Post

3 followers Follow
0
Avatar

My first manual georeference..

Hi, I just input the .CSV file with the manual georeference points and the offset on all points is coming up as 0.  Does this mean that the original map is perfectly georeferenced already?  I can't seem to find a tool to manually pinpoint the targets that I laid down on the ground.  Do you have a video or something that shows a typical workflow?  I have attached a screenshot after importing the CSV file.  Let me know what the next step is, or if there is no next step because the file is already accurate.  In my account, this is the

Foley Property with GCP 11-2019

file.  Thanks.

Kevin Foley

Official comment

Avatar

In your screenshot:

"Move each marker to where it should be."

You have to move the markers to their incorrect positions in the map. Then we rewarp it for you to take out the error.

Zane
Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

6 comments

0
Avatar

Thank you.  The - symbols were somehow removed from my CSV file.  Now that they are correct.  I see the markers to move.  One question though..  I need the LAS file to make a new topo map.  Will you be outputting a new LAS file for me also?  If not, can you tell me if I can somehow get an accurate topo from the files that you are sending me?

Kevin Foley 0 votes
Comment actions Permalink
0
Avatar

The LAS and the rest of the 3D outputs are not created during rereferencing. The DEM is provided though which is actually your best source for topo data. 

Zane 0 votes
Comment actions Permalink
0
Avatar

I experience the same thing. After uploading the GCPs.csv, no point symbols appear on my map for adjusting.

BTY, I did not measure these GCPs in the field with GNSS/GPS. I manually georeferenced the .TIF in QGIS with the "Raster-Georeferencer tool", and then saved & exported the GCPs file from Q and uploaded it to MME. I edited it to include only correct fields as per the sample GCPs file.

Chris Campagnaro 0 votes
Comment actions Permalink
0
Avatar

Chris: Your latitude numbers look wacky. Longitude looks good though. That is likely the problem. 

Zane 0 votes
Comment actions Permalink
0
Avatar

Yes, right you are, and weird. Even weirder, why didn't I notice that? Now to figure out how and why.

Thx Zane.

Chris Campagnaro 0 votes
Comment actions Permalink