SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Fotogrametri Dergisi / 2025 / Volume: 7 Issue: 2

The Importance of RTK and PPK Systems in Map Production for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

RTK ve PPK Sistemlerinin İnsansız Hava Araçları İçin Harita Üretiminde Önemi

Murat Yakar(MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2664-6251
Hacı Murat Yılmaz(Engineering Faculty)0000-0002-9725-5792
Pages
37–46
Publication Date
2025-12-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, examples from photogrammetric, geodetic, and UAV-based applications are discussed to illustrate the suitability of each technique for specific conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) have become essential tools for obtaining high-precision spatial data in disciplines such as geodesy, surveying, and photogrammetry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Both RTK and PPK allow a UAV to accurately determine its location without needing to measure ground targets.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, examples from photogrammetric, geodetic, and UAV-based applications are discussed to illustrate the suitability of each technique for specific conditions.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:RTK · PPK · Konumlama

Abstract

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) have become essential tools for obtaining high-precision spatial data in disciplines such as geodesy, surveying, and photogrammetry. Among GNSS-based positioning methods, Real Time Kinematic (RTK) and Post Processed Kinematic (PPK) techniques are widely used for achieving centimeter-level accuracy. RTK corrects position errors during UAV flight. PPK applies the corrections after the flight. PPK is another GPS correction technique that is gaining popularity, similar to RTK. Both RTK and PPK allow a UAV to accurately determine its location without needing to measure ground targets. However, there are significant differences between these two technologies. This paper presents a detailed analysis of the working principles of RTK and PPK systems, their operational mechanisms, and their comparative advantages and disadvantages. In addition, examples from photogrammetric, geodetic, and UAV-based applications are discussed to illustrate the suitability of each technique for specific conditions.

Özet

GNSS tabanlı konumlama teknolojileri, jeodezik ölçümlerden insansız hava aracı (İHA) haritalamalarına kadar geniş bir uygulama alanı bulmaktadır. Bu teknolojiler arasında Gerçek Zamanlı Kinematik (RTK) ve Sonradan İşlenen Kinematik (PPK) yöntemleri, santimetre düzeyinde doğruluk sağlamaları nedeniyle öne çıkmaktadır. RTK, İHA uçuşu sırasında konum hatalarını düzeltir. PPK ise uçuştan sonraki düzeltmeleri uygular. PPK, RTK'ya benzer şekilde giderek önem kazanan bir başka GPS düzeltme tekniğidir. Hem RTK hem de PPK, yer hedeflerini ölçmeye gerek kalmadan bir İHA'nın konumunun doğru bir şekilde belirlemesini sağlar. Ancak, bu iki teknolojisi arasında önemli farklılıklar vardır. Bu çalışmada, RTK ve PPK sistemlerinin temel çalışma prensipleri, işleyiş mekanizmaları ve avantaj–dezavantajları detaylı olarak incelenmiştir. Ayrıca iki yöntem arasındaki temel farklar ortaya konularak, hangi uygulama koşullarında hangi yöntemin tercih edilmesi gerektiği tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yakar, M., Yılmaz, H. M. (2025). The Importance of RTK and PPK Systems in Map Production for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Türkiye Fotogrametri Dergisi, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.53030/tufod.1803684

