In this paper, we evaluated the results in terms of accuracy and coverage of the LiDAR-UAV system DJI Zenmuse L1 and Digital Aerial Photogrammetric system (DAP – UAV) DJI Zenmuse P1 in a forested area under leaf-off conditions on three sites with varying terrain ruggedness/tree type combinations. Detailed reference clouds were obtained using terrestrial scanning by Leica P40. Our results show that branches pose no problem to the accuracy of LiDAR-UAV and DAP-UAV derived terrain clouds. Elevation accuracies for photogrammetric data were even better than for LiDAR data – as low as 0.015 m on all sites. However, the LiDAR system provided better coverage, with almost full coverage at all sites, while the DAP-UAV coverage declined with the increasing density of branches (being worst in the young forest). In the very dense young forest (Site 1), the coverage by photogrammetrically extracted terrain cloud using high calculation quality and no filtering achieved 80.7% coverage, while LiDAR-UAV reached almost 100% coverage. The importance of the use of multiple (or last) returns when using LiDAR-UAV systems was demonstrated by the fact that on the site with the densest vegetation, only 11% of the ground points were represented by first returns.

In modern industrial geodesy, high demands are placed on the final accuracy, with expectations currently falling below 1 mm. The measurement methodology and surveying instruments used have to be adjusted to meet these stringent requirements, especially the total stations as the most often used instruments. A standard deviation of the measured distance is the accuracy parameter, commonly between 1 and 2 mm. This parameter is often discussed in conjunction with the determination of the real accuracy of measurements at very short distances (5–50 m) because it is generally known that this accuracy cannot be increased by simply repeating the measurement because a considerable part of the error is systematic. This article describes the detailed testing of electronic distance meters to determine the absolute size of their systematic errors, their stability over time, their repeatability and the real accuracy of their distance measurement. Twenty instruments (total stations) have been tested, and more than 60,000 distances in total were measured to determine the accuracy and precision parameters of the distance meters. Based on the experiments’ results, calibration procedures were designed, including a special correction function for each instrument, whose usage reduces the standard deviation of the measurement of distance by at least 50%.

The presented paper focuses on testing the performance of a SLAM scanner Zeb Horizon by GeoSLAM for the creation of a digital model of a bridge construction. A cloud acquired using a static scanner Leica ScanStation P40 served as a reference. Clouds from both scanners were registered into the same coordinate system using a Trimble S9 HP total station. SLAM scanner acquisition was performed independently in two passes. The data acquired using the SLAM scanner suffered from relatively high noise. Denoising using the MLS (Moving Least Squares) method was performed to reduce noise. An overall comparison of the point clouds was performed on both the original and MLS-smoothed data. In addition, the ICP (Iterative Closest Point) algorithm was also used to evaluate local accuracy. The RMSDs of MLS-denoised data were approximately 0.02 m for both GeoSLAM passes. Subsequently, a more detailed analysis was performed, calculating RMSDs for several profiles of the construction. This analysis revealed that the deviations of SLAM data from the reference data did not exceed 0.03 m in any direction (longitudinal, transverse, elevation) which is, considering the length of the bridge of 133 m, a very good result. These results demonstrate a high applicability of the tested scanner for many applications, such as the creation of digital twins.

This study presents a comprehensive comparison of static and SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) laser scanners of both new and old generation in a controlled indoor environment of a standard commercial building with long, linear corridors and recesses. The aim was to assess both global and local accuracy, as well as noise characteristics, of each scanner. Methods: A highly accurate static scanner was used to generate a reference point cloud. Five devices were evaluated: two static scanners (Leica RTC 360 and Trimble X7) and three SLAM scanners (GeoSLAM ZEB Horizon RT, Emesent Hovermap ST-X, and FARO Orbis). Accuracy analysis included systematic and random error assessment, axis-specific displacement evaluation, and profile-based local accuracy measurements. Additionally, noise was quantified before and after data smoothing. Static scanners yielded superior accuracies, with the Leica RTC 360 achieving the best performance (absolute accuracy of 1.2 mm). Among SLAM systems, the Emesent Hovermap ST-X and FARO Orbis—both newer-generation devices—demonstrated significant improvements over the older-generation GeoSLAM ZEB Horizon RT. After smoothing, the noise levels of these new-generation SLAM scanners (approx. 2.1–2.2 mm) approached those of static systems. The findings underline the ongoing technological progress in SLAM systems, with the new-generation SLAM scanners becoming increasingly viable alternatives to static scanners, especially when speed, ease of use, and reduced occlusions are prioritized. This makes them well-suited for rapid indoor mapping applications, provided that the slightly lower accuracy is acceptable for the intended use.