Cal/Val - Multiple validation reports: site reports, quarterly, and yearly

docs/validation/quarterly-report/2024-q2/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+# 2024 Q2: DEA Quarterly Validation Report
+
+:::{contents} In this report
+:local:
+:backlinks: none
+:::
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+This Quarterly report summarises validation for DEA surface reflectance products for Quarter 2 (April-June) of 2024
+and presents aggregate validation results to the end of this quarter.
+
+* During this quarter, 2 field sites were measured 3 times and can be matched to 3 overpasses.
+* Validation of Landsat 8, Sentinel-2A and 2B all improved in accuracy, taking into account the data from this quarter. There were no Landsat 9 overpasses matched during this quarter.
+* On an averaged band-by-band basis, Landsat 8 is validated to 2.5%, Landsat 9 is validated to 15% (no new data), Sentinel-2A is validated to 2.4% and Sentinel-2B is validated to 2.5%.
+
+## Introduction
+
+This quarterly report presents a summary of results from Q2 2024 from the Digital Earth
+Calibration and Validation team. The report is presented in the following sections:
+
+* Background — this section outlines the context around this work, with particular attention on historical work leading up to this quarter.
+* Summary of Validation Work — this section presents an overall picture of the field site measurements undertaken in a table and map.
+* Comments on Individual Sites of Interest — this section focuses on any sites where some aspect of the site or measurement was atypical.
+* Summary of Band-by-Band Matching — this section presents comparison data for this quarter’s results, in the context of all previous results.
+* Comments on How This Quarter’s Work Has Affected Combined Validation Results — this section discusses how the average results for each sensor have changed with the introduction of new validation data from this quarter. This section combines all band data for each platform to show averaged validation results.
+
+The Q2 2024 validation report includes field site measurements that were captured as part of the winter transect work
+across South Australia. Note that only one field site measurement for SA1 is part of this report, with other sites appearing in the Q3 2024 validation report.
+
+## Background
+
+The Digital Earth branch within Geoscience Australia offers a suite of Earth observation products, based on data from
+both Landsat and Sentinel platforms. The core products are Landsat 8 and 9 and Sentinel-2A and -2B surface reflectance.
+To deliver these products with surety, the Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) team perform vicarious validation
+by measuring field sites with hand-held equipment or an Unstaffed Aerial Vehicle (UAV; commonly known as drone) equipment
+close to the time of an overpass. This work began with Phase 1, where measurements were performed by multiple groups
+across continental Australia. Full details on the results and methodology can be found in the Phase 1 report.
+
+Data for both surface reflectance products and from field site measurements are made freely available. For surface reflectance products, you can visualise
+the data at DEA Maps, or for a more in-depth understanding and direct access to data, please visit the DEA Data and
+Products page. Field measurement data are made available through the National Spectral Database.
+
+As more field sites are measured and as newer measurements are made over the same field sites, the overall validation of
+surface reflectance products becomes more accurate. The purpose of this report is to provide an up-to-date status of validation accuracy,
+based on the most recent measurements.
+
+## Summary of Validation Work
+
+2 sites were measured, with 3 individual field site captures. The table below summarises these captures.
+
+:::{csv-table} Summary of field site captures
+:header-rows: 1
+
+"Site capture (Date, Field site, Overpasses)","Latitude, Longitude (WGS84)","Instrument","Comments"
+"<a href='/validation/site-report/2024-04-16-MUL/'>2024-04-16 MUL: S-2B</a>","-35.12280, 148.86258","Hand-held ASD FR-4","Excellent matchup"
+"<a href='/validation/site-report/2024-05-21-MUL/'>2024-05-21 MUL: S-2A</a>","-35.12389, 148.86283","Drone mounted SR-3500","Poor matchup in CA and blue bands."
+"<a href='/validation/site-report/2024-06-30-SA1/'>2024-06-30 SA1: L8</a>","-31.81348, 140.64083","Drone mounted SR-3500","Nearby cloud noted."
+:::
+
+:::{figure} ./2024Q2_Locations.png
+
+The Figure shows the locations of the field sites measured in this quarter.
+::: 
+
+## Comments on Individual Sites of Interest
+
+No sites of particular interest.
+
+## Summary of Band-by-Band Matching
+
+:::{figure} ./2024Q2-Matchup.png
+
+The Figure shows comparison data for each platform. Black dots represent data that were collected prior to this quarter.
+Coloured symbols represent data that were collected in this quarter. The diagonal line in each panel shows the
+one-to-one correspondence between field and satellite data. Note that this diagonal line does NOT show the line of best
+fit. It is plotted this way to highlight any trends where the data may be biased away from the line of one-to-one
+correspondence. The statistics in the bottom-right corner of each panel provide details for the line of best fit
+through all points up to and including this quarter’s data.
+:::
+
+The table below lists overall validation results. These are based on the standard deviation of the scatter that we find
+for each band of each sensor. This is when taking all the validation results together, up to and including this quarter’s
+results. The band-by-band scatter is representative of the validation performance of each band. Rather than providing
+values for each individual band, we characterise all results by looking at the mean and maximum scatter for each
+platform.
+
+:::{csv-table} Validation Results
+:header-rows: 1
+
+"Satellite platform","Mean band-by-band scatter","Maximum band-by-band scatter"
+"Landsat 8","2.5%","3.1%"
+"Landsat 9","15%","29%"
+"Sentinel-2A","2.4%","2.9%"
+"Sentinel-2B","2.5%","4.5%"
+:::
+
+The table indicates that, for example, each Landsat 8 band is typically validated to 2-3%, with the worst performance
+of a band being 3.1%. Note that there is much larger scatter for Landsat 9, indicating higher uncertainty in validation.
+This is because there have been fewer field site measurements to coincide with the relatively new Landsat 9 platform.
+
+## Effect on Cumulative Validation Results
+
+This section discusses the effect that this quarter’s validation results have made on the total all-time validation
+results.
+
+For Landsat 8, this quarter has seen an slight improvement in validation results. There was 1 field site comparison
+measurement. Overall, the field data for Landsat 8 overpasses continue to improve the
+validation reliability.
+
+For Landsat 9, this quarter has not seen any change in validation results: there were no field site comparison
+measurements. The larger uncertainty of Landsat 9, when compared to Landsat 8 above, is most likely due to few
+overall field site comparisons with the newer Landsat 9 OLI2 sensor.
+
+For Sentinel-2A, this quarter has seen a slight improvement in validation results. There was 1 field site comparison
+measurement at Mullion on 21 May, 2024. This measurement shows an excellent match. Overall, the field data for Sentinel-2A
+overpasses continue to improve the validation reliability.
+
+For Sentinel-2B, this quarter has seen a slight improvement in validation results. There was 1 field site comparison
+measurement at Mullion on 16 April, 2024.
+
+
+## Acknowledgments
+
+The field validation data were collected by Geoscience Australia. 
+