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Yilmaz, H. M., Yakar, M., & Yildiz, F. (2008). Digital photogrammetry in obtaining of 3D model data of irregular small objects. ISPRS Archives, 37, 125–130.
  2. Yılmaz, H. M., Karabörk, H., & Yakar, M. (2000). Yersel fotogrametrinin kullanım alanları. Niğde Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 1–6.
  3. Mohammed, O., & Yakar, M. (2016). Yersel fotogrametrik yöntem ile ibadethanelerin modellenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(2), 85–95.
  4. Alyilmaz, C., Alyilmaz, S., & Yakar, M. (2010). Measurement of petroglyhps (rock of arts) of Qobustan with close range photogrammetry. ISPRS Archives, 38(5), 29–32.
  5. Yakar, M., Orhan, O., Ulvi, A., Yiğit, A. Y., & Yüzer, M. M. (2015). Sahip Ata Külliyesi rölöve örneği. TMMOB Harita ve Kadastro Mühendisleri Odası.
  6. Yakar, M., & Doğan, Y. (2017). Mersin Silifke Mezgit Kale Anıt Mezarı fotogrametrik rölöve alımı ve üç boyutlu modelleme çalışması. Geomatik, 2(1), 11–17.
  7. Yakar, M., Murat Yılmaz, H., Yıldız, F., Zeybek, M., Şentürk, H., & Çelik, H. (2010). Silifke–Mersin bölgesinde Roma dönemi eserlerinin 3 boyutlu modelleme çalışması ve animasyonu. Jeodezi ve Jeoinformasyon Dergisi, (101).
  8. Yakar, M., Uysal, M., Toprak, A. S., & Polat, N. (2013). 3D modeling of historical Doger caravansaries by digital photogrammetry. ISPRS Archives, 40, 695–698.
  9. Pulat, F., Yakar, M., & Ulvi, A. (2022). Three-dimensional modeling of the Kubbe-i Hasiye Shrine with terrestrial photogrammetric method. Cultural Heritage and Science, 3(1), 6–11.
  10. Ünel, F. B., Kuşak, L., Çelik, M., Alptekin, A., & Yakar, M. (2020). Kıyı çizgisinin belirlenerek mülkiyet durumunun incelenmesi. Türkiye Arazi Yönetimi Dergisi, 2(1), 33–40.
  11. Unal, M., Yakar, M., & Yildiz, F. (2004). Discontinuity surface roughness measurement techniques and the evaluation of digital photogrammetric method. In Proceedings of the ISPRS 20th International Congress (pp. 1103–1108).
  12. Villi, O., & Yakar, M. (2022). İnsansız hava araçlarının kullanım alanları ve sensör tipleri. Türkiye İnsansız Hava Araçları Dergisi, 4(2), 73–100.
  13. Yılmaz, H. M., Mutluoğlu, Ö., Ulvi, A., Yaman, A., & Bilgilioğlu, S. S. (2018). İnsansız hava aracı ile ortofoto üretimi ve Aksaray Üniversitesi kampüsü örneği. Geomatik, 3(2), 129–136.
  14. Karataş, L., Alptekin, A., Karabacak, A., & Yakar, M. (2022). Detection and documentation of stone material deterioration in historical masonry buildings using UAV photogrammetry: A case study of Mersin Sarisih Inn. Mersin Photogrammetry Journal, 4(2), 53–61.
  15. Kanun, E., Alptekin, A., Karataş, L., & Yakar, M. (2022). The use of UAV photogrammetry in modeling ancient structures: A case study of “Kanytellis”. Advanced UAV, 2(2), 41–50.
  16. Yakar, M., & Yilmaz, H. M. (2011). Determination of erosion on a small fairy chimney. Experimental Techniques, 35(5), 76–81.
  17. Yakar, M., Yılmaz, H. M., Güleç, S. A., & Korumaz, M. (2009). Advantage of digital close-range photogrammetry in drawing of muqarnas in architecture. Information Technology Journal, 8(2), 202–207.
  18. Kanun, E., Kanun, G. M., & Yakar, M. (2022). 3D modeling of car parts by photogrammetric methods: Example of brake discs. Mersin Photogrammetry Journal, 4(1), 7–13.
  19. Yakar, M., & Kocaman, E. (2018). Kayseri-Sahabiye Medresesi 3-boyutlu modelleme çalışması ve animasyonu. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 10(1), 133–138.
  20. Yıldız, F., Karabörk, H., Yakar, M., & Yılmaz, H. M. (2005). Yersel fotogrametride kullanılan metrik olmayan dijital kameraların kalibrasyonunda kullanılan yazılımların incelenmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Harita Dergisi, 134, 61–70.
  21. Yakar, M., Yildiz, F., Alyilmaz, C., & Yilmaz, H. M. (2009). Photogrammetric study for Sircali Medrese Door. In Proceedings of the 9th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference (SGEM 2009) (pp. 879–884).
