The bundle method is a flexible analytical tool for co‐ordinating engineering and industrial structures. This paper investigates, mainly from a theoretical standpoint, what object space control, if any, need be incorporated in a bundle adjustment and it promotes the use of multistation photography for such projects. The concepts of inner accuracy and free network adjustments are introduced as being valuable in comparative precision studies. Self calibration techniques for the compensation of systematic errors, as well as the detection of gross errors, are also discussed. Résumé La compensation par faisceaux est un outil fort intéressant pour les applications de la photogrammétrie à l'industrie et à l'ingénerie. On recherche ici, en remplaçant surtout d'un point de vue théorique, quelles doivent être alors, s'il en est besoin, les caractéristiques du canevas d'appui. On montre que les concepts d'exacitude interne et de “libre compensation” (équation d'observation indeterminée) présentent un intérêt certain pour ce genre d'étude. On tente également d'évaluer l'intérêt de l'étalouvage et la chambre de prise de vue, et on discute le problème de la détection des fautes. Zusammenfassung Die Bündelmethode ist ein sehr flexibles analytisches Verfahren zur Koordinatenbestimmung beim Ingenieurbau und bei industriellen Konstruktionen. In der Arbeit wird, hauptsächlich vom theoretischen Gesichtspunkt, untersucht, wieviel Objektpasspunkte in einer Bündelausgleichung benötigt werden. Der Autor plädiert für die Anwendung der Multistandpunktaufnahme bei solchen Projekten. Innere Genauigkeit und freie Netzausgleichung werden als wertvolle Begriffe bei vergleichenden Genauigkeitsanalysen angesehen. Die Methoden der Selbstkalibrierung zur Eliminierung systematischer Fehler werden ebenso wie die Verfahren zur Erkennung grober Fehler diskutiert.

This contribution offers a considerably expanded and updated version of "Photogrammetric Terminology: Second Edition" (2012), which was adopted as an official document of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS). The aim is to assist authors and editors in preparing contributions for publication and readers in the wider geomatics community in understanding current photogrammetric terms and abbreviations.

RPV, UAV, UAS, RPAS . . . OR JUST DRONE? SOME READERS may feel that The Photogrammetric Record is obsessed with terminology. My previous editorial (Granshaw, 2018) looked at the origins of the term "structure from motion" (SfM) in the light of this methodology's undoubted popularity among non-specialists. This same user group, where low cost is a major factor in employing photogrammetric techniques, has often also embraced unmanned aviation platforms from which to obtain airborne images. Indeed, the O'Banion et al. paper in this issue uses both these technologies: one a platform on which to mount a consumer-grade (and lowweight) non-metric camera; the other a methodology and software to process the resultant imagery. Together they have, arguably, rejuvenated photogrammetry in recent years.The phrase "structure from motion" struck me as odd and thus worthy of exploration. On this occasion the terms are not especially peculiar, there are just an awful lot of them with confusing nuances of meaning. What is the difference between them and which should be preferred? If you are a reader thinking "oh no, not more terminology" read on; the history of using (or not using) drone, RPV, UAV, UAS, RPAS and quite a few other terms is more interesting and "political" than you might ever have imagined.

No abstract