CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

The rapid advancement of geospatial technologies has introduced both opportunities and
challenges in coordinate acquisition. Google Earth, since its launch in 2001 (Google, 2023),
has revolutionized public access to geographic information by providing free satellite
imagery with coordinate display capabilities. However, this convenience contrasts with
professional surveying methods that have evolved over centuries, from the theodolites of the
18th century to modern Global Navigation Satellite Systems (Kennedy, 2020).
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) system emerged in the mid-20th century as a
standardized global coordinate framework, primarily driven by military and geodetic needs.
Developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1940s, it was designed to provide a
consistent, high-accuracy method for large-scale mapping and navigation across diverse
terrains. Unlike earlier local or regional systems, UTM offered a unified approach by
dividing the Earth into 60 longitudinal zones (each 6° wide) and employing a secant
transverse Mercator projection to minimize distortion within each zone. This mathematical
rigor ensured centimeter-to-meter-level precision, making it indispensable for surveying,
cartography, and defense applications (Kennedy, 2020).
The UTM system is based on the Transverse Mercator projection, a conformal (angle-
preserving) cylindrical map projection that is tangent to a meridian (central longitude line)
rather than the equator. This projection was selected because it minimizes distortion in
north-south oriented regions and preserves local angles and shapes making it ideal for
surveying and engineering.
Each UTM zone is assigned a central meridian with a scale factor of about 0.9996 to ensure
that distortion remains below 0.1% within the zone (Bomford, 1980). The Earth is divided
into 60 zones, each 6 degrees wide in longitude Zone numbering: Begins at 180°W (Zone
1) and progresses eastward to 180°E (Zone 60).
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system is fundamentally tied to the
mathematical model of the Earth's shape, known as an ellipsoid (or reference ellipsoid).

1|Page
The emergence of the Google Earth has made obtaining of UTM coordinates easier and
therefore it is important to compare between Google Earth’s UTM coordinates and the
conventional UTM coordinates. This comparison can help users make accurate location
determinations and effectively communicate with professionals in fields like surveying,
mapping, and geodesy. UTM is a commonly used coordinate system for mapping and
navigation purposes, dividing the Earth’s surface into 60 zones for more precise
measurement. In recent years, Google Earth has gained popularity as a free and easily
accessible mapping tool, allowing users to explore the globe and visualize geographic data.
However, its accuracy for UTM coordinates has been a topic of debate. This study aims to
assess the differences between the UTM coordinates obtained from Google Earth and those
obtained through conventional UTM methods. It will examine the level of positional
accuracy, potential offsets, and any discrepancies that may arise between the two
approaches. By comparing Google Earth UTM to conventional UTM, this study seeks to
provide insights into the reliability and limitations of utilizing Google Earth for UTM-based
applications. This knowledge can be valuable for researchers, GIS professionals, and other
users relying on UTM coordinates for their work.
Studies have shown that Google Earth UTM coordinates can be affected by various factors,
including satellite imagery resolution and georeferencing errors (Brovelli & Zamboni,
2012). These errors can lead to positional inaccuracies, which can have significant
implications for applications that require precise location data, such as surveying and
mapping (Leick, 2004). On the other hand, conventional UTM systems rely on ground-based
measurements and can provide more accurate coordinates (Leick, 2004).
A comparative analysis of Google Earth UTM and conventional UTM systems in FUTO
would provide valuable insights into the accuracy and limitations of these systems. This
study would help researchers understand the strengths and limitations of each approach and
inform the development of more accurate and reliable geospatial data collection methods.
The significance of this study lies in its potential to contribute to the improvement of
geospatial data collection and analysis in FUTO and beyond. By evaluating the accuracy of
Google Earth UTM coordinates and comparing them to conventional UTM systems,
researchers can identify areas where improvements can be made and develop more effective
methods for geospatial data collection.

2|Page
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The problem at hand is determining the differences between Google Earth UTM (Universal
Transverse Mercator) coordinates and conventional UTM coordinates. This comparison is
necessary to understand the accuracy and reliability of using Google Earth for UTM-based
geographical calculations, measurements, and mapping.

1.3 AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study is to perform a comparative analysis of accuracy between the Google
Earth UTM and coordinates and the conventional UTM coordinates in FUTO.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study are
i. To carry out a two, third-order traverse on established points within the study area
ii. To compute the traverse using parameters of the Google Earth UTM and
Conventional UTM
iii. To compare the UTM coordinates obtained from Google Earth with the conventional
UTM coordinates used in established points.
iv. To identify any significant differences between the Google Earth UTM coordinates
and the conventional UTM coordinates in the established points.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study will be done in order to compare the accuracy of the Google Earth UTM
coordinates to that of the conventional UTM coordinates in FUTO obtained from a two third
order traverse network observation.

1.6 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study would be limited to a 3 rd Order traverse within the confines of the Federal
University of Technology Owerri, (FUTO)

3|Page
1.7 STUDY AREA
The area of study will cover chosen points/areas at the Federal University of Technology,
Owerri.