docs/validation/quarterly-report/2024-q3/index.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 
 ## Executive Summary
 
-This Quarterly report summarises validation for DEA surface reflectance products for quarter 3 (July-September), 2024
+This Quarterly report summarises validation for DEA surface reflectance products for Quarter 3 (July-September) of 2024
 and presents aggregate validation results to the end of this quarter.
 
 * During this quarter, 6 field sites were measured 9 times and can be matched to 11 overpasses.
@@ -17,39 +17,39 @@ and presents aggregate validation results to the end of this quarter.
 
 ## Introduction
 
-This quarterly report presents a summary of results from Q3 2024 (July-September) from the Digital Earth
-Calibration/Validation team. The report is presented in the following sections:
+This quarterly report presents a summary of results from Q3 2024 from the Digital Earth
+Calibration and Validation team. The report is presented in the following sections:
 
-* Background outlines the context around this work, with particular attention on historical work leading up to this quarter.
-* Summary of Validation Work presents an overall picture of the field site measurements undertaken in a table and map.
-* Comments on Individual Sites of Interest focuses on any sites where some aspect of the site or measurement was atypical.
-* Summary of Band-by-Band Matching presents comparison data for this quarter’s results, in the context of all previous results.
-* Comments on How This Quarter’s Work Has Affected Combined Validation Results discusses how the average results for each sensor have changed with the introduction of new validation data from this quarter. This section combines all band data for each platform to show averaged validation results.
+* Background — this section outlines the context around this work, with particular attention on historical work leading up to this quarter.
+* Summary of Validation Work — this section presents an overall picture of the field site measurements undertaken in a table and map.
+* Comments on Individual Sites of Interest — this section focuses on any sites where some aspect of the site or measurement was atypical.
+* Summary of Band-by-Band Matching — this section presents comparison data for this quarter’s results, in the context of all previous results.
+* Comments on How This Quarter’s Work Has Affected Combined Validation Results — this section discusses how the average results for each sensor have changed with the introduction of new validation data from this quarter. This section combines all band data for each platform to show averaged validation results.
 
