Abstract:

In Cultural Heritage (CH) documentation, geomatics is increasingly framed as a “push-button” practice: photogrammetry becomes the execution of pre-packaged procedures rather than an investigative measurement process. When this happens, a fundamental point is lost: metrical quality is not an intrinsic property of sensors, but the outcome of deliberate design choices concerning reference systems, acquisition geometry, calibration, and control strategies. In CH, where metric data can inform conservation and restoration decisions, the diffusion of low-cost sensors, smartphones, and automated cloud processing can consolidate this tendency: fast and opaque workflows (e.g., cloud pipelines and emerging approaches such as Gaussian Splatting) often hide uncertainty and discourage anticipatory error management.

Teaching experience highlights three interconnected challenges:
(1) instructional collapse, when courses devolve into software tutorials (“how” without “why”);
(2) strong heterogeneity of students’ backgrounds in different cohorts (architects, archaeologists, conservators), requiring differentiated scaffoldings; and
(3) platform dependency, where commercial “black-box” ecosystems raise practical concerns about data ownership and governance, algorithmic transparency, long-term accessibility, and unequal infrastructure access.

This contribution proposes a transferable three-axis framework integrating metrical quality, critical platform awareness, and coherent learning design. The methodological axis strengthens geomatics as an investigative discipline and positions survey design as the primary determinant of metrical quality: acquisition planning, control and check strategies, calibration and validation choices, and the critically evaluated use of non-conventional sensors (smartphones, consumer cameras/action-cams, low-cost UAVs). The critical-reflective axis treats digital platforms as objects of inquiry: students examine technological dependency, data governance, transparency and sustainability and, through an ecology of knowledges perspective, reflect on how standards, infrastructures, and platform logics shape what is documented and what evidence is recognised as valid. The didactic-operational axis translates these principles into a coherent course structure combining conceptual framing, field-based workshops, guided reflection, and immersive resources, including 360° video environments for site exploration and survey planning before fieldwork. Assessment considers not only final model quality, but also the process that produced it: design choices, their justification, uncertainty articulation, and critical awareness of the tools employed.

The framework has been applied iteratively through partnerships with institutions in Cuba, India, Argentina, and Brazil, across contexts with different resources, infrastructures, and technological choices. It promoted a conscious use of platforms and sensors, making trade-offs explicit, and supported the consolidation of local laboratory practices and immersive virtual learning spaces. Further testing is planned through an interdisciplinary workshop in Abu Dhabi towards the end of 2026.

By linking technical rigour, critical platform awareness and coherent learning design, the framework supports responsible professional formation for CH documentation, scalable across diverse institutional settings including those where infrastructure access and data sovereignty are concrete challenges.

Keywords:

Geomatics Education, Cultural Heritage Documentation, Metrical Quality, Learning Design, Platform Awareness.