Correction: Japertas et al. Experimental Study of Lidar System for a Static Object in Adverse Weather Conditions. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2025, 14, 56

There was an error in the original publication [1]. The number of the RMS value and the numbers of the Tables were inaccurate in Section 3.2, Paragraph 4, of the manuscript; the corrected text appears below.

From

However, using a 2 Hz LiDAR scan rate, the RMS at 1 m is 5 times smaller than the one under good weather conditions. This could be explained by the self-compensation effect on multiple paths due to heavy rain.

To

However, using a 2 Hz LiDAR scan rate, the RMS at 1 m is about 3 times smaller than the one under good weather conditions (Tables 1 and 3). This could be explained by the self-compensation effect on multiple paths due to heavy rain.

The numbers of RMS value were inaccurate, a correction has been made to Section 3.2, Paragraph 13:

From

For example, RMS at 1 m and 5.5 Hz is 4.42 mm, RMS at 1 m and 7 Hz is 8.18 mm, RMS at 6 m and 5.5 Hz is 27.35 mm and RMS at 6 m and 7 Hz is 23.93 mm. Thus, in rainy weather conditions, when the measured object is 6 m away, the scanning frequency of 5.5 Hz ensures about 5–6 times bigger errors (RMS) compared to the case when 2 Hz is used.

To

For example, RMS at 1 m and 5.5 Hz is 4.42 mm, RMS at 1 m and 7 Hz is 8.18 mm, RMS at 6 m and 5.5 Hz is 27.18 mm and RMS at 6 m and 7 Hz is 11.23 mm. Thus, in rainy weather conditions, when the measured object is 6 m away, the scanning frequency of 5.5 Hz ensures about 5–6 times smaller errors (RMS) compared to the case when 2 Hz is used.

The number of the RMS value was inaccurate; a correction has been made to Section 5, Paragraph 2:

From

When measuring the same object at a distance of 6–7 m, the errors also increase for the higher scan frequencies, but they are still 6 times smaller compared to the 2 Hz frequency already mentioned.

To

When measuring the same object at a distance of 6–7 m, the errors also increase for the higher scan frequencies, but they are still 4 times smaller compared to the 2 Hz frequency already mentioned.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.