Comparison of TLS, photogrammetry, total station, GNSS, levelling, and mobile mapping
Contents
Area vs errors graph for different geomatics techniques (Sestras et al 2025)
| Method/instrument | Advantages | Disadvantages | Accuracy | Measured parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GNSS | High precision in static measurements, real-time coordinate tracking, automated measurements, capable of long-distance measurements | Depends on satellite visibility. Multipath effects reduce accuracy. Less accurate in vertical than horizontal plane. | Sub-cm (static), cm (kinematic) | Coordinates (vertical, horizontal) |
| RTS | Sub-millimeter accuracy, automated measurements, real-time coordinate tracking, cost-effective for multiple static measurement points | Requires contact with the structure. Requires line-of-sight. Sensitive to weather (fog, rain, wind). Higher cost compared to simpler instruments | Sub-millimeter accuracy | Coordinates (vertical, horizontal) |
| Level | High precision, lower cost compared to advanced instruments | Only measure vertical coordinatess. Not suitable for kinematic measurements. Sensitive to weather (fog, rain, wind). Impossibility of automated measurement process | 0.1 mm | Coordinates (vertical) |
| TLS | High data density, fast and accurate 3D surveying over large areas, non-contact method | Less accurate than traditional methods. Requires line-of-sight. Expensive and require expert data processing. Sensitive to weather (fog, rain, wind). | 1–2 mm | 3D coordinates, object geometry |
| Photogrammetry | Low cost, fast and simple data collection, non-contact method, long-range capability | Lower accuracy than high-precision methods. Requires line-of-sight. Affected by lighting and weather (fog, night). Requires post-processing and data analysis. | Sub-millimeter accuracy | Coordinates (in sensor plane or 3D) |
| LVDT | High precision, real-time tracking, automated measurements, unaffected by weather conditions | Requires contact with the structure. Setting a reference point can be challenging. Limited application for large coordinate changes. | Up to 0.01 mm | Coordinate differences (1D) |
Comparison of different geospatial data acquisition techniques (after Klepárník, R., & Sedlácek, J. (2021))
| Data acquisition: | Method | Precision (m) | Acquisition speed | Price | Area size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct methods | |||||
| Total station | 0.01-0.05 | ** | €€€ | O | |
| RTK GPS | 0.02-0.1 | ** | €€€ | OO | |
| Laser scanning | 0.01-0.1 | *** | €€€€ | O | |
| UAV Photogrammetry | 0.03-0.1 | **** | €€€ | OOO | |
| Direct methods / indirect methods | |||||
| Airborne laser scanning | 0.1-1 | *** | €€€€€ | OOOO | |
| Airborne photogrammetry | 0.1-1 | ***** | €€€€€€ | OOOO | |
| Spaceborne (Remote sensing) | 1-20 | ** | 0-€ | Any size | |
| Indirect methods | |||||
| Digital cadastre | 0.1-0.2 | * | 0 | Any size | |
| DTM/DSM | 0.2-1 | * | € | Any size | |
| Map source | By Map Scale | By source | 0-€ | Any size |
Comparison of different laser scanning methods
| Airborne Laser Scanner | Stationary Terrestrial Laser Scanner | Mobile Terrestrial Laser Scanner | Handheld (Industrial) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ideal usage | Exterior mapping Long/Linear Projects Large scale mapping |
Interior high-density high accuracy scans (MEP, architectural, structural, facilities management, and forensics) | Exterior high accuracy longer range scans (Architectural reconstruction, surveying, engineering, planning, forensics) | Top-quality, high-precision Its suitable for indoor scans |
| Accuracy and range | Accuracy +/- 10 cm, depending on conditions Range 3,000 feet |
Accuracy +/- 2 mm Range 60 to 120 meters, depending on conditions |
Accuracy +/- 2 mm Range 150 to 330 meters, depending on conditions |
Accuracy +/- 0.5mm Range up to 110 meters, depending on conditions |
References
- Sestras, P., Badea, G., Badea, A. C., Salagean, T., Roșca, S., Kader, S., & Remondino, F. (2025). Land surveying with UAV photogrammetry and LiDAR for optimal building planning. Automation in Construction, 173, 106092.
- Klepárník, R., & Sedlácek, J. (2021). Uav photogrammetry, lidar or webgl? A comparison of spatial data sources for landscape architecture. J. Digit. Landsc. Archit, 6, 220-229.
Subscribe and receive updates, lessons, courses and more. No spam!
Get the latest updates and tips.