A survey workflow earns trust at handoff. The recipient should be able to open the files, identify the reference frame, understand how control was used, review independent checks, and know which areas or features were outside the capture. A beautiful point cloud with an unclear coordinate history creates avoidable risk.
This handoff framework is designed for US teams evaluating Artec Jet in a mobile LiDAR workflow. It treats product specifications as planning inputs and field results as evidence. Artec currently lists Jet output formats including LAS, LAZ, PLY, and E57, along with a trajectory file and point attributes such as intensity, range, time, return number, and optional color. The final format choice depends on the client’s software and use.
Define the deliverable contract
Before capture, the survey manager and client should complete a deliverable contract. It can be one page, but it needs precise answers: coordinate reference system, vertical datum, units, content, accuracy requirement, testing method, file format and version, classification, tiling, naming, metadata, viewer needs, and acceptance procedure.
Accuracy language should describe the finished product and the feature being tested. “Survey grade” has no single universal tolerance. A surface, building interior, road edge, and pipe rack may each need a different test. The contract should also name the responsible licensed professional where state law or the nature of the work requires one.
Keep four records separate
- Raw observation record: original sensor files, trajectory inputs, device identity, configuration, times, and field conditions.
- Control record: points used for orientation, transformation, or adjustment, with coordinates and survey method.
- Checkpoint record: independently surveyed observations withheld from adjustment and used to evaluate the result.
- Processing record: software, versions, parameters, transformations, edits, classification, decimation, clipping, and exports.
Blending these records makes later diagnosis harder. If a recipient finds an elevation offset, the team needs to trace whether it came from a datum selection, a control coordinate, a trajectory issue, or an export setting. A clean chain of records turns that investigation from archaeology into routine QA.
Use a control hierarchy
The control plan should identify the authoritative project control, secondary working control, and temporary targets. Every point needs an identifier, description, coordinate source, observation date, quality statement, and status. If site calibration is used, preserve its parameters and residuals. If GNSS assistance is used, record the correction source, antenna setup, time basis, and any loss of fix that matters to processing.
Control geometry should support the capture, with distribution around and through the area. The workflow should avoid forcing a long or multi-level dataset through a single local cluster. Targets need stable placement and suitable observation geometry. A target visible in the point cloud still needs a documented center-picking or fitting procedure.
Build an independent check design
Checkpoints should sample the delivered extent, elevation range, surface types, and key transitions. Reserve them before adjustment. The latest USGS Lidar Base Specification, 2025 rev. A, is intended for national elevation collections, so its exact requirements should not be copied blindly into a building or corridor contract. Its use of independent survey checkpoints and formal accuracy reporting provides a valuable model.
| Check | Question answered | Useful evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute checkpoint | Does the delivered point cloud agree with the project frame? | Signed residuals and summary statistics |
| Overlap section | Do repeated passes align through the shared area? | Cross-section or surface difference |
| Loop closure review | Did the trajectory return consistently? | Closure metrics and local inspection |
| Known dimension | Does an extracted feature behave as expected? | Independent dimension with method |
| Completeness check | Are required areas and features present? | Coverage map and exception list |
No single row replaces the others. Absolute accuracy, internal consistency, dimensional behavior, and completeness describe different properties.
Capture for extraction, not spectacle
The route should give the office a workable view of each required feature. If the deliverable calls for curb lines, the capture needs curb faces and tops from useful angles. If it calls for pipe centerlines, the route needs enough pipe circumference and junction context. If a floor surface is the goal, moving materials and reflective puddles deserve attention.
Artec’s published Jet figures include a 360 by 290 degree field of view and SLAM-based mapping. Those capabilities support flexible paths, yet occlusion remains a geometric fact. Opposing passes, elevation changes, branches into recesses, and deliberate loop closures build stronger source data. The field log records interruptions, blocked zones, moving objects, environmental conditions, and deployment changes.
Freeze the processing recipe
Once a workflow passes a pilot dataset, freeze the approved recipe for production. Changes in software version, trajectory settings, control weighting, filtering, classification, or export resolution should trigger a documented test. Raw data remain read-only, and processed stages receive versioned names.
After georeferencing, calculate checkpoint residuals in the final frame and plot them spatially. Look for trends with distance, floor, direction, surface, or capture segment. Investigate outliers with the field log before excluding anything. If a point is rejected, the reason and rule belong in the report.
Choose formats by recipient
| Recipient | Likely need | Handoff question |
|---|---|---|
| Survey/Civil | LAS or LAZ, surface, breaklines, control | Are classification, units, datum, and tiles explicit? |
| VDC/BIM | E57 or registered cloud, model coordinates, clipping | Can the authoring tool ingest the file at full scale? |
| Owner/Facility | Viewer, named zones, assets, lightweight cloud | Can a non-specialist find the location and date? |
| Archive | Raw data, master cloud, metadata, open formats | Can a future team reproduce the accepted export? |
LAS and LAZ support point-cloud exchange with rich attributes; E57 is common for registered scan exchange; PLY can be useful in 3D workflows. Compatibility should be tested with a representative file rather than assumed from an extension alone. Coordinate magnitude, attribute mapping, color, intensity, and compression can behave differently across applications.
Run a recipient-side acceptance test
Before formal delivery, the team opens the package on a clean workstation or in the recipient’s nominated software. It checks folder structure, coordinates, units, extents, point count, classification, attributes, tile seams, surface behavior, and several known locations. The deliverable contract becomes the checklist.
The transmittal includes capture dates, equipment and deployment, coordinate information, control and checkpoint methods, achieved results, processing summary, included content, exclusions, file manifest, software notes, limitations, and correction contact. If the dataset is suitable only for stated uses, say so plainly.
A defensible handoff lets another professional understand the dataset without calling the operator for missing context.
The mobile capture may be the exhilarating part of the day. The careful handoff is what makes that speed useful to a survey organization. Control gives the data a place, checks give it evidence, and the manifest gives it a future.