2021-10-21 Field Boundaries Meet Up

Owned by Dan Berne (Unlicensed)
Last updated: 2021-10-21
4 min read

 Participants

PresentNameCompany
XBrent KempAgGateway
XDan Berne (Unlicensed)AgGateway
XJim WilsonAgGateway
XJeremy W WilsonEFC Systems
Xkristi.block (Unlicensed)AgGateway
XJoe TevisVis Consulting
XScott NiemanLand O'Lakes
XNathan Stein (Deactivated)Pix4D
XAndres FerreyraSyngenta
XDavid Surber (Unlicensed)Corteva

Dennis DaggettEnterprise Strategies

Doug Farrington (Unlicensed)BASF



Terms:

MSA = Moved, Seconded & Approved

 Meeting Information

 Date
2021-10-21
 Time

9:00 am Chicago

 Web

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/514711741

 Phone

+1 (408) 650-3123

 Access Code
514-711-741

Purpose of meeting: The topic of Field Boundaries is large and multi-faceted. The purpose of this Meet Up is to identify key pinch points and determine a reasonablly scoped set of goals that would form the basis of a charter on the topic of field boundaries.

Documents:

AgGateway Antitrust Guidelines

 Agenda/Minute


Topic (Leader)

Desired Outcome
Sub-topics, supporting documentation, additional resources

Meeting Minutes

1

Welcome, Antitrust and Introduction () 5 min.

Welcome the group - review Antitrust statement
In all of AgGateway's operations and activities, it must avoid discussions or conduct that might violate applicable antitrust laws, or even appear to do so. To that end, AgGateway has established Antitrust Guidelines, which it has provided to each participant in this meeting. While it is your ultimate responsibility to ensure that your actions comply with applicable antitrust laws, your participation in this meeting is affirmation that you will abide by AgGateway's guidelines.		All welcomed. Everyone understands the purpose of the meeting.
2Minutes Taker () 1 min.A meeting taker has been selected.Dan Berne (Unlicensed) will capture notes.
3Background (Joe Tevis)The group is aware of previous attempts of tackling this issue.


AEF did do some work on GPS inconsistencies re: waylines across systems.  No specific solutions. Not much on RTK. 

Jeremy: inconsistencies with GPS receiver companies should be out of scope (Jeremy).

4

Use Cases (Jeremy W Wilson/ All)

The group agrees these are the ones we want to tackle

Jeremy documented the following Problem Statements for Field Boundaries, RTK and Carbon Credits.

Field Boundaries

  • Many different shapes are created to represent areas of land that growers operate today. These shapes can be different from one software or hardware device to another creating issues for growers or service providers. 
  • A central database with versioning abilities needs to be created to standardize field shapes for growers and service providers.
  • All modern GPS systems use NAD 83 / WGS 84 as a reference datum, but use of different projections can be a contributing challenge.

Questions from from Joe:

  • Should this repository be "immutable" (read....block chain)?
  • Do field boundaries need to be "complex" i.e. with multiple holes and islands?
  • Do boundaries need to be "smart"?  i.e. attributed polygons and points. For example:
    • preferred entrance,
    • waterway,
    • tile inlet
  • Is there a preferred format?
    • Shape file (I hope not)
    • WKT (not sure if this supports "smart" boundaries)
    • GeoJSon

RTK correction

  • Growers and Service Providers are using real-time RTK systems today to apply products, create field shapes and operate autonomous vehicles. RTK technology is a highly accurate correction methodology, that is “anchored” or reliant upon a stored coordinate location. Often, the accuracy of that stored location is unknown in reference to the real world or has not been determined using common survey methodology such as reference to ordered survey points; like what is done for roads, buildings, or other determinations for legal points of boundary that can be easily determined by a qualified individual. Due to this complexity, an individual RTK rover switching between RTK reference base stations for correction source or interoperability between RTK Base – Rover combinations can have inherent challenges of both accuracy and repeatability of the work done to achieve interoperability.
    Need consistencies around shapes and positions. Handinnf data from drones to tractors results in different data. Need governance of reference points.

Questions from from Joe:

  • Does our scope include auto-steering, surveying of field boundaries or both?
  • How accurate do field boundaries need to be?
  • Which is more important accuracy or repeatability. 
  • What additional surveying meta data needs to be included with field boundaries that is not today?
  • Would more comprehensive meta data solve the problem?

Principles:

  • Different applications require different levels of accuracy.

  • Systems may have high precision but low accuracy. Resolve offset for time after using instrument (ala OPUS).  Waiting time is no longer deemed the future for precision. 
    Bay station range accuracy - diminishes after 1 mile. Jeremy: X&Y accuracy up to 35 miles. Z accuracy diminishes after 1 mile. 

What does the future look like?

  • Sat-based corrections (not for Z) are competitive with RTK; 
  • LIDAR and Sonar will be used more as costs come down. LIDAR going on some tractors. 


Carbon Marketing/Sustainability Standards

  • The industry is lacking a standard set of attributes or recognized best management practices that need to be collected to meet the needs of the market to facilitate Carbon or Sustainability reporting. i.e. Define tillage to understand the impact to the soil for using this piece of tillage equipment.

Others?

5Prioritization and next steps (All)Prioritize our area of focus on this very large topic.

In the discussion at the Precision Ag Round Table yesterday, prioritized:

  1. Different Field Boundary Shapes
  2. RTK (Jeremy noted that the industry seemed to be headed in one direction).
    Can we standardize on OPUS? Create a message re: timing and referencing. 
    Need to know native projections (control/reference points) - external. 
    OPUS is not global plus KISS to get adoption. 
    Surveying lines are inconsistent across the industry.
    Different types of obstacles.

Jeremy: Field Boundary and GPS problems go hand-in-hand. Have to solve both. 
Nathan: Targeted applications (e.g. weed identification and removal) are OK if you areon the same network. When shared, start with a reference point; offsets resolve themselves. 

Andres; Different "boundaries" for different purposes. Propose the need for a metadata approach. Inclusde semantic considerations, such as time. Cannot have allocation boundaries that overlap in space and time. Two existing standards: ISO 19115 and ISO 19157. How to describe the elements; from these we can produce context items (some of these are within the PAIL project. 

Other technologies? e.g. how does the military deal with this for drone accuracy?  Robotics? Phone: accuracy via visual cues. Maybe we don't want to get too accurate (liability(. 

6Next Steps

Meet again to define objectives. 

Have a Mural session.

7

Annual Conference Session (All)

Identify what we want to accomplish at the Annual Meeting, key content and session lead(s).
8Next Meeting (All)Is there a need for another meeting before the Annual Conference?

Next meet up: Oct 28; 10:00 Chicago time. This will be a Mural session.

9Adjournment ()AdjournMeeting adjourned at 10:01  am Chicago time

Tasks/Action Items

WhoWhen AssignedWhatDeadline Status