Fig. 1.0 Study area

4|Page
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

1.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

1.8.1 GOOGLE EARTH UTM COORDINATES
Google Earth serves as a powerful geospatial tool that provides users with detailed
satellite imagery, aerial photography, and 3D terrain models of the Earth's surface. At its
core, the platform relies on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) as its
fundamental coordinate reference system (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
2014). This global datum ensures consistency with other major positioning systems,
including GPS devices and geographic information systems (GIS). By adopting WGS 84,
Google Earth maintains compatibility with international mapping standards, allowing
seamless integration with various geospatial applications.
One of Google Earth's notable features is its ability to display location coordinates in
multiple formats, including the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) system. UTM
coordinates offer a metric-based alternative to traditional latitude and longitude
measurements, expressing positions as easting and northing values in meters (USGS,
2021). This coordinate system divides the Earth into 60 longitudinal zones, each spanning
six degrees, with the goal of minimizing distortion for local-scale mapping.
The accuracy of Google Earth's UTM coordinates has been subject to research and
discussion within the geospatial community. Several factors influence the precision of
these coordinates, with satellite imagery resolution being particularly significant (Potere,
2008). Higher-resolution images generally yield more accurate coordinate
determinations, while lower-resolution or older imagery may introduce positional errors.
The algorithms Google employs to process and project geographic data also play a
crucial role in coordinate accuracy (Yang et al., 2020).
At its core, Google Earth's coordinate system begins with the acquisition of geospatial
imagery from multiple sources. The platform aggregates data from high-resolution
commercial satellites, aerial photography campaigns, and moderate-resolution earth
observation systems. These visual datasets undergo a georeferencing process where they
are aligned to the WGS84 ellipsoid using a combination of sensor metadata and ground
control points. The sensor metadata includes precise positioning information from the
5|Page
imaging platform's onboard GPS and inertial measurement systems, while the ground
control points help minimize systematic errors in the image alignment process.
The transformation to UTM coordinates within Google Earth follows a streamlined
mathematical approach. Unlike conventional surveying systems that apply rigorous
ellipsoidal formulas, Google Earth employs a computationally efficient spherical
approximation for its coordinate conversions. This simplification enables rapid rendering
and seamless navigation across the global dataset but introduces minor geometric
distortions. The platform automatically determines the appropriate UTM zone based on
longitude, applying the standard 6-degree zone division scheme, and presents coordinates
in the familiar easting and northing format with false easting and northing values
properly accounted for.
Accuracy characteristics of Google Earth's UTM coordinates reveal important
considerations for users. Independent studies have demonstrated that the platform
typically achieves absolute positional accuracy between 1 and 50 meters, with several
factors influencing this range. High-resolution commercial imagery in urban areas often
shows better than 5-meter accuracy, while rural regions relying on older or lower-
resolution sources may exhibit greater positional errors. The accuracy is further
influenced by terrain characteristics, with steep topography areas showing increased
displacement due to relief distortion in the imagery.
A critical aspect of Google Earth's coordinate system is its exclusive use of the WGS84
datum without provision for local datum transformations. This design choice simplifies
the user experience but means that coordinates may not precisely align with national
mapping systems that employ different reference frames. In regions with significant
geoid undulations or where local datums have substantial offsets from WGS84, this can
lead to noticeable discrepancies when comparing Google Earth coordinates with official
survey data.
The widespread adoption of Google Earth's coordinate system has created both
opportunities and challenges for the geospatial community. On one hand, it has
democratized access to geographic coordinates, enabling countless non-specialists to
work with spatial data. On the other hand, it has led to instances where users
unknowingly employ the coordinates for purposes beyond their intended accuracy,
potentially leading to problematic outcomes in technical applications. This reality
6|Page
 underscores the importance of understanding the system's characteristics and limitations
when incorporating Google Earth coordinates into professional workflows.
Future developments in Google Earth's coordinate system may address some current
limitations. Potential improvements could include more sophisticated projection
algorithms, integration of local datum transformations, and enhanced accuracy metadata.
However, the platform's fundamental design as a visualization tool rather than a precision
measurement system suggests that significant accuracy improvements would require
substantial changes to its underlying architecture and data processing pipelines. For the
foreseeable future, Google Earth UTM coordinates will likely remain a valuable but
limited resource that must be used with appropriate understanding of its capabilities and
constraints.

1.8.2 CONVENTIONAL UTM COORDINTES

The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) system emerged in the mid-20th century as a
standardized global coordinate framework, primarily driven by military and geodetic
needs. Developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1940s, it was designed to
provide a consistent, high-accuracy method for large-scale mapping and navigation
across diverse terrains. Unlike earlier local or regional systems, UTM offered a unified
approach by dividing the Earth into 60 longitudinal zones (each 6° wide) and employing
a secant transverse Mercator projection to minimize distortion within each zone. This
mathematical rigor ensured centimeter-to-meter-level precision, making it indispensable
for surveying, cartography, and defense applications (Snyder, 1987; Kennedy, 2020).
Conventional Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates represent a rigorously
standardized coordinate system developed for precise geospatial measurement and
mapping applications (Snyder, 1987). The system divides the Earth into sixty
longitudinal zones each spanning six degrees of longitude, with each zone employing a
transverse Mercator projection carefully optimized to minimize distortion across its
extent (Deakin et al., 2010). This projection utilizes a secant cylinder intersecting the
ellipsoid along two lines approximately 180 kilometers east and west of the central
meridian, implementing a scale factor of 0.9996 at the central meridian that reduces
distortion to less than one part per thousand across the entire zone (Federal Geographic
Data Committee [FGDC], 2021).
7|Page
The derivation of professional-grade UTM coordinates follows a meticulous sequence of
geodetic transformations beginning with field data collection (Leick et al., 2015). Survey-
grade GNSS receivers first capture positions in geodetic coordinates of latitude, longitude
and ellipsoidal height relative to a defined reference ellipsoid, typically WGS84 or in
some cases local datums like Nigeria's Minna Datum (Nwilo et al., 2012). These
spherical coordinates undergo conversion to Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed Cartesian
coordinates using precise ellipsoid parameters including the semi-major axis and
flattening values (Pavlis et al., 2012). In regions utilizing local datums, an additional
Helmert seven-parameter transformation adjusts the coordinates to account for regional
geoid undulations and tectonic plate motions (Leick et al., 2015).
The actual UTM projection calculations employ complex mathematical series expansions
to transform the ellipsoidal coordinates into the final UTM grid coordinates while
preserving conformality and minimizing scale error (Deakin et al., 2010). These
calculations involve numerous components including meridian arc length, radius of
curvature and various trigonometric terms to compute the easting and northing offsets
from the central meridian (Snyder, 1987). The system applies a false easting of 500,000
meters and conditional false northing values of either zero meters for the Northern
Hemisphere or 10,000,000 meters for the Southern Hemisphere to ensure all coordinate
values remain positive (FGDC, 2021).
Professional UTM implementations achieve their renowned accuracy through multiple
error mitigation strategies (Leick et al., 2015). GNSS augmentation systems like Real-
Time Kinematic and Network RTK corrections substantially reduce errors from satellite
orbits, atmospheric delays and receiver noise to achieve centimeter-level precision
(FGDC, 2021). Elevation measurements incorporate geoid models such as EGM2008 to
convert ellipsoidal heights to orthometric heights above mean sea level (Pavlis et al.,
2012). Survey networks further enhance accuracy through least-squares adjustment
techniques that minimize error propagation across control points (FGDC, 2021).
The conventional UTM system finds critical application in numerous precision-
dependent fields (Nwilo et al., 2012). Cadastral surveys rely on UTM coordinates tied to
national geodetic networks for legally binding land boundary definitions (FGDC, 2021).
Engineering and construction projects utilize the sub-centimeter accuracy for critical
infrastructure design, alignment and grading work (Leick et al., 2015). These
8|Page
 characteristics collectively establish conventional UTM as the professional standard for
precision positioning (Snyder, 1987).

