"Produced to" vs "tested to" ASPRS, in plain English

Every aerial mapping quote we send names one of two accuracy modes under the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) standard, and on a scope sheet the two read almost identically. However, they are different commitments carrying different costs, and choosing between them deliberately can save you money in both directions: paying for measured proof you will never cite is as expensive as discovering, late, that you needed it.

Produced to ASPRS, in one sentence

The dataset was acquired and processed to the workflow the ASPRS standard describes, including flight design, image overlap, post-processed kinematic (PPK) positioning, and processing discipline, with the ground sample distance (GSD) stated on the deliverable. This is our default for design work, mapping, and recurring measurement. For most decisions it is exactly enough, because the map is built to a defined method and the method is written down where you can read it.

Tested to ASPRS, in one sentence

Everything above, plus surveyed ground control and independent checkpoints that are withheld from the adjustment, and after processing the dataset is measured against those checkpoints and ships with a documented root mean square error (RMSE). The distinction that matters is whose ground the number came from: the figure on the report is measured on your site, not quoted from a brochure or carried over from a demonstration flight somewhere else.

How to choose

Ask one question: does a number in this dataset need to survive scrutiny? A submittal, an audit, a dispute, or a regulator each count. If the answer is yes, test it, because a checkpoint survey is inexpensive insurance against re-litigating the argument a year later with data that cannot answer for itself. If the map instead informs decisions you make internally, such as progress tracking, planning, marketing, or routine inspection, produced-to carries the work without charging you for proof nobody will ask you to produce.

There is a boundary above both, and it is not a tier we sell. Where a deliverable has to carry a stamp or be recorded, that is a licensed Professional Land Surveyor's work rather than ours. It is routed to a surveyor who takes responsible charge for it, or to the surveyor you already work with, with us supplying the capture and the processing underneath. That is a separate professional commitment, not an upgrade we can apply on request.

What we never do

We do not publish a blanket accuracy figure, and any operator who does is describing equipment rather than your site. The achievable accuracy for a project is set by the site, the sensor, the control, and the scope; the standard itself classes accuracy by tested RMSE rather than by advertised capability. In other words, a centimeter quoted before anyone has walked your terrain is a sales number, not a measurement.

Overall, the two modes are less a quality ladder than an evidence ladder: produced-to states the method and tested-to measures the result. Anything that needs professional responsibility attached to it goes to a licensed surveyor instead. Choosing correctly is a scoping decision made before the flight rather than a report you can request afterward, so the useful first step is to name the decision the data has to support and let that decision set the tier.