Evolution of Wireless Based Indoor Survey

Abstract –

Internal positioning systems (IPS) use sensors and communication technologies to locate objects inside. IPS arouses scientific and commercial interest because there is a significant market opportunity for the application of these technologies. There has been a lot of previous research on internal positioning systems; however, most of them do not have a robust classification system that structurally maps a large area, such as IPS, or omits several critical technologies or has a limited perspective; Finally, investigations are quickly becoming obsolete in a field as dynamic as IPS. The purpose of this article is to provide a technological aspect of internal positioning systems, including a wide range of technologies and approaches. Besides, we classify existing methods in a structure to guide the examination and discussion of different approaches. Finally, we present a comparison of internal positioning approaches and show the evolution and trends that we anticipate.

Introduction –

Wireless Site Survey - One of the essential elements of contextual information is the location of the position of a user or device in a given space. The widespread use of sensors has produced a growing wealth of this information. As such, localization has received a lot of attention due to its potential to leverage commercial applications, such as advertising and social media [1]. The user context, made up of all the relevant elements that surround it, has acquired paramount importance in the design of next-generation information systems and services. Adaptation to a changing context is precisely what makes new generation systems flexible and robust [1].

Location detection has been successfully implemented outdoors using GPS technology [2]. GPS has had a massive impact on our daily lives by supporting a large number of applications in orientation, mapping, etc. [3] However, Indoor Survey, the usability of GPS or equivalent satellite location systems is limited, due to the lack of visibility and the attenuation of GPS signals when crossing walls. The accuracy of about 50 meters in a commercial environment is useless compared to a task such as placing specific goods on a shelf. Consequently, the need for specialized methods and technologies for internal location systems (also called internal positioning systems, IPS) has been widely accepted [4-11].

Much research has been written based on various subjects related to IPS [12-16]. However, most of them omit several relevant technologies, have a limited perspective, or have no classification structure. For example, the use of visible light [17–19] or the Earth's magnetic field [20, 21] has been neglected in some journals (see Table 1). Furthermore, the absence of a classification system that guides readers properly is a severe failure of some proper research [15]. Also, up-to-date research on internal positioning systems is always welcome, as this is a rapidly evolving field and a decade-long review can be considered obsolete.

In this investigation, we review the area of ​​internal positioning systems (IPS), as it presents specific characteristics, challenges and opportunities. Internal configurations are often filled with obstacles that obstruct signals between transmitters and receivers, and a wide variety of materials, shapes and sizes affect signal propagation more than in outdoor environments. IPS faces an exciting technical challenge due to the vast array of possible sensor technologies that can be applied, each with different strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of this specific investigation is precise to Different Types of Site Survey review the various techniques that were used for IPS. We present an exhaustive review of the literature on internal positioning systems to provide a technological perspective on the evolution of IPS, to distinguish between different technical approaches using a classification scheme and to present developments and trends in the field.

We emphasize that, although outdoor positioning techniques can be used indoors, they are excluded from our scope, because this research is specialized explicitly in indoor technologies.

The structure of this article is as follows: after this introduction, we compare this research with others, to justify its publication; then, in section 3, we present the methods and problems related to the domain itself. Then, in chapter 4, we offer a review of internal positioning technologies, which is the central theme of this report. After that, Section 5 presents a comparison of location technologies. Finally, in section 6, we offer a discussion, anticipating the possible evolution of central positioning systems in the coming years, and some conclusions.

Related Works –

Although, as previously mentioned, a lot of research from IPS [12-16, 31-34] has been published, we can see that some research such as Hightower and Borriello [32] is obsolete for a rapidly evolving field, such as IPS. Besides, some right critics lack a classification system that allows the reader to organize the different works in a more useful conceptual structure than in a disorganized and straightforward list. The most representative example of this failure is the complete review by Mautz [15], where a simple list of 16 technologies is presented in sequential order, without any classification. In our article, we offer comprehensive classification criteria that will divide all of the different work, which will make it easier to manage and provide a conceptual framework for mapping the IPS domain. Also, some classification schemes proposed in the previous analyzes are not robust; for example, Gu et al. [14] classified IPS systems as network-based systems, which benefit from the existing network infrastructure, and non-network systems, which use a support dedicated exclusively to positioning, but this leaves no room for purely passive methods, such as fingerprints, magnetic field or ambient light analysis, and other technologies, such as image analysis.

You can also see that most of the analyzes that try to be exhaustive omit complete technologies, not to mention individual work. For example, Gu et al. [14] eliminated inertial navigation, environmental magnetic digital printing, the use of patterns encoded in artificial light (fluorescent or LED), the analysis of ambient light, the use of audible sound transmitted by the infrastructure ( some with coded standards), RFID where the labels are fixed, and the reader is mobile, ZigBee, vision analysis with portable cameras, tiles and internal use of external technologies (GPS, mobile phone, TV and FM signals).

In Table 1, we present the technologies examined in several meaningful technological Indoor Surveys about this Site Survey. In the table, we write "mention" to indicate that the study does not include a full discussion of the corresponding technology. As the reader can see from this table, even current, allegedly comprehensive research, like that of Deak, omits fifteen different techniques.

We emphasize that the names of comprehensive technologies are not suitable as organizational directors in a Network Survey because the applications of a broad technology can be very creative and different. For example, "magnetic" techniques include both those that capture irregularities in the Earth's natural magnetic field and those that generate a pulsating magnetic field that will be recorded by a sensor; These are entirely different technologies. Therefore, saying that a particular survey covers "magnetic fields" is not accurate enough. Some exams intentionally omit certain areas. The review by Liu et al. [12] only takes into account wireless positioning systems, excluding infrared, policies linked to vision, sound or ultrasound, inertia systems, ambient light, floors and magnetism analysis (infrared and The ultrasound is briefly mentioned in a section on "Positioning using multiple supports").

Finally, some research has not focused on the use of technologies like this. For example, Sun et al. [31] analyzed location algorithms, not techniques. In the case of Mautz's exhaustive research, we emphasize the fact that it has a slightly different character, inherent in the fact that it is primarily a thesis and not a journal publication. See Table 1 for a detailed comparison.