Military & Aerospace

Poor Mapping by Military Survey
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Net Edition | Date : 31 Jul , 2013

An equidistant map of the world centered on Delhi. Showing true bearings and distance from Delhi. Scale 1 : 45 5 00 000, Projection: Lambert Azimuthal Equidistant (Oblique Aspect), Origin: Delhi, Latitude 28°35’N, Longitude 77°13’E. Read off the value on the graduated circle to get the true bearing to the nearest degree, of well known places radially from Delhi. Examples: True bearings from Delhi to San Francisco, Tokyo, Cape Town and Moscow are 015°, 065°, 226°, and 325°, respectively. Excerpted from: Transition to Guardianship: The Indian Navy 1991-2000

Last month the military ordered a study to reorganize the Military Survey. The need to reorganize this veritable British legacy monolith was never more. There is but one intriguing element; why re-invent a wheel when you already have one. A similar military study for reorganizing Military Survey, headed by an outstanding two star rank officer, was ordered, completed and approved in full during 2009. How Military Survey has bypassed the system and buried this study is the question military should be asking. The operationally urgent recommendations of this study should have been completely implemented over past four years but this did not happen. Not only was this study quietly buried, ordering of the new study was done the day after the officer who had headed the 2009 study hung up his uniform, which happened on 31 May 2013 when the officer (Army Commander by then) bid adieu to the Service.

Military Survey products are primarily Google based maps, that hardly measure up to military requirements.

Military Survey is required to meet mapping requirements of the Army, Navy and the Air Force. It also provides maps to the Para Military Forces, Central Armed Police Forces and Police units on demand from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Factually, Military Survey is unable to meet existing military requirements.  Even in technology adaptation, Survey of India (SoI) has gone way ahead of Military Survey, whereas, it should have been the other way around. As a result, Military Survey products are primarily Google based maps, that hardly measure up to military requirements. There is no movement towards developing and introducing a Geographical Information System (GIS) for the Military, a requirement that Military Survey should have met a decade back. SoI and Military Survey are British legacies that were meant to consolidate territories of British Empire in India. The then requirements are totally different from what is required today.

The Map Policy of India is explicit that mapping within India is the responsibility of SoI but Military Survey more advertently than inadvertently gets involved more and more internally, rather than focusing on trans-border mapping requirements. A major reason for this is the system of ‘reverse deputation’ that Military Survey had with SoI, which should have ceased decades back. It is because of this ‘reverse deputation’ that the Military Survey draws its clout from the Ministry of Science and Technology that can be manipulated at will, circumventing both the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Military.

When the IPKF went into Sri Lanka, maps with our military were by far inferior to those of Sri Lankan Armed Forces. Today, the situation is unlikely to be different. Incidentally, when our military went into Maldives, all planning perforce was on a tourist map provided by the R&AW Chief. Presently, Military Survey is 30 years behind in meeting existing routine mapping requirements of the Military, whereas Large Scale Mapping requirements of say 1 : 5,000 and below is practically not being met at all, which are vital to operational information systems being introduced into the army. It is very much possible to prepare accurate base map larger than 1:10,000 scale. The development of a specific methodology for preparation of such large-scale map with the use of advanced technologies such as Remote Sensing, Global Positioning System and GIS in an integrated way is the need of the hour. Looking across the Indo-Pak border one can see whole villages not shown on Military Survey maps.

Looking across the Indo-Pak border one can see whole villages not shown on Military Survey maps.

In 2004, Military Survey was brought under the newly created Directorate General of Information Systems (DGIS) of the Army under express sanction of the Defence Minister to ensure inclusive development and deployment of Operational Information Systems (OIS), Management Information Systems (MIS) and the GIS. The need to shift from Platform Centric Operations to Net Centric Operations had brought into focus vital issues. Net Centric Warfare (NCW) has the critical requirement for integration of operational and tactical information and knowledge with reference to terrain for precise targeting. Battlefield management requires coordination between units, formations, other services and multiple Government agencies. Real time geographical visualization of the battlefield scenario on a network is required that is possible through exploitation of geo-spatial data from multiple sensors obtained from space, aerial, ground, sub surface and other platforms.

Commonality of data and standards for Defence Services is an imperative. The tasks assigned to Military Survey included trans-frontier mapping, updating maps with satellite imagery, creation of Enterprise GIS, creation of Digital Topographical Data Base, preparation of Defence Series Maps (DSMs), Large Scale Mapping, training on GIS and attribute data collection, photogrammetric survey and remote sensing, and the like. For Military Survey, the requirement to establish Enterprise GIS became paramount, as also did the requirements of trans-frontier mapping and large scale m to meet increasing demands of upcoming OIS. The need to establish a Defence Spatial Data Infrastructure (DSDI) had also become apparent with the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) coming into being.

