ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
New Possibilities of Field Data Survey in Forest Road Design.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Field data, as the basis for planning and designing forest roads, must have high spatial accuracy. Classical (using a theodolite and a level) and modern (based on total stations and GNSSs) surveying methods are used in current field data survey for forest road design. This study analyzed the spatial accuracy of classical and modern surveying methods, the accuracy of spatial data recorded using a UAV equipped with an RGB camera at different flight altitudes, and the accuracy of lidar data of the Republic of Croatia. This study was conducted on a forest area where salvage logging was carried out, which enabled the use of a GNSS receiver in RTK mode as a reference method. The highest RMSE values of the spatial coordinates were recorded for measurements obtained with the classical surveying method (0.89 m) and a total station (0.33 m). The flight altitude of the UAV did not significantly affect the spatial error of the collected data, which ranged between 0.07 and 0.09 m. The cross-terrain slope, as one of the factors that significantly affect the amount of earthworks, did not differ statistically significantly between the methods. The ALS error was strongly influenced by the cross-terrain slope. The authors conclude that the new survey methods (SfM and lidar data) provide high-accuracy data but also draw attention to challenges in their use, such as vegetation and biomass on the ground.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.