There are models like the Athena model I helped create ( an adaptation of the CRC-Predict) that have a clutter algorithm that uses clutter density and the angle of attack to do a better job of dynamically calculating loss through trees. But of course the limitation is again knowing the type, height, and density. As for the empirical models in use by some of the cell planning tools, most of them are garbage. It always baffled me that you go set up test transmitters, collect data, then tune what amounts to a slope intercept model to try to match that, only to run predictions that may or may not come out the same, and then go drive test it again after you build it to verify your coverage. Real predictive models like CRC-Predict can be more accurate than even the best tuned empirical models like Hata, Cost231, Lee, etc. We came on the scene as the only company using CRC-Predict back in the late 90s and it blew everyone's mind to the point that Marconi Wireless (formerly MSI) the original developer of Planet, went and bought the only other company who had a CRC licence (NorthwoodGeo from Brian's neck of the woods) after Leap wireless told them they might be switching to our software. I had given John Saboe, a Qualcomm engineer who became the top Engineering director at Leap a couple demo machines running Athena to play with. Marconi had way more resources than my little 3 man company and hired Dr Whitaker away from the CRC to implement the model for them. They put 10s if not 100s of thousands into implementing it and since they had about 70% of the RF Planning market share at that point, we lost our competitive advantage.
SInce I've bored you with the history lesson, I'll say that I always wanted to create a GIS tool that would allow you to modify the standard clutter databases. Brian is right that the resolution just isn't there in the clutter databases, but something as simple as drawing polygons around smaller groups of trees, or lines of trees on the satellite images, then assigning your type, elevation, and density to that polygon and either updating the clutter files you are using or creating a new set that is checked first using the original file as failover. Sure it would take some time, but for the average wisp, the areas just aren't that big. If you wanted more accurate plots it could be done. This would eliminate the resolution problem Brian was discussing about having multiple types of clutter in a given bin but only getting one classification that is perhaps not the correct one. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:52 AM <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > And I have manually tuned RM for this purpose in Louisiana. But you > really need to go to the area and see what is actually there. We used > drones to get the accurate height of the trees. > > *From:* Brian Webster > *Sent:* Friday, December 6, 2019 8:06 AM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones > > > Clutter data in the public domain is mostly 30 meter square resolution. > Cameron has talked about a lot of the issues with the data. Radio Mobile > (and TowerCoverage since it runs on that) has the ability to tune the > cluster classifications a bit. I worked with Roger in implementing that > clutter model. It is not actually part of the Longley Rice propagation > model, what he did at my begging was allow a user to manually edit the > height and density for each clutter class and then the tool assigns a loss > factor per pixel/30 meter square of clutter and then subtracts the sum > total of the clutter loss for the ray being propagated. This is not perfect > but when the cell companies use their expensive propagation tools, they > tune their clutter models for each market by drive testing a known > transmitter with a roving unit and run those drive test results against > what the software thinks the signals should be. In this process they > compare the know clutter classes that were propagated through and it > self-tweaks the loss factors is applies for each clutter class. In radio > mobile you do basically the same thing but without automation. To get it > right you have to go out and measure a lot of your real world signal levels > and manually run propagations until the two match (minus your fade margins > built in to your plots). > > > > This works well if you spend the time, the bigger issue is that the 30 > meter square is assigned just one clutter class code. In general it works > well for free stuff. The reality of knowing about specific tree lines > alongside a house or in urban environments with tree lined streets or in > back years, those individual trees to not get factored in to your > propagation, just the building losses if that building clutter is set to a > height to show as an obstruction(in WISP cases most are not if you are > mounting your antenna on the roof for average suburban clutter). The answer > to this is to have higher resolution clutter. The terrain data used is 10 > meter resolution, meaning there have been hard data points gathered at > least every 10 meters horizontally and interpolated. Some terrain data is > available at 3 meters but that is not as widely available. So the issue > remains how do you get better resolution clutter data. LIDAR can indeed be > used and the best versions are actually driven on the streets and not flown > from the air. As Cameron mentioned however that data still only gives you > the height/size/area where the clutter is. It does not tell you what type > of class that it is and/or what type of RF losses each pixel of that data > should be assigned, plus you are typically only getting the clutter data > from the street facing side. Think of the old movie sets and only seeing > the building face. > > > > Another method of increasing clutter accuracy is to resample the data from > 30 meter pixels down to smaller sized pixels. This has limited benefit. > Mostly this can allow you to take things like tree clutter and trim out the > highway areas and or possibly cut out the trees with specific building data > footprints and assign a different clutter class by pixel. This is very > tedious to do on a large scale and you first have to have other good data > sources to trim or reclassify these smaller pixels properly to a new > clutter class. While all of this gives you a better physical map of what > and where you have clutter down to a more realistic reality, you would then > have to go back and manually recalibrate the tuning because tuning over > larger pixels is an averaging process using the single clutter class. As > you might guess all of this takes time and money. At some point there will > likely be some cool efforts done by others where we can integrate this. For > instance Microsoft released building outline GIS data for the whole country > that they machine learned from aerial imagery. That could be used over > resampled data although if the buildings had tree cover they didn’t get > captured in the first place because they are not visible in the images. > There are other open source projects for things like spectrum sensing on a > Raspberry Pi and software defined radio that if you put enough sensors out > there they might help tune the clutter loss models. > https://electrosense.org/ > > > > > > This is probably way more