Military Survey had expanded over the years with Centre for Automated Military Survey (CAMS), Army Digital Mapping Centre (ADMC), Defence Institute for Geospatial Management & Training (DIGIT), a Field Survey Group and a Ground Air Survey Liaison (GASL) Platoon, latter providing aerial cover for survey. However, the organization had gone somewhat in comma. The system of “reverse deputation” with SoI had been put on hold for a decade plus perhaps on purpose. This created additional two star vacancies for Corps of Engineers officers in SoI with the added advantage of comfortable peace time office work. The effect in the Military Survey was equally lucrative, with officers continuously serving from 7-10 years within Military Survey. Such officers especially in the one star rank displayed little initiative. The Corps of Engineers did not send young officers to undergo survey training till they had physically reported to Military Survey on posting. When a move was made to re-start the process of reverse deputation, SoI intimated they could only make available officers of Major General rank to replace Brigadier and Colonel level rank officers in Military Survey. This indicated that the Corps of Engineers had outplayed other sister Corps in having a far greater number of Major General rank officers by stalemating the reverse deputation gimmick for protracted number of years.

The Corps of Engineers did not send young officers to undergo survey training till they had physically reported to Military Survey on posting.

The placement of Military Survey under DGIS in 2004 should have been for ‘all purposes’ but this unfortunately was not done. The lopsided arrangement was that the Ministry of Science and Technology was in the chain of reporting on the annual confidential report of the officer heading Military Survey and Technical Control was with Engineers Branch. Postings of officers to Military Survey were done by the Military Secretary’s Branch in conjunction the Engineers Branch. Prior to merger with DGIS, Military Survey was in Military Operations Directorate, where the Engineer-in-Chief’s (E-in-C) Branch considered it its “Fourth Pillar”.

Merger of Military Survey with DGIS brought out a host of shortcomings, some of which were: techniques used for production of maps were archaic; Google maps were downloaded as base data; more focus on own side of the border compared to trans-border mapping; organizational focus (following the British legacy) was on physical survey, however, this had not been done for decades in counter-insurgency areas of J&K and in the north-east despite army presence; demands for satellite imagery were forwarded to Defence Imagery Processing and Analysis Centre (DIPAC) through Military Intelligence but were never followed up and Defence Series Maps (DSM) were being prepared without incorporating satellite imagery; patrol reports of difficult areas were ignored for updating maps; the Field Survey Group and GASL Platoon at Agra, with Air Force providing aerial sorties, basically met requirements of SoI as the aircraft fly 10 kilometres own side of the border but SoI was charging money for maps it gave to the Military Survey but in turn was not being charged for the air sorties and the related establishment; little / no efforts were being put in towards digitization of maps integrating satellite imagery and photography, exploiting advanced technologies and introduction of a GIS; no GIS policy and common symbology for the three Services had been evolved; there were sustained voids of survey trained officers in Military Survey spanning over a decade.

With the aim of introducing an Enterprise GIS, a tri-Service study was ordered by DGIS during late 2007. This took inordinately long due to resistance and avoidable delays by the Engineers Branch who claimed this was their turf. However, once this tri-Service study was concluded, a GIS Policy with Common Symbology for the Military was issued in 2009. A Request For Proposal (RFP) to establish an Enterprise GIS was floated by DGIS in mid March 2009 but has still not seen the light of the day while learning the ropes from the Army the BSF and CRPF introduced GIS in the years 2008 and 2010 respectively. As mentioned above, a military study to reorganize Military Survey was ordered in 2009.  Study members included representatives of the Military Secretary, Military Intelligence, Engineers Branch, Military Survey, PMO Battlefield Surveillance System (BSS) under DGIS, DIPAC, Naval Intelligence and Air Intelligence. Main issues to be addressed by the study were: reorganization of Military Survey Units in the backdrop of available global technology and modern techniques; examine existing system of mapping, map updating, digitization and how updating can be speeded up through reorganization; examine role of military Survey in attribute data collection; officer management; rationalization of existing manpower; changes in present trade structure; human resources development and present training capability, need for establishing Defence Spatial Data Infrastructure (DSD) and road map for proposed restructuring.

1 2
Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Lt Gen Prakash Katoch

is Former Director General of Information Systems and A Special Forces Veteran, Indian Army.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left

9 thoughts on “Poor Mapping by Military Survey

  1. So as per the general……..we still need to follow the donkey’s age old concept of Jack of All trades and MASTER OF NONE even in a specialized technical field!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Heights of myopic thinking……….

  2. A very pertinent article on the ailing and almost defunct Military Survey. Right now it does not need a shot in the arm but a shot in the head. May be from the ashes we may get a new avatar who addresses the core issues of GIS, which are non-issues with present Military Survey. And you can not blame them because they have been making hard copy maps and even today that is their core competency.

    The digitisation process using Microstation a CAD software was designed primarily for hard copy map generation. The data structure of this digitisation process was never designed for GIS. So GIS is a four letter word in Military Survey. During the time Military Survey was part of DGIS, they (DGIS) wanted them to generate base GIS data which could be used in various GIS based projects. Now how could someone do a job he has no clue of. So Military Survey maintained that provision of hard copy maps and their updation is their job but GIS is not. And the reason they went back to MO was also linked to it. DGIS had lot of GIS trained officers whereas MO has none. So Mil Svy can rule the roost with hard copy maps.

    The British started the Army Officers on permanent absorption in SOI, which was prevalent in the British Army back in Britain too. It was also prevalent in the US Army and their civilian Survey department NIMA. But in the 1960s all such liaisons with civilian survey establishments ended. The British have Geo-Spatial units and US Army also have Geo-Spatial Engr companies.

    But here these liaisons have been kept not for the benefit of the organisation but few individuals who get best of both the worlds. Otherwise how could a Brigadier serve till 60 years or a Major General serve till 60 years and get Army Service benefits as well as civilian age benefits. Also their Army ACRs do not count an iota in deciding their promotion. They get it because the Pay Commission declared that any non-IAS stream will get their promotion if they happen to be two years senior to their counterpart in IAS. And they will also get it if any of their Army course mates get promoted.

    Now if their promotion is secure WHY WOULD THEY WORK. However they sure work, but to keep this very system continue the way it has been running for donkey’s years to give them promotions and benefits, whether the maps are correct or not, whether the units on borders use 1967 maps or organize the recce of forward areas using google images, they don’t care. But partly the whole army is to be blamed for this. We have adm inspections but do we ever look at the maps held by the units, never. Do we try to see which year they were published, no never. We on the other hand just tear the legend and other information and paste these maps on our battle boards.

    Let us start rejecting old maps but the big question remains, if Mil Svy gives us new updated maps will they be really updated?? The new OSM series is just the old wine in new bottle. The projection and datum have been changed but the data is the same or even worse because there is hardly any quality control. But here units can really check them with GPS which gives WGS co-ordinates. I am sure these will be out by 100s of meters. So start questioning the accuracy of each map, make the Military Survey people accountable for errors in the map, most likely they will go back to SOI, never to come back and ruin our maps. I think we can ruin them ourselves, why import officers from SOI.

    • Mr PSEUDO PKP…few facts correction..
      1. Indian Armed forces are supposed to use Defense Series Maps(DSM) and not OSM series maps as wrongly mentioned by u.(Please see GoI Map Policy 2005, available on internet).
      2. Definitely, when you compare map co-ordinates with GPS co-ordinates, they will not match. But this will be not be because map co-ordinates are erroneous rather because of inherent inaccuracies associated with all hand held GPS.
      3. Your observation about US army geo-spatial infrastructure and their liaisons with civilian survey establishments is factually incorrect as they have not only overcome compartmentalize thinking but have wisely established synergy between defense and civilian geospatial capabilities. US Army geospatial units, which support each ech down to the bde level, and cater for provision of all geo spatial requirement within the armed forces, works under overall ambit of National Geo spatial intelligence Agency (NGA). NGA was formerly known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), which catered for the geospatial requirement of their country including the civil requirement.


      Regards
      PKP

    • Cntd/……..
      7. It is not the Military Survey responsible for the shortage of maps but the faulty and lengthy process of demanding and collecting the map is. You should also look for the solution in numerous Operational and Planning boards in Ops room at various levels.
      8. DSM maps are being used by Indian Armed Forces not the OSM. The projection of the map is still the same. It is Polyconic as there is low distortion in shape, scale and area which suites Infantry requirement. Shifting to WGS 84 was the requirement of time to keep abreast.
      9. Lastly I feel ashamed that you trust American’s Geo Positioning System more than your own time tested maps. The NOISE in L1SNR and L2SNR in the GPS signal will surely land you in trouble if you are weak in Map reading.

      Regards
      Geronimo Goyathlay

      • Looks like I have really troubled someone with lot of association with Bentley Microstation. Most likely you are not aware that originally Microstation used MGE for GIS compatibility. Even today Microstation is hardly used for any GIS analysis though peddled by the company as GIS tool. It is one of the best tools for industrial design but not GIS, this is for your information if you are not aware.

        Second the Mil Svy and SOI use a digital vector data structure which was designed for Microstation or CAD environment, not GIS environment, please do educate yourself if you are not.

