## 3 Results  
### Evaluation of LiDAR System  
Specifically for the field experiment discussed in this paper, already from Inkscape processing, it has been clear the poor quality of new water-sensitive papers (supplied by a different producer of the reference card). In the figure below is reported a comparison of water-sensitive papers; the first one is the reference card used for previous works for the field trial of 20 July 2021 (Figure 7a), the second one is a WSP used for the field trial of 29 October 2021 (Figure 7b) and the last one is an example of WSP (similar to the reference card) used for the field trial of 21 October 2022 (Figure 7c) in worse damp conditions than the field test of 29 October 2021. Water-sensitive papers are classified through visual comparisons with the reference constructed on the basis set out; each paper is assigned to the correct class. An example of classification based on objective comparison is represented in Figure 8, in which the reference cards correspond to the minimum and maximum values of each range. Data analysis has been developed following two lines of observation: water-sensitive papers located in vines gaps for the LiDAR test (Table 3) and water-sensitive papers located in vine gaps for the standard test (Table 4). Either way, there are three reference blocks, and for each one is a known progressive number (from 1 to 15), support thread position (1 or 2) and coverage classes (from 1 to 5). Figure 7: Difference about water-sensitive paper after using: (**a**) Reference card used for previous works. (**b**) WSP used for the field trial of 29 October 2021. (**c**) Example of WSP (similar to the reference card) used for the field trial of 21 October 2022 in worse condition. Figure 8: Example of comparisons between reference cards used in previous works (**on the left**) and water-sensitive papers used for the field trial on 29 October 2021 (**on the right**). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Thesis: LiDAR Gaps**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Block 1**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Block 2**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Block 3**} \\ \hline
**Number** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Thread** \\ **Position** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Coverage** \\ **Classes** \\ \end{tabular} & **Number** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Thread** \\ **Position** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Coverage** \\ **Classes** \\ \end{tabular} & **Number** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Thread** \\ **Position** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Coverage** \\ **Classes** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
6 & 1 & 4 & & 1 & 4 & & 1 & 5 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & 6 & 2 & 4 & 6 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline
7 & 1 & 3 & 7 & 1 & 2 & & 1 & 5 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 4 \\ \hline
8 & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 2 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 2 & & 2 & 2 \\ \hline
9 & 1 & 2 & & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 3 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 4 \\ \hline
10 & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 5 & & 1 & 5 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 4 & & 2 & 4 \\ \hline
11 & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 5 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 5 \\ \hline
12 & 1 & 4 & & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 3 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 4 & & 2 & 5 & & 2 & 2 \\ \hline
13 & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 5 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 5 \\ \hline
14 & 1 & 1 & & 1 & 5 & & 1 & 3 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 3 & & 2 & 2 & & 2 & 5 \\ \hline
15 & 1 & 2 & & 1 & 3 & & 1 & 4 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 2 & & 2 & 4 & & 2 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of LiDAR tests on vine gaps: linkage of WSP coverage classes to each thread position. Then, the frequency data about coverage classes was extrapolated (Table 5).