Newsletter Volume 4, Issue 1

We’ve had a quick start to 2013 thanks to all the activity related to LTE deployments around the world. New technology overlays are a key driver for our business. As we are happily adding new customers, we are receiving some familiar questions. We are often asked why there are differences between our products (particularly clutter) and the orthoimagery available through online mapping services. We thought it warranted a detailed explanation in our newsletter. We hope you enjoy the article below: Understanding Clutter.


We intended to distribute our annual customer survey in January. Unfortunately, this was delayed. Look for an email next week to have your say. As always, we welcome your feedback and hope you enjoy this newsletter.


Understanding Clutter

 

Clutter, or land use, is a critical layer for RF engineers looking to plan or optimize a wireless network. Traffic plans can be weighted by clutter classes, and key parameters that impact link budgets (such as attenuation and absorption values) can be assigned per clutter type. Perhaps even more important for today’s wireless broadband networks is the ability to assign percentage of indoor users by clutter class (i.e., dense urban has a much higher % of indoor users than rural). As such, clutter can be tailored to provide a powerful input to RF simulations for wireless operators and their vendors designing networks. Problems arise, however, when comparisons are made between generally available and free-to-use mapping applications and purpose-built medium resolution (10-30m) clutter. These comparisons are not practical, scientific or relevant to the RF planning process. In this article, we’ll explain why.


Let’s begin with a brief explanation of the clutter production process. Assigning an area to a particular clutter class such as forest, whether through automated or manual processes, needs to be based on imagery that is of the same resolution of the output data or higher. In other words, 5m clutter should be derived from imagery that is 5m or higher - up to sub-meter resolution. A couple of key concepts should also be explained. The minimum mapping unit (MMU) is the smallest area for which an individual clutter class will be represented in the clutter layer. For example, if an MMU is 20m x 20m (400 square meters) a stand of trees measuring 100 square meters in area will not be represented in the clutter layer. The charts below suggest the MMUs for ComputaMaps product lines:


click to enlarge


A second - and interrelated concept - is level of detail (LOD). A higher-resolution data set will be more detailed and therefore have more accurate classification information than a lower resolution data set. For illustrative purposes, let’s compare a pixel in a 20-meter data set - an area of 20 x 20 meters or 400m2 - against a 5m sample of the same area. This region in a 5m resolution data set, which would have pixels representing 5x5 meters (or 25m2), would have a much higher LOD. From a logical perspective, it appears that the 5m to 20m data would have 4x times higher resolution. But in fact, the number of pixels in a 5m data set covering 400m2 is actually 8x. The LOD in the 5m is much greater to a 20m product.


click to enlarge


Common Mistakes When Comparing Clutter to Online Mapping Engines


It is understandable why RF engineers would consult free online mapping tools, Google Earth, Bing, etc. in performing their assignments. The maps are readily available, free to use and often provided at a higher resolution than the data they have acquired for use inside their RF planning tool. Of course, based on the discussion above, it is unfair to compare medium-resolution clutter data in a dense urban environment to what is displayed on a free mapping engine (e.g., often at sub-meter resolutions). But are there other reasons to doubt the ortho imagery of Google Earth and others?


When ComputaMaps delivers a clutter layer to a customer, it is based on a process used for classification that is contiguous for the entire data set. This is not the case for online mapping engines, which will splice together disparate data sets and sources (see the problems this can cause below). Furthermore, the data in free online mapping engines should not be considered ortho-rectified. It may be, but who do you complain to about the accuracy of a free product?


click to enlarge


The street corner shown here in an online map has shifted by 15m from one image to the next. Similarly in the image below, the images have not been properly stitched together.


click to enlarge


Clearly, there will be distinctive differences in clutter sourced from high- vs. medium-resolution imagery. The higher the resolution of clutter acquired the better. In dense urban environments, we encourage 5m data use and where available, the use of Urban Planner 2.5D. Even at comparable resolutions to Google Earth or other online mapping platforms, our clutter may show differences. We use the best vintage and available imagery to create our products, at a price the market will support. This often means our customers purchase lower resolution imagery than what is freely available for comparison online. These online services can be good visual aids, but they have been produced using different resolution satellite imagery and mixed vintages that make any comparison inconsistent. The ComputaMaps production process provides consistent clutter and related geodata layers that should be compared to similar-resolution imagery.

News & Events


Upcoming Tradeshows

 

We will be attending CTIA (Las Vegas), May 21-23, 2013 and CommunicAsia (Singapore), June 18-21, 2013. If you would like to schedule meetings with our attendees, please contact us.


Webinar: Planning the Next Generation of Wireless Networks

 

In conjunction with our imagery partner, DigitalGlobe, we’ll be presenting a webinar on Planning the Next Generation of Wireless Networks on June 26, 2013. Sign up here.


Recent Projects

3D Projects

Brazil

Brasília
Campinas
Florianópolis
Porto Alegre
Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo

Campinas, Brazil

Florianópolis, Brazil

Japan

Tokyo

Singapore

Singapore

USA

Boulder, CO

2D projects

Bolivia

Bermejo
Charaña
Cochabamba
Copacabana
Desaguadero
Guayaramerín
Montero
Oruro
Pisiga Bolívar Sucre
Puerto Acosta
Punata
Riberalta
San Ignacio
San Matías
Chungara–Tambo Quemado
Tarija
La Santísima Trinidad
Villazón
Yacuíba

Brazil

Barcarena
Brasília
Campo Grande
Cuiabá
Fortaleza
Ipatinga
João Pessoa
Camaçari
Maceió
Manaus
Porto Velho
Salvador
Teresina
Vitória
Volta Redonda

Bulgaria

(whole country)

Canada

(whole country)

Commonwealth of
the Bahamas

(whole country)

Costa Rica

(whole country)

Honduras

Choluteca
Comayagua
La Ceiba
Puerto Cortés
San Pedro Sula
Tegucigalpa

Indonesia

Jakarta
Semarang
Surakarta
Yogyakarta

Iraq

(whole country)
Altun Kupri
Bardarash
Darbandikhan
Duhok
Erbil
Kalak
Kalar
Khurmal
Koy Sanjaq
Makhmur
Penjwin
Qalat Dizah
Qushtapa
Sumel
Taqtaq
Tasluja
Zakho
Zarayan

Japan

Tokyo

Malaysia

(whole country)

Mexico

Aguascalientes
Cabo San Lucas
Ciudad Victoria
Cuernavaca
Culiacán
Irapuato
León
Mazatlán
Mexicali
Monterrey
Nogales
Pachuca
Reynosa
Saltillo
San Luis Potosí
Tampico
Toluca
Torreón

Myanmar

(whole country)
Mandalay
Yangon

Netherlands Antilles

Bonaire
Saba
Sint Eustatius

Peru

(whole country)

Puerto Rico

(whole country)

Romania

(whole country)

Somalia

Mogadishu

Sudan

(whole country)

UAE

Abu Dhabi

United Kingdom

(whole country)

Uruguay

(whole country)
Punta del Este
Montevideo

USA

Los Angeles, CA
Washington, D.C.


linkedin   twitter   youtube   contactus

Did someone forward this email to you? Would you like to receive your own copy of our newsletter?
Please subscribe here.