than you wanted to read about clutter data and > RF propagations but hey I am a geek like that. > > > > Thank You, > > Brian Webster > > www.wirelessmapping.com > > www.Broadband-Mapping.com > > > > *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *castarritt . > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2019 4:47 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] clutter data and drones > > > > Google maps uses some of the 1M resolution LIDAR data. Check out Austin, > TX (maybe most other metro areas as well?) in google, enable "globe view", > and then turn on 3D. Now use left ctrl and drag with the mouse to move > your view angle. This is the data cnHeat and the Google CBRS SAS solution > supposedly use. OT: I wonder if any of the usual suspects are making PC > flight simulators that use this data. > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:30 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The issue with publicly available clutter data is it seems old, poor > resolution or inaccurate. If heat is using the same data as linkplanner, > its definitely bunk. > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:26 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Have you looked at CnHeat? > > We're about to do some testing with it here. They mentioned USGS LIDAR as > one of the data sources. Presumably that's blended with other imaging > somehow. > > > > > > On 12/5/2019 4:02 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: > > LIDAR is not clutter specific, it just can't penetrate clutter (it's > light) so clutter ends up looking like terrain. The benefit is that you get > an elevation, the drawback is that you don't know the type of clutter or > how high it is above the terrain. I suppose if you compare the lidar data > against a terrain only DEM, you could extract the clutter height. Here is > the thing... some propagation does penetrate vegetation to some degree, so > if you are talking about frequencies that do, then lidar is not necessarily > a good thing to use as everything ends up looking like an obstruction. You > also need a model that can actually account for clutter (vegetation) > density when talking about how much it will affect the signal. Obviously > leaf types and things like that can have other effects, but I'm unaware of > any model that goes to that depth. While some account for clutter heights > to use diffraction losses and some lump-sum type losses for a given clutter > category, none of the models that are in use in the wisp industry account > for clutter density and there are only a few in existence that do. > > > > You can get high res clutter data (types) from thermal satellite imaging > from one of the geospatial data companies like Terrapin Geographic, or > SPOT. It is surprisingly accurate and is what real prop tools like Planet > use. The downside is no elevations, so you still have user input for that. > Unless you are willing to shell out big bucks, don't bother looking. We are > talking about 10's of thousands for a modestly sized area. The cellcos can > afford it. > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Interesting. And unfortunately I don't know any more about LIDAR than a > Google Search does. > > > > On 12/5/2019 11:27 AM, Steve Jones wrote: > > Just the SAS administrators will be competitive product. So garbage in > garbage out will really apply. Basic SAS functionality is uniform, but > feature sets will differ. More accurate propagation modeling every night > will be something we benefit from and Im thinking that will be one of the > things they compete against each other with. They didnt say that > specifically, but the second iteration of SAS will be more bigger, > potentially even bigly in its scope. I really thought it was all going to > be modeled after cellco, with a bend toward cellcos overtaking CBRS with > shady handshakes and involuntary roaming agreements, but it appears > winnforum isnt just government lackeys, the people involved have actually > put gear in the air or at least listen to those that have. I think > cantgetright may have been a co-chair of a committee somewhere > > > > Where would a guy who doesnt know what LIDAR is go to find out more about > that clutter data? > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:12 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the USGS is making 3D clutter maps with LIDAR. CnHeat is supposed > to use that wherever it's available. > > I haven't heard how that relates to the SAS though. Is this something you > learned from the "450 Lady"? Care to share? > > > > > > On 12/5/2019 10:25 AM, Steve Jones wrote: > > first question is if a guy collects accurate clutter data, can he use it > in any of the propagation tools we use? > > > > second, and this is where you braniacs come in, what equipment would it > take on a drone to collect this data? > > > > IIRC drone limit without FAA is something like 300 feet. would that even > be tall enough to sweep a wide enough path that it wouldnt take 300 battery > charges to do a square mile? > > > > I envision a course plotted drone trip that will fly over with a pilot car > trailing to maintain the required operator LOS. > > If you think about how many miles youve put on verifying link paths over > the years, its not really a prohibitive thing. > > > > CBRS and SAS is whats driving this query, but general propagation > anomalies creates quite a pickle that better accuracy/resolution clutter > accuracy would alleviate. > > > > Please tell me there is already a consortium thats built out a clutter > standard with a clutter submission mechanism, that would completely tickle > me silly. > > > > I also dont know the impact to the propagation back ends as you increase > the resolution of the data. Im assuming the SAS administrators are running > something a little beefier than Radio Mobile. > > > > I could see this being a lucrative niche market, if there were a way > around the drone operator licensing requirements (though that cost is > pretty minimal). Basically a company builds up a small fleet of drones, > outfitted with the appropriate gear. You create an account, input your > coverage area (or any region) that you want high resolution data for. they > reprogram the course and ship it to you (after collecting the upfront > payment, deposit, and massive liability release) they provide you with a > road course to drive while the drone does its thing, anticipate points of > retrieval for recharge, etc. when its all done, you stick it in the box and > ship it back. would be cooler if the whole thing was transported back and > forth by amazon drones. > > > > If I had a guarantee that the collected data would be useful to the > company, into radio mobile, link planner, towercoverage, and SAS > administrators, its something i could see a fair price tag of 3-10k on it > for our coverage area, and no farmers blasted it out of the sky. > > > > we use clutter data now thats antiquated so it would come with the > understanding that photosynthesis and bulldozers impact accuracy from the > minute its collected. > > > > maybe this data is already out there and i dont know? > > > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > ------------------------------ > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
