2020
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937333
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

IGAPS: the merged IPHAS and UVEX optical surveys of the northern Galactic plane

Abstract: The INT Galactic Plane Survey (IGAPS) is the merger of the optical photometric surveys, IPHAS and UVEX, based on data from the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) obtained between 2003 and 2018. Here, we present the IGAPS point source catalogue. It contains 295.4 million rows providing photometry in the filters, i, r, narrow-band Hα, g and U RGO . The IGAPS footprint fills the Galactic coordinate range, |b| < 5 • and 30 • < < 215 • . A uniform calibration, referred to the Pan-STARRS system, is applied to g, r and i, … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
48
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These entries can assume a value of 0 (if the significance is lower than 3), 1 (if the significance is greater than or equal to 3, but smaller than 5), or 2 (if the significance is equal to or greater than 5). A very similar classification of the signifi-cance levels was previously adopted by Witham et al (2008) and by Monguió et al (2020).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…These entries can assume a value of 0 (if the significance is lower than 3), 1 (if the significance is greater than or equal to 3, but smaller than 5), or 2 (if the significance is equal to or greater than 5). A very similar classification of the signifi-cance levels was previously adopted by Witham et al (2008) and by Monguió et al (2020).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The identification of emission-line objects performed by Monguió et al (2020) followed a selection strategy that is similar to the one implemented for Witham et al (2008). The main differences between these two works are related to the data calibration and to the morphology classes being tested (Monguió et al 2020 only excluded "morphology class 0" sources, i.e. the "noise-like sources", from being tested for H excess; see also Farnhill et al 2016).…”
Section: Comparison With Igapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations