Skyplanr worked example: the checks behind the "Met" and "Not met" rows
Page: https://skyplanr.com/guides/mapping-worked-example
Processing job cbec3f46 (worker 1.0.9, ODM 3.6.2), checked 2026-10-22. The output files themselves are not public;
these are excerpts of what the tools printed.

1. Rasters (gdalinfo 3.x over HTTP)

ortho.tif   Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF  Size is 41111, 26914  Pixel Size = (0.032553, -0.032553)  ID["EPSG",32617]  LAYOUT=COG
dsm.tif     Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF  Size is 21412, 14018  Pixel Size = (0.0625, -0.0625)        ID["EPSG",32617]  LAYOUT=COG  NoData Value=-9999
dtm.tif     Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF  Size is 21412, 14018  Pixel Size = (0.0625, -0.0625)        ID["EPSG",32617]  LAYOUT=COG  NoData Value=-9999

2. Point cloud (pointcloud.copc.laz, the first 16 KB read)

File signature LASF, version 1.4, point count 32234160, scale 0.01 m.
VLRs: "copc" (COPC info) and LASF_Projection with an OGC WKT: Transverse Mercator, central meridian -81,
scale 0.9996, false easting 500000, WGS 84, metres. That is UTM zone 17N, but the WKT is named "unknown" and has no
EPSG code.

3. Coverage

Method: the worker's own (processing/worker/skyplanr_worker/postprocess.py, coverage): the orthophoto's mask read at
2048 x 1341 px (0.65 m cells), cell centres tested against the polygon in UTM 17N.
- The upload's own area (589225 m2): 92.5 % covered. Same as report.json, which checks the method.
- The plan's polygon (596915 m2, plan-area.geojson): 97.3 % covered.
The plan's polygon was drawn around the dataset's footprint, not along the zoo's boundary.

4. Photos

OpenDroneMap odm_data_zoo (CC0-1.0), images/DSC01605.JPG EXIF: Make SONY, Model DSC-WX220, Software eBee,
GPS 41 26' 32.4387" N, 81 42' 58.7312" W, GPSAltitude 303.018 m, GPSDateStamp 2016:10:25.
The positions come from the eBee (a fixed-wing mapping drone), not from the camera.
The first 200 of 524 photos by file name were processed: the set used to test processing releases.

5. Not checked

No ground control points, no checkpoints, no RTK. Absolute accuracy is not known.
Visual judgements (figures 1 and 2) are ours, not a client's.