Australian-basedCapability statementWorking with GroundMapContact
GROUNDMAPGeospatial

GroundMapFusion™

Hobart · 3 surveys fused

Fusion packages

Scoped to your site. Combine as needed.

Start with a pilot on your own data under a written pilot agreement, before any paid engagement.

Request a proposal ↗
Canopy cut away to the measured ground beneath, with contours

Fusion Multi-Pass

Extra passes at new headings and angles, cross-checked into one model.

Raw: the 2024, 2011 and 2008 Hobart surveys in blue, red and green

Fusion Archive

Earlier surveys of the site, from any year or datum, aligned with your new capture.

Bare-earth slope with contours, Hobart

Fusion Monitor

Repeat capture on your schedule. Real change, beyond each pair's measured scatter at 95 % confidence, kept as its own layer.

Three tiers

Fusion, Fusion Graded and Fusion Spectra: what comes out.

Ask about Fusion Spectra ↗
  1. FusionYour passes and earlier surveys, aligned and fused into one point cloud, every point graded by how many passes agree.
  2. Fusion GradedAdds a confidence class to every point and flags every modelled surface. Real change, beyond each pair's measured scatter at 95 % confidence, kept as its own layer.
  3. Fusion SpectraLiDAR and imagery fused. Points measured from overlapping imagery join the laser-measured ones, each with its own confidence, and the colour comes from the photographs themselves.

Evidence classes: how each point is known

  1. Laser-measuredA LiDAR return. Graded by how many aligned passes agree on the surface.
  2. Image-measuredMeasured from overlapping images by photogrammetry and stereo, with its own confidence from the image geometry.
  3. ModelledA surface no pass measured, filled by geometric modelling. Flagged in every deliverable, never counted as measured.
  4. LearnedReserved: points from a trained model, if ever used, are flagged as learned, separately from modelled.

Every point graded

Whether two or more passes agree on the surface, point by point.

Hobart city centre coloured by confidence classHobart city centre coloured by confidence class
Hobart · confidence classes · each pass a survey (2008, 2011, 2024)
  1. 3 passes agreeThree aligned passes measure the same height, within 15 cm.
  2. 2 passes agreeTwo aligned passes measure the same height, within 15 cm.
  3. Single passMeasured, not cross-checked: one pass reached it, or it lies below the top surface.
  4. Change detectedPasses differ by more than 15 cm: real change, or disagreement between surveys.
  5. ModelledFilled where no pass measured. Hobart's walls: modelled from measured roof outlines, flagged. Never counted as confirmed.

Hobart: on stable open ground, checked independently of the alignment, the 2011 survey agrees with the 2024 survey to a median −6 mm (NMAD 64 mm, 95th percentile 157 mm; 94.4 % within 15 cm): relative agreement between surveys, not absolute accuracy. Accuracy

The evidence

Hobart: what each added survey contributes.

