Remote sensing data

Remotely sensed images

Both are okay!

Remote sensing data or images are the right phrase as being used for data derived from airborne or space borne platforms.

I prefer "remote sensing XYZ" to "remotely sensed XYZ". In support of that, "Remote-sensing images", "Remote-sensing maps", and similar terms are US Library of Congress subject headings, but I couldn't find any entries with "remotely sensed XYZ" there... Maybe it would help to check whether controlled vocabularies specific to your field support one or the other?

I have always used "remote sensing" to refer to virtual outcrops derived from: 1) terrestrial or airborne LiDAR or photogrammetry; 2) satellite data.

This discussion to me, seems to date back to the 80's when scientists had a similar discussion on the matters of terminology. The 'maximal definition' which would correspond to "remotely sensed" encompassing data acquired by virtually all remote-sensing devices such as cameras, lasers, seismographs, optical-mechanical scanners, radio-frequency receivers, sonars, gravimeters, magnetometers, scintillation counters, etc. without touching the object. The other side of the coin is the 'minimal definition' which adds qualifier after qualifier and goes something like this, "remote sensing is the noncontact recording of information from the UV, VIS, NIR & MW regions of the EM spectrum by means of instruments such as cameras, scanners, lasers, linear arrays, and/or area arrays located on platforms such as aircraft or spacecraft, and the analysis of acquired information by means of visual and digital image processing". I think both are correct if used in their proper context. However, these views are open for discussion and criticism. Still, I agree with Guillermo that the minimal defintion should be used when it comes to remote sensing images.

It is thought provoking that some in JPL have even suggested the term, "Remote Measurement" alluding to the fact that hyperspectral remote sensing systems are so accurate(Robbins, 1999; Jensen, 2000)

Both are correct, but remote sensing is more common.

Remote Sensing is using "remotely sensed data". Remotely sensed data denote also data than are NOT used by/in RS. For example, LiDAR used to determine X,Y,Z is a remotely sensed device, and in this sense, it is NOT a RS data acquisition method. This is because RS does not measure; It identifies (qualifies vs. quantifies).

Despite of the change and improvement of remote sensing devices and techniques from the 70's I think the use of the  term Remote Sensing is still valid. I think the question is more related to maintain the tradition of using Remote Sensing term as something that most of the people understand rather the semantic meaning in the context of recent advances in science and techniques. I found really useful to remark if there are no good definition of what remote sensing is we can confuse its products with the products made by using an common and uncalibrated digital camera. Taking the remarks given before, I think that thanks the advances on sensor calibration and accuracy we can start to talk about remote measurement but  in the other hand we must take in account that remote sensing is still an important identification tool.

I remembered that few decades ago a similar discussion happened around the term GIS. We had vector GIS, raster GIS, AM/FM, database oriented GIS and people started to develop new terms trying to describe new systems like an "integrated system" a GIS that can manage vector and raster data smoothly, and etc. Nobody is thinking in those terms now, they are thinking in GIS despite  the term didn't reflect those technological and conceptual changes.

Anyway I think the best we can do is to improve the definition of what remote sensing is in the context of the new possibilities of this technique and science  and not to try to change things in a way that will produce confusion and create new terms that can be forgotten in few years. 

Cheers

It comes across as an unnecessary variation on the scientific vernacular.

I think your points are solid and reasoned Guillermo.

Remotely sensed data and images are same. Photographic and satellite data which is used as primarily depends upon your objective of your work.

 They are the same thing. Generally what we see currently in the literature is that the terms are interchangeable. I have seen where old photographs were used to as remote sensed to create maps of historic vegetation. Additionally currently technologies such as those images taken in your phone have location data associated with them. So pictures from a camera and those taken via a satellite are not much different, only the angle of view. After all satellites are just fancy cameras that can pick up a broader spectrum than the visual bands that your hand held camera does.

Both terms might be OK, but the term "remote sensing" is nowadays more common.

Remote sensing data implies that the data is doing some sort of remote sensing. Remotely sensed data, IMHO, should be used when describing data as obtained from a remote sensing instrument. As indicated above, remote sensing is more general to the field and methods, with the data a consequence of the remote sensing - therefore, remotely sensed data.   

Thank you all for your comments. It seems the consensus is both terms are OK, even though some of us think that "remotely sensed" comes across as an unnecessary variation on the scientific vernacular, as Ray Russ nicely put it. However, I see Mike Wulder's point that "remotely sensed data" removes any ambiguity regarding whether the data are the result of an action (to sense) or are performing or enabling that action. To see the difference, think of the verb 'to screw' and alternate between passive voice and continuous tense ;). So there are valid arguments on both sides I think.