1.8.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN GOOGLE EARTH UTM COORDINATES AND

CONVENTIONAL UTM COORDINATES
When comparing Google Earth's UTM coordinates to those obtained through
conventional surveying methods, important distinctions emerge. Conventional land
surveying techniques using specialized equipment like total stations or theodolites
typically achieve millimeter-to-centimeter level precision (Ghilani & Wolf, 2015). These
methods account for local terrain variations and atmospheric conditions through direct
ground measurements. In contrast, Google Earth's coordinates derive from processed
satellite and aerial data, making them more suitable for general reference than high-
precision applications.
Environmental factors further differentiate these coordinate systems. Traditional
surveying can be affected by on-site conditions such as weather, vegetation cover, and
instrument calibration (Moffitt et al., 2018). Google Earth's coordinates, while unaffected
by field conditions, may be influenced by image processing artifacts, cloud cover in
source imagery, or the time elapsed since the last image update (Google Earth Help,
2023). Urban areas with recent high-resolution coverage tend to show better accuracy
than remote regions with outdated or lower-quality imagery.
The practical implications of these accuracy differences are important for users. Google
Earth's UTM coordinates serve well for preliminary planning, educational purposes, and
general geographic reference. However, professional applications requiring precise
measurements—such as property boundary delineation, engineering projects, or legal
surveys—still demand traditional surveying methods or high-precision GPS techniques
(Kavanagh, 2018).
Emerging technologies are gradually bridging this accuracy gap. The integration of real-
time kinematic (RTK) GPS with mobile mapping applications demonstrates one such
advancement (Hofmann-Wellenhof et al., 2007). Meanwhile, ongoing improvements in
satellite imaging technology and processing algorithms continue to enhance the reliability
of platforms like Google Earth (Zhou et al., 2022). These developments suggest a future

9|Page
where accessible geospatial tools may approach survey-grade accuracy for broader
applications.
One major advantage of Google Earth UTM coordinates is their accessibility and ease of
use. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can access Google Earth and use
it to find UTM coordinates. This makes it a convenient and user-friendly tool for many
[Link] next advantage is the wide range of data available on Google Earth. Not
only can users access UTM coordinates, but they can also view satellite imagery, street
view images, and other data layers. This makes Google Earth a valuable tool for spatial
analysis and visualization. It also allows users to explore the data in different ways,
which can help them to understand the data better. The next advantage of Google Earth
UTM coordinates is the high spatial resolution of the satellite imagery. The satellite
imagery is often high resolution, which means that it can be used to view fine details.
This can be useful for applications that require a high level of detail, such as measuring
the dimensions of buildings or other structures. The next advantage is the cost-
effectiveness of Google Earth UTM coordinates. Since Google Earth is a free tool, it is
much more cost-effective than traditional surveying methods, which often require
specialized equipment and trained professionals. This can be a major advantage for
organizations or individuals who have budgets. (Kilday, 2018)
The strength and weakness of traditional surveying methods is also important to
understand. One major advantage is the high accuracy of the data. Traditional surveying
methods, such as total station surveys and GPS surveys, are able to collect data with a
high degree of precision and accuracy. This makes them well-suited for applications that
require precise measurements, such as engineering projects and construction projects.
Additionally, traditional surveying methods can provide very detailed data about the
landscape or environment being surveyed. This can be useful for applications such as
environmental monitoring or archaeology. Another advantage of traditional surveying
methods is the flexibility of the data format. The data collected by traditional surveying
methods can be stored in a variety of formats, including GIS formats, CAD formats, and
text formats. This allows the data to be used in a wide range of software and programs,
making it more accessible and usable. However, there are also some disadvantages to
conventional surveying methods. But one major disadvantage is that they can be very
time-consuming. Traditional surveying methods often require a large amount of
10 | P a g e
 fieldwork and data processing, which can take weeks or months to complete. Another
disadvantage of traditional surveying methods is that they typically require skilled
professionals to operate the equipment and process the data. This can be a barrier for
individuals or organizations that do not have the resources or expertise to conduct
traditional surveying. Finally, traditional surveying methods can be expensive. The
equipment and software required to conduct traditional surveying can be quite costly,
which can be a barrier for some individuals and organization
To relate these two types of UTM coordinates, we can compare them in terms of their
accuracy which has been covered, ease of use, and accessibility. Traditional surveying
methods generally provide more accurate data than Google Earth UTM coordinates, but
they are also more time-consuming and require specialized training and equipment.
Google Earth UTM coordinates are much easier to use, but they may not be as accurate
and may not be suitable for all applications.