  22. Villi, O., & Yakar, M. (2023). İnsansız hava araçları ve coğrafi bilgi sistemleri uygulamaları. Türkiye Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Dergisi, 5(1), 20–33.
  23. Yakar, M., Yıldız, F., Uray, F., & Metin, A. (2010). Photogrammetric measurement of the Meke Lake and its environment with kite photographs to monitoring of water level to climate change. In ISPRS Commission V Mid-Term Symposium (pp. 613–616).
  24. Mesas-Carrascosa, F. J., García-María, D. N., de Larriva, J. E. M., & García-Ferrer, A. (2016). An analysis of the influence of flight parameters in the generation of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) orthomosaicks to survey archaeological areas. Sensors, 16, 1838.
  25. Gonzalez, E. F., Aguera-Vega, F., Carvajal-Ramirez, F., & Martinez-Carricondo, P. (2020). UAV photogrammetry accuracy assessment for corridor mapping based on the number and distribution of ground control points. Remote Sensing, 12(15), 2447.
  26. Oniga, V. E., Breaban, A. I., Pfeifer, N., & Chirila, C. (2020). Determining the suitable number of ground control points for UAS images georeferencing by varying number and spatial distribution. Remote Sensing, 12, 876, 1–23.
  27. Yakar, M., & Yilmaz, H. M. (2008). Using in volume computing of digital close range photogrammetry. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 37(B3b).
  28. Ceylan, A., Mutluoğlu, Ö., & Yigit, C. Ö. (2006). Cost and accuracy analysis of detail measurements by real-time kinematic GPS (RTK-GPS). In Proceedings of the XXIII FIG Congress. Munich, Germany.
  29. Gil, M. L., Peña-Villasenín, S., Ana, M. S. B., Ortiz-Sanz, J., & Peraleda-Vázquez, S. (2025). 3D geometric survey of cultural heritage by UAV in inaccessible coastal or shallow aquatic environments. Archaeological Prospection, 32, 19–34.
  30. Pırtı, A. (2021). Evaluating the accuracy of post-processed kinematic (PPK) positioning technique. Geodesy and Cartography, 47(2), 66–70.
  31. Teppati, L. L., Chiabrando, F., & Maschio, P. (2023). Direct georeferencing approaches for close-range and UAV photogrammetry in the built heritage domain. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLVIII-M-2, 1557–1564.
  32. Shouny, A. E., Yakoub, N., & Hosny, M. (2017). Evaluating the performance of using PPK-GPS technique in producing topographic contour map. Marine Geodesy, 40(4), 224–238.
  33. Tomastik, J., Mokros, M., Surovy, P., Grznarova, A., & Mergani, J. (2019). UAV RTK/PPK method—An optimal solution for mapping inaccessible forested areas? Remote Sensing, 11(6), 721.
  34. Glavacevic, K., Maric, I., & Siljeg, A. (2023). Accuracy assessment of direct georeferencing using UAV Matrice 210 RTK V2 on Gully Santiš, Island of Pag (Croatia) (p. 191).
  35. Famiglietti, N. A., Cecere, G., Grasso, C., Memmolo, A., & Vicari, A. (2021). A test on the potential of a low cost unmanned aerial vehicle RTK/PPK solution for precision positioning. Sensors, 21(11), 3882.
  36. Eker, R., Alkan, E., & Aydın, A. (2021). A comparative analysis of UAV-RTK and UAV-PPK methods in mapping different surface types. European Journal of Forest Engineering, 7(1), 12–25.
  37. Czyza, S., Szuniewicz, K., Kowalczyk, K., Dumalski, A., Ogrodniczak, M., & Zieleniewicz, L. (2023). Assessment of accuracy in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) pose estimation with the real-time kinematic (RTK) method on the example of DJI Matrice 300 RTK. Sensors, 23(4), 2092.
  38. Turner, D., Lucieer, A., & Wallace, L. (2014). Direct georeferencing of ultra high-resolution UAV imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52, 2738–2745.
  39. Rabah, M., Basiouny, M., Ghanem, E., & Elhadary, A. (2018). Using RTK and VRS in direct geo-referencing of the UAV imagery. NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, 7, 220–226.
  40. Forlani, G., Diotri, F., Di Cella, U. M., & Roncella, R. (2019). Indirect UAV strip georeferencing by on-board GNSS data under poor satellite coverage. Remote Sensing, 11, 1765.
  41. Scout Aerial. (n.d.). RTK and PPK drone surveys. https://www.scoutaerial.com.au/rtk-and-ppk-drone-surveys/