        Regarding GPS, India is launching GAGAN, an augmentation system. Please do read about it. I am not fascinated by American technology or their innovation, but the whole world is. GPS has limitations but even a compass has limitations, it also has errors. Probably you have never gone on field to take a GPS reading, never used it in DGPS mode, never heard about various corrections which can be applied, that is why you talk like this. Have you heard of dual frequency GPS recievers, why I am asking you all this when you like Microstation a product of an American company but hate GPS…

        Now on DSM, who told you the projection is Polyconic, the projection is LCC, with WGS84 as the datum. In earlier maps the Everest was the datum and polyconic was the projection and the military grid was in LCC. Please get your facts right, else please ask someone who knows about it.

        Now talking about EMP, who in the world has really EMP hardened equipment, not even USA. Why are you bringing in whole plethora of concepts, just to browbeat your point that you have all the knowledge of the world. Buddy stick to point… And the point is that the army does not have even a working model of GIS not because of hardware or software but because the GIS data is non-existent. Bye….

  3. Indeed a very good article by the General Officer, but it seems to be as if it is biased and written with some preconceived notion to favor a stand. We cannot blame someone who has always been given a cold shoulder, step motherly treatment and no resources.
    The suggestion of shifting Military Survey from DGMO to DGIS needs scrutiny. If DGMO which is the nodal center for formulating, implementing and directing operational aspect of Indian Army cannot give operational direction to Military Survey, then God knows who in this world will!
    The Generals over emphasis on remote sensing for the purpose of all military survey requirement is not technically possible. Although adoption of modern technology directly adds value to any system, but considering the geospatial requirement of armed forces who needs precise spatial information about the target, the suggestion is little bit incongruous
    Person having basic understanding of surveying can confidently say that remote sensing data without being corroborated by ground survey can only give generic information, which can be used for intelligence purpose and will provide generic overview but not for the target acquisition and navigation, which is the basic requirement of the armed forces.

  4. I really appreciate this thought provoking article of the General, which brought at least some attention towards a neglected organization (Military Survey), orphaned by its own fraternity (army and corps of engineer). Although the performance of military survey needs improvement, but at the same time, disparaging its achievements is not justified. Moreover few of his assessments requiring deliberation is as follows:-
    1.In today’s world, when everybody is talking about synergy of national efforts and resources, the General’s proposal for bifurcating military survey and Survey of India and putting them under different ministries sounds myopic and is going to further compartmentalized the geospatial infrastructure in the country, which is already struggling with the Issues of interoperability and integration. It will also deprive military survey and its officers from a vast existing and ongoing common database and expertise like NSDI and NGIS .
    2.How prudent is the suggestion of shifting military survey from DGMO to DGIS and making it a ping pong ball and victim to turf war between various stakeholders. Isn’t it utopic to assume that DGIS, which is already struggling with inordinate delay in most of project undertaken, will have panacea of all the problems. Don’t we have enough examples like project SAMVAHAK and CIDSS.
    3.How will inclusion of a generic GENERAL CADRE officer and making it(military survey) an all arm organization going to add value to Indian Armed Forces in general and Military Survey in particular, needs elaboration as working in geospatial environment requires complex technical skills and insight to understand and manage the project undertaken.
    4.Last but not the least instead of further abetting the notion of so called TURF WAR and taking a side, it would have been better if General would have emphasized more on limitation and problem areas of existing structure at policy and implementation level of network and GIS coordination.

  5. A very well written article Sire. most of the things mentioned there in must have been implemented but even then there are some technical and administrative glitches.

    Since there’s already a tussle going on between Military Survey and SoI, and in that environment the induction of army officers in Military Survey have taken a hit since no vacancies were floated by SoI for a long time. You can take up a list of army officers serving Military survey and you can make out that there are hardly any officers at junior level who generally are the powerhouse of any organisation

    When it come to placing the Military Survey under a general officer for directing the Military survey into a productive mode, it i guess is already under MO.

    Moreover the training infrastructure on Modern Surveying trends available in Army cannot be compared with SoI and even what SoI has, is inadequate considering the modern trends in surveying. And as far as google maps are considered, they are very good but they won’t give you the correct elevation. Moreover while working on sattelite imagery (Remote Sensing data & Photogrammetry) the ground work of providing vertical and horizontal control has to be carried out for accuracy as with sat imagery the elevations obtained are not that accurate.

    And as regards to the base map, i don’t think the surveying Units in India are using Google maps as base maps.

    Sure Military survey is lagging behind in most of things as you have mentioned and it is the time required attention and importance is given to the organistaion which has a major role to play as mentioned. And PMO office have to take stern steps to bifurcate Military Survey and SoI so that the present conflict and tussle between Army officer and SoI officer comes to a halt.

More Comments Loader Loading Comments