1.9 THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

1.9.1 UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (UTM)
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) is a map projection system for
assigning coordinates to locations on the surface of the Earth. Like the traditional method
of latitude and longitude, it is a horizontal position representation, which means it
ignores altitude and treats the earth surface as a perfect ellipsoid.
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) system was developed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers during World War II (1940s) to provide a standardized military
mapping system that could be applied globally (Snyder, 1987). The system was designed
to address the limitations of existing coordinate systems that either had excessive
distortion or were too localized for military operations. By the late 1940s, the UTM
system was formally adopted by the U.S. Army and later became a NATO standard for
military mapping (Kennedy, 2020).
The UTM system built upon the mathematical foundations of the Transverse Mercator
projection, which was first described by Johann Heinrich Lambert in 1772. However,
unlike traditional Mercator projections that were optimal for maritime navigation,
the Transverse Mercator was better suited for land-based mapping because it minimized
distortion along a central meridian rather than the equator (Maling, 2013). The U.S.
11 | P a g e
 military refined this concept by dividing the world into 60 longitudinal zones, each
spanning 6 degrees of longitude, to further control distortion (USGS, 2020) which is now
used in our modern age.
The UTM system is based on the Transverse Mercator projection, a conformal (angle-
preserving) cylindrical map projection that is tangent to a meridian (central longitude
line) rather than the equator. This projection was selected because it minimizes
distortion in north-south oriented regions and preserves local angles and shapes making it
ideal for surveying and engineering.
Each UTM zone is assigned a central meridian with a scale factor of 0.9996 to ensure that
distortion remains below 0.1% within the zone (Bomford, 1980). The Earth is divided
into 60 zones, each 6 degrees wide in longitude Zone numbering: Begins at 180°W (Zone
1) and progresses eastward to 180°E (Zone 60).
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system is fundamentally tied to
the mathematical model of the Earth's shape, known as an ellipsoid (or reference
ellipsoid).
[Link] ELLIPSOID
An ellipsoid is a geometrical figure that resembles a sphere but is elongated or
flattened at the poles. It is a very important concept in the field of geodesy, which is
the science of measuring and mapping the Earth's surface (Hofmann-Wellenhof et al.,
2001). An ellipsoid can be described by a mathematical equation, and different types
of ellipsoids can be used to model the shape of the Earth. There are three main types:
the oblate spheroid, the prolate spheroid, and the equatorial spheroid (Torge &
Müller, 2012). An oblate spheroid is flattened at the poles, while a prolate spheroid is
elongated at the poles. An equatorial spheroid is a compromise between the two, with
an intermediate degree of flattening. These different types of ellipsoids are used to
model the Earth's shape in different parts of the world (Vaníček & Krakiwsky, 1986).
The equation for the oblate spheroid is (), where a, b, and c are the major,
intermediate, and minor axes of the ellipsoid, respectively. This equation can be used
to calculate the coordinates of any point on the ellipsoid. The major axis of the Earth's
oblate spheroid is the equatorial radius, and the minor axis is the polar radius. The
intermediate axis is somewhere in between. These values can be used to calculate the

12 | P a g e
 coordinates of any point on the Earth's surface, and they are very important for many
applications in geodesy and surveying (Seeber, 2003).
The oblate spheroid is used to model the Earth's surface in different parts of the
world. In the Northern Hemisphere, the oblate spheroid model is more accurate, while
in the Southern Hemisphere, the equatorial spheroid model is more accurate. This is
because the Earth is not a perfect ellipsoid, and its shape varies in different parts of
the world (Ghilani & Wolf, 2012). The oblate spheroid model and the equatorial
spheroid model can be applied in two systems.
There are two main systems that are used to calculate geodetic coordinates: the
geodetic datum and the geoid. The geodetic datum is a reference surface that is used
to define the coordinates of a point on the Earth's surface. The geoid is a model of the
Earth's gravity field, and it is used to transform coordinates from the geodetic datum
to another system, such as latitude and longitude (Smith, 1997). There are many
different geodetic datum that have been used over the years, and they are usually
named after the country or region that developed them. For example, the North
American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) was developed in the United States, and the
World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) is the standard geodetic datum used by GPS.
Also in Nigeria, there is Minna geodetic system.

1.9.2 MAP PROJECTION

A map projection is a mathematical transformation that converts the Earth's 3D spherical
surface into a 2D plane. Since all projections introduce distortions (shape, area, distance,
or direction), the choice of projection critically impacts coordinate accuracy. For UTM
(Universal Transverse Mercator), the Transverse Mercator projection is used, which
minimizes distortion in narrow longitudinal zones but still introduces errors that vary by
location.
Map projection in Nigeria serves diverse applications. For instance, it plays a crucial role
in the planning and implementation of transportation networks, such as road and railway
systems. Accurate maps enable engineers and urban planners to determine optimal routes,
estimate distances, and evaluate terrain characteristics, all of which are essential for
efficient transport infrastructure development (Amadi & Amadi, 2014; EPSG, n.d.).

13 | P a g e
 The transformation of Earth's spherical surface to a flat plane presents a fundamental
challenge in cartography. This mathematical conversion process, known as map
projection, inevitably introduces distortions that must be carefully managed.
Cartographers have developed various projection methods, each designed to preserve
specific spatial properties whether area, shape, distance, or direction - depending on the
intended application.

1.9.3 WORLD GEODETIC SYSTEM 1984

WGS 84, or World Geodetic System 1984, is a widely used global reference system that
defines the shape and location of the Earth. It serves as a foundation for various mapping,
navigation, and geodetic applications. Developed by the United States Department of
Defense, WGS 84 was first established in 1984 and is maintained and updated by the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) (NGA, 2014).
It replaced the previous standard, WGS 72, to improve accuracy and consistency in
geographic data. WGS 84 is based on a mathematical model that represents the Earth as
an ellipsoid — a three-dimensional shape resembling a slightly flattened sphere. This
model takes into account the Earth's irregularities and variations in its gravitational field
(Hofmann-Wellenhof et al., 2001). The ellipsoid used in WGS 84 is called the GRS80
(Geodetic Reference System 1980) ellipsoid. One key feature of WGS 84 is its reference
frame, which defines a fixed point on the Earth's surface called the Earth Centered, Earth
Fixed (ECEF) coordinate system. This reference frame allows for precise positioning and
navigation by using Cartesian coordinates relative to the Earth's [Link] enable accurate
positioning on the Earth's surface, WGS 84 includes a geoid model that accounts for the
Earth's irregular shape due to variations in gravity. The geoid provides a reference surface
against which elevations are measured. It helps ensure consistency in height
measurements across different regions of the globe (Torge & Müller, 2012).WGS 84
coordinates are commonly used in various applications, such as satellite navigation (e.g.,
Google Earth), and systems like GPS (Global Positioning System). GPS receivers use
signals from multiple satellites to determine their position in terms of latitude, longitude,
and elevation, using WGS 84 as the standard reference system (Seeber, 2003). WGS 84 is
continuously updated to account for changes in the Earth's dynamics, such as tectonic

14 | P a g e
 plate movements and variations in the shape of the geoid. This ensures that the reference
system remains accurate and reliable for global positioning and mapping purposes
In conclusion, WGS 84 is a widely accepted global reference system that provides
accurate geographic and geodetic data for mapping, navigation, and positioning
applications. Its mathematical model, reference frame, and geoid model work together to
define the shape and location of the Earth, enabling precise positioning on its surface. It
is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth’s
size, shape and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department
of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the
reference system for the Global Positioning System (GPS). It is compatible with the
International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS). ICAO (2002) gave the parameters of
the WGS 84 datum/ellipsoid as: Semi-major axis, a = 6378137.000m, Angular Velocity,
ɷ= 7.292115 x 105rad sl, Geocentric gravitational constant (Mass of the earth’s
atmosphere included) GM = 398 600.5 km3s2, normalized second degree zonal harmonic
coefficient of the gravitational potential C2,0 = 484.16685 x 106 and Flattening (derived
from C2,0) f = 1/298.257223563.

1.9.4 MINNA GEODETIC SYSTEM (NIGERIA)

The Minna geodetic system is a reference framework used in Nigeria and neighboring
countries for geodetic surveying and mapping purposes. It provides a consistent and
accurate method for determining positions on the Earth’s surface. The Minna datum is
based on a geodetic network of control points established through extensive surveys and
measurements over the region. These control points serve as reference markers from
which other positions can be calculated.
The Minna geodetic system utilizes a combination of techniques, including terrestrial and
satellite-based observations, to accurately determine the coordinates of these control
points. The system takes into consideration factors such as the Earth's shape,
gravitational field, and local geoid variations. By using the Minna geodetic system,
surveyors and cartographers are able to create reliable maps, conduct precise
measurements, and coordinate spatial data across different projects and regions.
It is important to note that the Minna geodetic system is specific to Nigeria and its
neighboring countries. Other countries may have their own geodetic systems tailored to
15 | P a g e
 their respective regions. The connection between Minna datum and conventional UTM
(Universal Transverse Mercator) coordinate systems stems from the fact that UTM is one
of the projection schemes used within the Minna datum framework. UTM divides the
Earth into multiple zones and utilizes a 2D Cartesian coordinate system to express
locations in each zone.
By integrating UTM with Minna datum, cartographers and surveyors can effectively
represent geographic features encountered within their designated zones. This allows for
accurate mapping and analysis, as well as facilitating communication and sharing of
spatial data between professionals. Nigeria Geodetic Datum According to (Eteje, 2018)
the Nigeria Minna datum is a geodetic datum that is suitable for use in Nigerian onshore
and offshore. Minna datum references the Clarke 1880 (RGS) ellipsoid (Semimajor axis,
a = 6378249.145m; Flattening, f = 1/293.465) and the Greenwich prime meridian. The
datum origin is fundamental point: Minna base station L40. Latitude: 9°38′08.87″N,
longitude: 6°30′58.76″E (of Greenwich). It is a geodetic datum for topographic mapping.
It was defined by information from NIMA (Eteje et al, 2018). (Uzodinma et al 2013)
gave the orthometric height, H heights.
In summary, Minna datum serves as a geodetic reference system that, when combined
with conventional UTM coordinate systems, facilitates precise location referencing and
mapping in Nigeria and surrounding regions. Understanding the connection between
these two elements is crucial for accurate geospatial analysis and effective
communication within the field of cartography and surveying.

1.10 REVIEW OF RELATED EMPIRICAL STUDIES

The accuracy of UTM coordinates provided by Google Earth can vary depending on several
factors. Generally, Google Earth UTM coordinates are accurate to within a few meters.
However, it's important to keep in mind that the accuracy can be influenced by factors such
as the quality of the underlying satellite imagery, the terrain, and possible distortions caused
by features like buildings or vegetation. It is always recommended to cross-reference Google
Earth coordinates with more precise surveying methods for critical applications.

El-Ashmawy, K.L.A. (2024) – Vertical Accuracy of Google Earth Data. Study area: three
small districts on Egypt’s northern shoreline. This paper created DEMs from Google Earth
16 | P a g e
elevation data and compared them with ground-survey benchmarks obtained by total station
and RTK-GPS. It found that Google Earth’s elevation accuracy was essentially unchanged
between 2015 and 2023, and that total-station vertical measurements were more accurate
than RTK-GPS in this terrain. In flat, small-height-difference areas the Google Earth DEM
accuracy was sufficient for large-scale mapping (cadastral or city planning), but its vertical
RMSE was too large for high-precision engineering. The study recommends using Google
Earth elevation only for preliminary studies and verifying it against reference data.

Mohammed, N.Z., Ghazi, A., & Mustafa, H.E. (2013) – Positional Accuracy Testing of
Google Earth. Study area: Khartoum State, Sudan. The authors compared coordinates from
Google Earth imagery with geodetic GPS coordinates at 16 ground check points. They found
that GE’s horizontal RMSE was about 1.59 m and vertical RMSE about 1.7 m . Notably, after
updates of the GE imagery the horizontal accuracy improved, while the elevation accuracy
remained the same. Their results suggest that in urban or flat areas like Khartoum, Google
Earth can be decimeter- to meter-leve accurate in the planimetric sense, but height readings
should be used cautiously.

Mulu, Y.A. & Derib, S.D. (2019) – Positional Accuracy Evaluation of Google Earth in
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The study used field surveys (DGPS) and checked Google Earth’s
horizontal and vertical accuracy. They report that the horizontal RMSE of Google Earth
coordinates was low enough to meet the ASPRS “Class-1” map standard for 1:20,000 scale,
meaning planimetric errors on the order of a few meters at most . By contrast, the vertical
RMSE was too large to meet this class standard. They found that correlating GE values with
surveyed heights could improve the vertical fit, but raw GE elevation data by itself was not
sufficiently precise for high-quality vertical mapping. In summary, the work concludes GE
is adequate for horizontal positioning at city scale in Ethiopia, but vertical errors remain an
issue.

Srihanu, N. & Kaewplang, S. (2022) – Positional Accuracy Evaluation of Google Earth

using RTK-GNSS in Mahasarakham, Thailand. This case study compared Google Earth
coordinates to RTK-network GNSS measurements at 48 points in Mahasarakham province.

17 | P a g e
The horizontal errors (East, North) had RMSE ≈1.316–1.331 m, while the vertical error
(height) RMSE was larger (3.558 m using the older EGM96 geoid and 4.453 m using the
newer Thai geoid). Errors ranged roughly −2.83 to +1.93 m horizontally and −0.67 to
+8.87 m vertically across points. The authors concluded that “Google Earth cannot provide
high accuracy coordinates” and that its elevation model is not sensitive to small local terrain
variations. They suggest GE is not reliable for precision surveying, consistent with earlier
findings in other regions.

Goudarzi, M.A. & Landry, R.J. (2017) – Assessing Horizontal Positional Accuracy of
Google Earth in Montreal, Canada. Study area: Montreal city (10 GPS control points). They
compared GE-derived coordinates to precise GPS positions. The raw horizontal error varied
across the city (as low as ~0.1 m in some southern points to ~2.7 m in northern points) . The
authors then tested two correction approaches: a parametric transform using the control
points, and a spatial interpolation of error vectors. The first reduced overall RMSE to
~0.67 m, while the second nearly eliminated bias (RMSE ~0.01 m). They noted that some of
the GE mis-registration was related to imaging angle and terrain. The conclusion is that
while GE can have several meters of offset, simple calibration with local ground control can
improve its accuracy dramatically.

Kattan, R.A., Abdulrahman, F.H., & Hassan, H.H. (2016) – Evaluating the accuracy of
Google Earth DEM using GPS coordinates – case study: Duhok Governorate, Iraq. The
authors compared GE UTM coordinates and elevations with precise GPS surveys at two
sites: a relatively flat university campus and a hilly outskirts area (80 m elevation range). In
the flat site (14 points) horizontal and vertical standard deviations were about ±0.98 m (E),
±1.14 m (N), ±1.05 m (Z). In the hilly site (15 points) the errors grew to ±2.32 m, ±3.01 m
horizontally and ±10.68 m vertically. They also compared surfaces: Google Earth elevations
versus a GPS-based DEM showed point elevation differences with σ≈±11.74 m . The study
concludes that GE’s elevation model is not reliable in rugged terrain (being insensitive to
short-distance height changes), though it is reasonably accurate on flat ground.

18 | P a g e
Farah, A. & Algarni, D.A. (2014) – Positional Accuracy Assessment of Google Earth in
Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). Study area: King Saud University campus, Riyadh. This small-scale
study compared GE imagery coordinates to differential GPS at nine points. They found GE
horizontal RMSE ≈2.18 m and vertical (height) RMSE ≈1.51 m . In other words, planimetric
offsets on the order of 2 m and elevation offsets ~1–2 m. The authors note that these values
are modest and should be kept in mind by GE users, but that they justify cautious use of GE
data for mapping in the Riyadh area. They emphasize that GE’s data, while easily accessible,
carries non-negligible errors that must be checked before precision applications.

Nwilo, P.C. et al. (2022) – Positional Accuracy Assessment of Historical Google Earth
Imagery at Lagos State, Nigeria, comparing GE imagery at 2000, 2008, 2013, and 2018 to
high-accuracy data. Horizontal accuracy was tested against a very-high-resolution
orthophoto, and vertical accuracy against 558 surveyed control points. They found that the
newest GE imagery (2018) had the best horizontal accuracy, with progressively larger errors
in older imagery. For vertical accuracy, Google Earth’s elevation data had RMSE ≈6.213 m,
which was worse than AW3D (4.388 m) and SRTM (3.682 m) over the same points. In other
words, while GE has improved over time, its heights in Lagos were ~6 m RMS error. The
study notes this trend of improving image accuracy, but confirms that GE elevation data
remain less precise than standard DEM.