-The Q3, 2024 validation report includes field site measurements that were captured as part of the winter transect work
+The Q3 2024 validation report includes field site measurements that were captured as part of the winter transect work
 across South Australia and New South Wales. Note that one field site measurement for SA1 is part of the Q2 2024
 validation report and not shown here. No other field site measurements were conducted during this quarter.
 
 ## Background
 
 The Digital Earth branch within Geoscience Australia offers a suite of Earth observation products, based on data from
-both Landsat and Sentinel platforms. The core products are Landsat 8 and 9 and Sentinel-2A and -2B surface reflectance
-(SR). To deliver these products with surety, the Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) team perform vicarious validation
-by measuring field sites with hand-held or Unstaffed Aerial Vehicle (UAV, commonly known as drones)-based equipment
+both Landsat and Sentinel platforms. The core products are Landsat 8 and 9 and Sentinel-2A and -2B surface reflectance.
+To deliver these products with surety, the Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) team perform vicarious validation
+by measuring field sites with hand-held equipment or an Unstaffed Aerial Vehicle (UAV; commonly known as drone) equipment
 close to the time of an overpass. This work began with Phase 1, where measurements were performed by multiple groups
 across continental Australia. Full details on the results and methodology can be found in the Phase 1 report.
 
-Data for both SR products and from field site measurements are made freely available. For SR products, you can visualise
+Data for both surface reflectance products and from field site measurements are made freely available. For surface reflectance products, you can visualise
 the data at DEA Maps, or for a more in-depth understanding and direct access to data, please visit the DEA Data and
 Products page. Field measurement data are made available through the National Spectral Database.
 
 As more field sites are measured and as newer measurements are made over the same field sites, the overall validation of
-SR products becomes more accurate. The purpose of this report is to provide an up-to-date status of validation accuracy,
+surface reflectance products becomes more accurate. The purpose of this report is to provide an up-to-date status of validation accuracy,
 based on the most recent measurements.
 
 ## Summary of Validation Work
 
-6 sites were measured, with 9 individual field site captures. The table below summarises these captures:
+6 sites were measured, with 9 individual field site captures. The table below summarises these captures.
 
 :::{csv-table} Summary of field site captures
 :header-rows: 1
@@ -109,30 +109,29 @@ The Figure shows comparison data for each platform. Black dots represent data th
 Coloured symbols represent data that were collected in this quarter. The diagonal line in each panel shows the
 one-to-one correspondence between field and satellite data. Note that this diagonal line does NOT show the line of best
 fit. It is plotted this way to highlight any trends where the data may be biased away from the line of one-to-one
-correspondence. Statistics, given in the bottom right-hand corner of each panel, show details for the line of best fit
+correspondence. The statistics in the bottom-right corner of each panel provide details for the line of best fit
 through all points up to and including this quarter’s data.
 :::
 
 The table below lists overall validation results. These are based on the standard deviation of the scatter that we find
-for each band, for each sensor, when taking all the validation results together, up to, and including, this quarter’s
+for each band of each sensor. This is when taking all the validation results together, up to and including this quarter’s
 results. The band-by-band scatter is representative of the validation performance of each band. Rather than providing
 values for each individual band, we characterise all results by looking at the mean and maximum scatter for each
 platform.
 
 :::{csv-table} Validation Results
 :header-rows: 1
 
-"Satellite Platform","Mean band-by-band scatter","Maximum band-by-band scatter"
+"Satellite platform","Mean band-by-band scatter","Maximum band-by-band scatter"
 "Landsat 8","2.4%","3.1%"
 "Landsat 9","13.4%","35.9%"
 "Sentinel-2A","2.2%","2.7%"
 "Sentinel-2B","2.6%","4.4%"
 :::
 
-The Table indicates that, for example, each Landsat 8 band is validated to typically 2-3%, with the worst band
-performance being 3.1%. Note that there is much larger scatter (ie. uncertainty in validation) for Landsat 9. This is
-because there have been fewer field site measurements to coincide with the relatively new Landsat 9 platform.
-
+The table indicates that, for example, each Landsat 8 band is typically validated to 2-3%, with the worst performance
+of a band being 3.1%. Note that there is much larger scatter for Landsat 9, indicating higher uncertainty in validation.
+This is because there have been fewer field site measurements to coincide with the relatively new Landsat 9 platform.
 
 ## Effect on Cumulative Validation Results