Del Duca, G.; Machado, C. Assessing the Quality of the Leica BLK2GO Mobile Laser Scanner versus the Focus 3D S120 Static Terrestrial Laser Scanner for a Preliminary Study of Garden Digital Surveying. Heritage 2023, 6, 1007-1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6020057
Del Duca, G.; Machado, C. Assessing the Quality of the Leica BLK2GO Mobile Laser Scanner versus the Focus 3D S120 Static Terrestrial Laser Scanner for a Preliminary Study of Garden Digital Surveying. Heritage 2023, 6, 1007-1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6020057
Del Duca, G.; Machado, C. Assessing the Quality of the Leica BLK2GO Mobile Laser Scanner versus the Focus 3D S120 Static Terrestrial Laser Scanner for a Preliminary Study of Garden Digital Surveying. Heritage 2023, 6, 1007-1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6020057
Del Duca, G.; Machado, C. Assessing the Quality of the Leica BLK2GO Mobile Laser Scanner versus the Focus 3D S120 Static Terrestrial Laser Scanner for a Preliminary Study of Garden Digital Surveying. Heritage 2023, 6, 1007-1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6020057
Abstract
Gardens play a key role in the definition of the cultural landscape since they reflect the culture, identity and history of a people. They also contribute to the ecological balance of the city. Despite gardens have an historic and social value, they are not protected as much as the rest of the existing heritage, like architecture and archaeological sites. While methods of built-heritage mapping and monitoring are increasing and constantly improving to reduce built-heritage loss and the severe impact of natural disasters, the documentation and survey techniques for gardens are often antiquated, inventories are typically made by non-updated/updatable reports, and rarely they are on digital format and in 3D. This paper presents the preliminary results of a study on latest technology for gardens laser scanning. We compared static Terrestrial Laser Scanning and Mobile Laser Scanning point clouds, to evaluate their quality for documentation and the estimation of the tree attributes. The evaluation is based on visual observation and graphic comparison of the two point clouds acquired in different instances. Both methods produced useful outcomes for the research scope within their limitations. Terrestrial Laser Scanning is still the method that offers more accurate point clouds with a higher point density and less noise level. However, the more recent Mobile Laser Scanning is able to survey in less time, significantly reducing the costs for site activities, data post-production and registration. Both methods have their own restrictions that are amplified by site features, mainly the lack of plans for the geometric alignment of scans and for the Simultaneous Location and Mapping (SLAM) process. We also offer the results of a comparison of the functional range of the two machines, as well as for a comparison of their terrain information extraction capabilities.
Keywords
Terrestrial Laser Scanning; LiDAR; Mobile Laser Scanning; SLAM; Forest inventory; Garden documentation; Garden digital surveying
Subject
Social Sciences, Ethnic and Cultural Studies
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
