3-18 months to do this in KY depending on how >>>>>> large >>>>>> the area and how high of a resolution it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a pretty good video and some tech in the beginning of one in >>>>>> use showing 5cm accuracy: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8piSF40StQ&feature=emb_title >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just an FYI, the opportunity to create a business out of this has >>>>>> been going on for many years. They have used planes, blimps, and >>>>>> balloons >>>>>> for years. I could see a move to drones. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, *Chuck Hogg* | *SVP/Director of Acquisitions* >>>>>> >>>>>> *ALL POINTS* *BROADBAND *| *Live Connected.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:14 PM Steve Jones < >>>>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian, >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming the software allows you to input your own clutter data, at >>>>>> high resolution, what impact on processing the models is there as the >>>>>> clutter data gets higher in resolution? Are we talking massive >>>>>> percentage? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think im maybe overestimating clutter datas usefulness. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would first need to have accurate topo data that knows what is >>>>>> ground, and what is treetop/building roof. And that data really would >>>>>> need >>>>>> to be at the same, or better resolution than my clutter data. (if my topo >>>>>> data is 30 meter, and my clutter data is 3 meter, my output will be best >>>>>> guess on top of the 30 meter average that may or may not have already >>>>>> included the clutter, depending on when the sampling was done?) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am I misunderstanding clutter data? I had thought it was plotted >>>>>> elevations of clutter, but is it more just regionated averages? if that >>>>>> question makes any sense >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When the topo data was/is collected, are there mechanisms in play to >>>>>> differentiate terrain from structure/clutter? Say chicago was collected, >>>>>> would it show ground elevation or would it show the rooftop elevations as >>>>>> the average ground elevation? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Back to the original query, assuming a guy had a drone with the >>>>>> capability of carrying the equipment and the battery life to not have to >>>>>> constantly recharge. Would a person be able to collect both topo and >>>>>> clutter data, that can differentiate it, and at a fine detail. What kind >>>>>> of >>>>>> data size is that information? I know that the data available to radio >>>>>> mobile in the day could be downloaded over dialup given some time, so it >>>>>> didnt seem to be overly massive. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:07 AM Brian Webster < >>>>>> i...@wirelessmapping.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Clutter data in the public domain is mostly 30 meter square >>>>>> resolution. Cameron has talked about a lot of the issues with the data. >>>>>> Radio Mobile (and TowerCoverage since it runs on that) has the ability to >>>>>> tune the cluster classifications a bit. I worked with Roger in >>>>>> implementing >>>>>> that clutter model. It is not actually part of the Longley Rice >>>>>> propagation >>>>>> model, what he did at my begging was allow a user to manually edit the >>>>>> height and density for each clutter class and then the tool assigns a >>>>>> loss >>>>>> factor per pixel/30 meter square of clutter and then subtracts the sum >>>>>> total of the clutter loss for the ray being propagated. This is not >>>>>> perfect >>>>>> but when the cell companies use their expensive propagation tools, they >>>>>> tune their clutter models for each market by drive testing a known >>>>>> transmitter with a roving unit and run those drive test results against >>>>>> what the software thinks the signals should be. In this process they >>>>>> compare the know clutter classes that were propagated through and it >>>>>> self-tweaks the loss factors is applies for each clutter class. In radio >>>>>> mobile you do basically the same thing but without automation. To get it >>>>>> right you have to go out and measure a lot of your real world signal >>>>>> levels >>>>>> and manually run propagations until the two match (minus your fade >>>>>> margins >>>>>> built in to your plots). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This works well if you spend the time, the bigger issue is that the >>>>>> 30 meter square is assigned just one clutter class code. In general it >>>>>> works well for free stuff. The reality of knowing about specific tree >>>>>> lines >>>>>> alongside a house or in urban environments with tree lined streets or in >>>>>> back years, those individual trees to not get factored in to your >>>>>> propagation, just the building losses if that building clutter is set to >>>>>> a >>>>>> height to show as an obstruction(in WISP cases most are not if you are >>>>>> mounting your antenna on the roof for average suburban clutter). The >>>>>> answer >>>>>> to this is to have higher resolution clutter. The terrain data used is 10 >>>>>> meter resolution, meaning there have been hard data points gathered at >>>>>> least every 10 meters horizontally and interpolated. Some terrain data is >>>>>> available at 3 meters but that is not as widely available. So the issue >>>>>> remains how do you get better resolution clutter data. LIDAR can indeed >>>>>> be >>>>>> used and the best versions are actually driven on the streets and not >>>>>> flown >>>>>> from the air. As Cameron mentioned however that data still only gives you >>>>>> the height/size/area where the clutter is. It does not tell you what type >>>>>> of class that it is and/or what type of RF losses each pixel of that data >>>>>> should be assigned, plus you are typically only getting the clutter data >>>>>> from the street facing side. Think of the old movie sets and only seeing >>>>>> the building face. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another method of increasing clutter accuracy is to resample the data >>>>>> from 30 meter pixels down to smaller sized pixels. This has limited >>>>>> benefit. Mostly this can allow you to take things like tree clutter and >>>>>> trim out the highway areas and or possibly cut out the trees with >>>>>> specific >>>>>> building data footprints and assign a different clutter class by pixel. >>>>>> This is very tedious to do on a large scale and you first have to have >>>>>> other good data sources to trim or reclassify these smaller pixels >>>>>> properly >>>>>> to a new clutter class. While all of this gives you a better physical map >>>>>> of what and where you have clutter down to a more realistic reality, you >>>>>> would then have to go back and manually recalibrate the tuning because >>>>>> tuning over larger pixels is an averaging process using the single >>>>>> clutter >>>>>> class. As you might guess all of this takes time and money. At some point >>>>>> there will likely be some cool efforts done by others where we can >>>>>> integrate this. For instance Microsoft released building outline GIS data >>>>>> for the whole country that they machine learned from aerial imagery. That >>>>>> could be used over resampled data although if the buildings had tree >>>>>> cover >>>>>> they didn’t get captured in the first place because they are not visible >>>>>> in >>>>>> the images. There are other open source projects for things like spectrum >>>>>> sensing on a Raspberry Pi and software defined radio that if you put >>>>>> enough >>>>>> sensors out there they might help tune the clutter loss models. >>>>>> https://electrosense.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is probably way more than you wanted to read about clutter data >>>>>> and RF propagations but hey I am a geek like that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank You, >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Webster >>>>>> >>>>>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *castarritt >>>>>> . >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2019 4:47 PM >>>>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Google maps uses some of the 1M resolution LIDAR data. Check out >>>>>> Austin, TX (maybe most other metro areas as well?) in google, enable >>>>>> "globe >>>>>> view", and then turn on 3D. Now use left ctrl and drag with the mouse to >>>>>> move your view angle. This is the data cnHeat and the Google CBRS SAS >>>>>> solution supposedly use. OT: I wonder if any of the usual suspects are >>>>>> making PC flight simulators that use this data. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:30 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The issue with publicly available clutter data is it seems old, poor >>>>>> resolution or inaccurate. If heat is using the same data as linkplanner, >>>>>> its definitely bunk. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:26 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Have you looked at CnHeat? >>>>>> >>>>>> We're about to do some testing with it here. They mentioned USGS >>>>>> LIDAR as one of the data sources. Presumably that's blended with other >>>>>> imaging somehow. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/5/2019 4:02 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> LIDAR is not clutter specific, it just can't penetrate clutter (it's >>>>>> light) so clutter ends up looking like terrain. The benefit is that you >>>>>> get >>>>>> an elevation, the drawback is that you don't know the type of clutter or >>>>>> how high it is above the terrain. I suppose if you compare the lidar data >>>>>> against a terrain only DEM, you could extract the clutter height. Here is >>>>>> the thing... some propagation does penetrate vegetation to some degree, >>>>>> so >>>>>> if you are talking about frequencies that do, then lidar is not >>>>>> necessarily >>>>>> a good thing to use as everything ends up looking like an obstruction. >>>>>> You >>>>>> also need a model that can actually account for clutter (vegetation) >>>>>> density when talking about how much it will affect the signal. Obviously >>>>>> leaf types and things like that can have other effects, but I'm unaware >>>>>> of >>>>>> any model that goes to that depth. While some account for clutter heights >>>>>> to use diffraction losses and some lump-sum type losses for a given >>>>>> clutter >>>>>> category, none of the models that are in use in the wisp industry account >>>>>> for clutter density and there are only a few in existence that do. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You can get high res clutter data (types) from thermal satellite >>>>>> imaging from one of the geospatial data companies like Terrapin >>>>>> Geographic, >>>>>> or SPOT. It is surprisingly accurate and is what real prop tools like >>>>>> Planet use. The downside is no elevations, so you still have user input >>>>>> for >>>>>> that. Unless you are willing to shell out big bucks, don't bother >>>>>> looking. >>>>>> We are talking about 10's of thousands for a modestly sized area. The >>>>>> cellcos can afford it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting. And unfortunately I don't know any more about LIDAR >>>>>> than a Google Search does. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/5/2019 11:27 AM, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Just the SAS administrators will be competitive product. So garbage >>>>>> in garbage out will really apply. Basic SAS functionality is uniform, but >>>>>> feature sets will differ. More accurate propagation modeling every night >>>>>> will be something we benefit from and Im thinking that will be one of the >>>>>> things they compete against each other with. They didnt say that >>>>>> specifically, but the second iteration of SAS will be more bigger, >>>>>> potentially even bigly in its scope. I really thought it was all going to >>>>>> be modeled after cellco, with a bend toward cellcos overtaking CBRS with >>>>>> shady handshakes and involuntary roaming agreements, but it appears >>>>>> winnforum isnt just government lackeys, the people involved have actually >>>>>> put gear in the air or at least listen to those that have. I think >>>>>> cantgetright may have been a co-chair of a committee somewhere >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Where would a guy who doesnt know what LIDAR is go to find out more >>>>>> about that clutter data? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:12 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the USGS is making 3D clutter maps with LIDAR. CnHeat is >>>>>> supposed to use that wherever it's available. >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't heard how that relates to the SAS though. Is this >>>>>> something you learned from the "450 Lady"? Care to share? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/5/2019 10:25 AM, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> first question is if a guy collects accurate clutter data, can he use >>>>>> it in any of the propagation tools we use? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> second, and this is where you braniacs come in, what equipment would >>>>>> it take on a drone to collect this data? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC drone limit without FAA is something like 300 feet. would that >>>>>> even be tall enough to sweep a wide enough path that it wouldnt take 300 >>>>>> battery charges to do a square mile? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I envision a course plotted drone trip that will fly over with a >>>>>> pilot car trailing to maintain the required operator LOS. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you think about how many miles youve put on verifying link paths >>>>>> over the years, its not really a prohibitive thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CBRS and SAS is whats driving this query, but general propagation >>>>>> anomalies creates quite a pickle that better accuracy/resolution clutter >>>>>> accuracy would alleviate. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please tell me there is already a consortium thats built out a >>>>>> clutter standard with a clutter submission mechanism, that would >>>>>> completely >>>>>> tickle me silly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I also dont know the impact to the propagation back ends as you >>>>>> increase the resolution of the data. Im assuming the SAS administrators >>>>>> are >>>>>> running something a little beefier than Radio Mobile. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I could see this being a lucrative niche market, if there were a way >>>>>> around the drone operator licensing requirements (though that cost is >>>>>> pretty minimal). Basically a company builds up a small fleet of drones, >>>>>> outfitted with the appropriate gear. You create an account, input your >>>>>> coverage area (or any region) that you want high resolution data for. >>>>>> they >>>>>> reprogram the course and ship it to you (after collecting the upfront >>>>>> payment, deposit, and massive liability release) they provide you with a >>>>>> road course to drive while the drone does its thing, anticipate points of >>>>>> retrieval for recharge, etc. when its all done, you stick it in the box >>>>>> and >>>>>> ship it back. would be cooler if the whole thing was transported back and >>>>>> forth by amazon drones. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I had a guarantee that the collected data would be useful to the >>>>>> company, into radio mobile, link planner, towercoverage, and SAS >>>>>> administrators, its something i could see a fair price tag of 3-10k on it >>>>>> for our coverage area, and no farmers blasted it out of the sky. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> we use clutter data now thats antiquated so it would come with the >>>>>> understanding that photosynthesis and bulldozers impact accuracy from the >>>>>> minute its collected. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> maybe this data is already out there and i dont know? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