Guo, J., Zhang, J., et al. (2020) – Horizontal Accuracy Assessment of Google Earth Data
over Typical Regions of Asia. The authors report that the best-case horizontal GE precision
(e.g. in flat parts of Japan, India, Kazakhstan) was ~4.96–6.83 m, while the worst (in
mountainous Israel and Syria) was ~16.5–16.6 m. Terrain had a clear impact: rugged regions
showed larger distortions. Overall, most Google Earth horizontal errors in these Asian test
areas still met the ASPRS 1:50,000 Class accuracy, but they caution that errors can be tens
of meters in bad cases. Thus Google Earth’s horizontal error is location-dependent: generally
a few meters but potentially an order of magnitude larger in mountainous areas

19 | P a g e
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter meticulously outlines the methodological framework employed to achieve the
objectives of this research, which centers on the comparative analysis of the Google UTM
coordinate and the conventional UTM coordinate system. It includes the reconnaissance, data
acquisition processes, the steps involved in data processing and analysis, and the software and
hardware utilized. The overarching aim of this methodology is to ensure the generation of
accurate and reliable spatial data for effective planning and management of urban infrastructure.

1.11 INSTRUMENTATION/SOFTWARE TO BE USED

The instruments to be used are as follows:
1. The Total Station
2. Field Note book
3. Laptop
4. Software: Google Earth Explorer
1.12 PERSONNEL TO BE INVOLVED
The personnel to be involved in executing this project are
1. Surv. F. E. Onyeagoro (Supervisor)
2. Gabokeke Divinefavour Chigozirim (Student)
3. Ugochukwu Ubadinobi Crescent (Student)
4. Onoh Marvellous (Student)
1.13 DATA ACQUISITION
Google Earth: UTM coordinates of the selected point will be extracted using Google earth
pro by zooming into the imagery and recording the easting and nothing values.
Conventional Surveying A total station or GNSS receiver will be used to measure the UTM
coordinates of the same point ensuring measurements are taken in the same datum (e.g.
WGS 84).

1.14 DATA PROCESSING

The processing of data comprises of the hardware and software that are to be used to carry
out this research. After the field observations data are achieved, the data acquired from GPS

20 | P a g e
 will be converted to UTM coordinates. By using appropriate GIS software or Online
conversion tool, the GPS coordinates in WGS84 using Google Earth Parameters will be
transformed to acquire the corresponding Google UTM Coordinate so the data can be on the
same format for comparison.

1.15 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Comparing the coordinates from both sources using statistical method to identify any
difference or pattern. Descriptive statistics, including mean differences, standard deviations,
and Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE), will be calculated to quantify the magnitude and
direction of differences or discrepancies between the Google Earth UTM coordinates and the
conventional UTM coordinates.

1.16 PROCEDURE FOR DATA ANALYSIS

1.16.1 RECOINNASSANCE
Reconnaissance is the initial step in data acquisition aimed at understanding the study area
(FUTO) and preparing for the collection of Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
coordinates using Google Earth and Conventional Surveying methods.
1. DESK STUDY AND PREPARATION
We intend on reviewing satellite imageries from Google Earth to gain an initial
understanding of the campus layout, identified areas of interest (e.g. key landmarks like
senate buildings, lecture halls and road intersections) that could serve as a data collection
point and prepare a checklist of criteria for point selection including visibility,
accessibility and relevance to the project objectives.
2. FIELD VISIT
We will conduct a physical survey of the area of interest either on foot using Mobile
Topo for preliminary investigation. Check if the point like building corners or road
intersections are unobstructed for surveying equipment (e.g. clear line of sight for total
station), we will confirm that these points are identified on Google Earth imagery by
cross-referencing with the software on the mobile device or laptop during the visit also
we will mark selected points e.g. using temporal markers like painted stakes or flags.

21 | P a g e
1.16.2 OBTAINING OUR CONTROL USING DGPS
We intend to obtain or generate control points for referencing our survey project on UTM
using the Differential GPS (DGPS).

1.16.3 DATA COLLECTION USING THE TOTAL STATION

We will make sure to set up the survey equipment at the control point, ensuring proper
calibration and leveling and then locate each pre-selected point on the area of interest
using markers from the reconnaissance phase. We will obtain UTM coordinates using the
Total station of those selected points using traversing method and take multiple
measurements (at least three times per point) to ensure consistency and calculate the
average to reduce error. We will as well record measurement of those points in a field
book.
1.16.4 DATA COLLECTION USING GOOGLE EARTH
Launch the Google Earth pro and navigate to the FUTO campus using the search function
or approximate coordinate (5.3941oN, 7.0279oE), input the coordinates of the point
collected or acquired using the total station.

1.17 EXPECTED OUTCOME

A comprehensive dataset of UTM coordinates for 20 points on the area of interest collected
using Conventional Survey methods and Google Earth, supporting documentation, including
field notes, photographs and screenshots to validate the data collection process and lastly a
structured data ready for statistical analysis to compare the accuracy and reliability of the
two methods.

22 | P a g e
1.18 DESIGN OF METHODOLOGY

Establishment of Stations
START

Observation of established points

Acquiring coordinates of points

Computation of Traverse Points

Accuracy Assessment

STOP

Fig. 2.0 Flowchart of Methodology

23 | P a g e
1.19 CONCLUSION
The study comparing Google Earth UTM coordinates with conventional UTM coordinates
based on points observed in FUTO provides valuable insights into coordinate accuracy and
their applications for mapping and navigation.
Through meticulous data collection and analysis, we would observe a mean difference and
obtain a standard deviation between Google Earth UTM coordinates and Conventional UTM
coordinates.