What each added survey contributes: Hobart demonstrationHobart demonstration, measured on the same cells for every bar. Under tree canopy (1.53 km²): ground points per square metre 6.71 with the 2024 survey alone, 7.19 with 2011 added, 8.16 with 2008 added; share of 1 m canopy cells with no ground point 15.9 %, 12.7 %, 9.3 %. Ground and roof surface (4.20 km²) confirmed by at least two surveys within 15 cm: 21.4 % with two surveys, then 39.4 % with three (6.1 % by all three). Agreement between aligned surveys, not absolute accuracy.Ground points per m²Under canopy · 1.53 km² · class 202468106.7120241 survey7.19+ 20112 surveys8.16+ 20083 surveysGround gaps1 m canopy cells with no ground0 %5 %10 %15 %20 %15.9 %20241 survey12.7 %+ 20112 surveys9.3 %+ 20083 surveysSurface confirmedGround and roofs · 4.20 km² · within 15 cm0 %25 %50 %75 %100 %21.4 %+ 20112 surveys39.4 %+ 20083 surveys2 surveys agreeall 3 agreeSource: GroundMap analysis of three LiDAR surveys of Hobart, 2008–2024, via ELVIS. Survey credits: Data and licences ↗Same cells in every bar. Agreement between aligned surveys, not absolute accuracy.
What each added survey contributes: Hobart demonstrationHobart demonstration, measured on the same cells for every bar. Under tree canopy (1.53 km²): ground points per square metre 6.71 with the 2024 survey alone, 7.19 with 2011 added, 8.16 with 2008 added; share of 1 m canopy cells with no ground point 15.9 %, 12.7 %, 9.3 %. Ground and roof surface (4.20 km²) confirmed by at least two surveys within 15 cm: 21.4 % with two surveys, then 39.4 % with three (6.1 % by all three). Agreement between aligned surveys, not absolute accuracy.Ground points per m²Under canopy · 1.53 km² · class 202468106.7120241 survey7.19+ 20112 surveys8.16+ 20083 surveysGround gaps1 m canopy cells with no ground0 %5 %10 %15 %20 %15.9 %20241 survey12.7 %+ 20112 surveys9.3 %+ 20083 surveysSurface confirmedGround and roofs · 4.20 km² · within 15 cm0 %25 %50 %75 %100 %21.4 %+ 20112 surveys39.4 %+ 20083 surveys2 surveys agreeall 3 agreeSource: GroundMap analysis of threeLiDAR surveys of Hobart, 2008–2024, viaELVIS.Survey credits: Data and licences ↗Same cells in every bar. Agreementbetween aligned surveys, not absoluteaccuracy.

How it works

From surveys that disagree to a model you can defend.

  1. 01

    Align

    Datum differences, offsets and distortions measured on unchanged ground, then removed from every pass.

    Hobart, looking across the city centre: fused LiDAR point cloud in true colour
    Aligned · Hobart city centre
  2. 02

    Separate change

    Real change, beyond each pair's measured scatter at 95 % confidence, kept as its own layer. Noise and moving objects removed.

    Hobart city blocks coloured by confidence class: walls show violet because they are modelledHobart city blocks coloured by confidence class: walls show violet because they are modelled
    Confidence · orange where passes disagree
  3. 03

    Fuse and grade

    Passes merged into one point cloud; every point graded.

    Hobart city centre from above: fused LiDAR point cloud in true colour
    Fused · true colour
  4. 04

    Fill and flag

    Modelling fills what no pass could see, such as walls, and flags every point.

    Hobart city blocks: measured points in black, modelled wall points in violet
    Hobart walls modelled from measured roof outlines, flagged · violet

Deliverables

InputsNew multi-pass capture, earlier surveys from any year or provider, and your own data.
Reference systemsGDA2020 / MGA coordinates, with heights on the Australian Height Datum, or as your project requires.
Point cloudLAS 1.4 / LAZ with ASPRS classes, and confidence, source pass and agreement per point. Modelled points flagged; change between surveys as class 22, Temporal Exclusion (ICSM v2.0).
RastersFused DTM and DSM (GeoTIFF / COG), with coverage, agreement and confidence rasters and a modelled-area mask.
AccuracyVertical accuracy against independent survey control; agreement between passes on every point. How accuracy is measured ↗
DocumentationProcessing lineage, per-pass co-registration, QA report, ISO 19115 metadata and a 3D web view.

Showcase: GroundMap processing of public survey data, not client work. Survey data: Hobart City 2023/24 (captured by Fugro for the State of Tasmania; theLIST; CC BY 3.0 AU), Climate Futures Derwent 2008 (captured by DiMAP for ACE CRC; ACE CRC licence) and Mount Wellington 2011 (no licence on record), via ELVIS. Processing: GroundMap. Data and licences ↗

Downloads

Specification, method and a worked QA example.

FAQ

Why fly angled passes?

Passes that look straight down measure roofs and ground but rarely walls, so walls end up modelled. Angled passes measure them.

Why not just use the newest survey?

One survey misses what it could not see: ground under canopy, walls, shadowed slopes. It has no history either. Extra passes and earlier surveys fill both, once they agree.

Are modelled surfaces used in measurements?

Only if you choose. Modelled points carry the LAS synthetic flag, so any software can exclude them. Measured-only outputs are the default.

Start a
project.

Send a site boundary. We will propose a capture and fusion plan.

Talk to Tom EisemanFounder & Principal