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.