24 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

Adamu, B., Okwuashi, O., & Okolie, C. J. (2016). Positional accuracy testing of Google Earth in
Samaru, Nigeria. Retrieved from
[Link]
Amadi, J. W. B., & Amadi, A. A. (2014). On the Conversion of Coordinates from Nigeria
Transverse Mercator to Universal Transverse Mercator Using a Simple Mathematical
Model. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology,4(4),293–299.
[Link]
ASPRS. (2009). Grids and Datums - Federal Republic of Nigeria. Retrieved from
[Link]
Buchroithner Manfred F. & Pfahlbusch, R. (2016). Geodetic Grids in Authoritative Maps-New
Findings About the Origin of the UTM Grid.,. Cartography and Geographic Information
Science, 2016.
Butler, D. (2006). The web-wide world. Nature, 439(7078), 776-778.
Chang, J. (2011). Understanding Universal Traverse Mercator System. Journal of Cartography
and Geographic Studies, 132-243.
D. Abbey, L. W. (2023)). Gps As A Global Tool. Geospatial Allignment.
Database, F.E. (2022, 06 02). Gps Observing Methods. Retrieved From Engineersdaily:
[Link]/2022/06/global-positioning- system-gps-observing-
[Link]?m=0
El-Ashmawy, K. L. A. (2024). Vertical accuracy of Google Earth data. Engineering, Technology
& Applied Science Research, 14(1), 10689–10694.
[Link]
EPSG (n.d.). Minna / Nigeria Mid Belt (EPSG:26392). [Link]
Eteje, N.A. (2018). Comparison of Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates. Asian Journal of
Geoinformatics, 119-124.
Eteje, S. O., Oduyebo, O. F., & Olulade, S. A. (2018). On the Determination of NTM and UTM
Positions from Post Processing of Static DGPS Observations on the Nigeria Minna
Datum. Retrieved from
[Link]
abstractid=3308858&mirid=1&type=2
Farah, A., & Algarni, D. A. (2014). Positional accuracy assessment of Google Earth in Riyadh.
Acta Scientiarum Polonorum – Architectura, 13(3), 25–29.
[Link]
Ghilani, C. D., & Wolf, P. R. (2015). Elementary Surveying: An Introduction to Geomatics (15th
ed.).Pearson. [Link]
Google Earth Help. (2023). About Google Earth imagery. [Link]

25 | P a g e
Google. (2023). Google Earth technical specifications. [Link]
Goudarzi, M. A., & Landry, R. J. (2017). Assessing horizontal positional accuracy of Google
Earth in Montreal. Geodesy and Cartography, 43(3), 82–91.
[Link]
Guo, J., Zhang, J., et al. (2020). Horizontal accuracy assessment of Google Earth data over
typical regions of Asia. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing
and Spatial Information Sciences, XLIII-B3-2020, 1333–1340. [Link]
[Link]/XLIII-B3-2020/1333/2020/
Hager, J. (1989). The Geocentric Geoid in the Framework of the Earth Orientation Problem.
Geodynamics. Vol. 10. 413-428
Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., Lichtenegger, H., & Wasle, E. (2007). GNSS - Global Navigation
Satellite Systems. Springer. [Link]
Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., Lichtenegger, H., & Wasle, E. (2008). GNSS–Global Navigation
Satellite Systems. Springer.
IHO (n.d.). Minna Geodetic Datum – International Hydrographic Organization Registry.
[Link]
James, L. (1883). On the Method of Projecting a Sphere Upon a Plane. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, Vol. 34, 281-287.
Kavanagh, B. F. (2018). Surveying: Principles and Applications (9th ed.). Pearson.
[Link]
Kennedy, M. (2020). A history of geodesy for surveyors. Surveying and Land Information
Science, 79(1), 5-15.
Kilday, (2018). Never Lost Again: The Google Mapping Revolution That Sparked New
Industries and Augumented Our Reality.
Leick, A., Rapoport, L., & Tatarnikov, D. (2015). GPS satellite surveying (4th ed.). Wiley.
Moffitt, F. H., Bouchard, H., & Bossler, J. D. (2018). Surveying (11th ed.). Wiley.
[Link]
Mohammed, N. Z., Ghazi, A., & Mustafa, H. E. (2013). Positional accuracy testing of Google
Earth. International Journal of Modern Science and Engineering, 4(6), 7–13.
[Link]
Moore, L. (1997) (303-305). Inverting the Newman Projection. Bulletin of the American
Mathematics Society, Vol. 34.
Mulu, Y. A., & Derib, S. D. (2019). Evaluation of positional accuracy of Google Earth in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum – Architectura, 18(2), 117–124.
[Link]
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. (2014). World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
Standard.
[Link]
26 | P a g e
Noda, S., Kurahashi, M., & Saito Y. (2015). An Index of the Qualitative Assessment of Nature
Spaces, Journal of Landscape Architecture, Vol. 10, 185 – 202
Nwilo, P. C., et al. (2022). Positional accuracy assessment of historical Google Earth imagery:
Lagos case study. arXiv Preprint. [Link]
Potere, D. (2008). Horizontal positional accuracy of Google Earth's high-resolution imagery
archive. Sensors, 8(12), 7973-7981.
[Link]
Potere, D. (2008). Horizontal positional accuracy of Google Earth's high-resolution imagery
archive. Sensors, 8(12), 7973-7981.
Potere, D. (2008). Horizontal positional accuracy of Google Earth’s high-resolution imagery
archive. Sensors, 8(12), 7973–7981. [Link]
Ragheb, A. E., & Ragab, A. F. (2015). Enhancement of Google Earth positional accuracy.
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 4(1), 732–738.
[Link]
[Link]
Snyder, J. P. (1987). Map projections–A working manual. US Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1395.
Srihanu, N., & Kaewplang, S. (2022). Positional accuracy evaluation of Google Earth using
RTK-GNSS. Journal of Applied Informatics and Technology, 5(2), 65–72.
[Link]
Sydney, J.P. (1889). The Direct Representation of Spheriod Upon a Plane. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London, Vol. 46, 11-20
U.S. Geological Survey. (2022). Amerian Geophysical Union.
USGS. (2021). The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid.
[Link]
Vectornav. (2023). Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Retrieved from Inertial
Navigation Primer:
[Link]
Operation/Theory-GNSS
Wikipedia contributors. (2023). Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system. In Wikipedia,
The Free Encyclopedia.
[Link]

27 | P a g e