English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Low-cost dual-frequency global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers have recently been tested in various positioning applications. Considering that these sensors can now provide high positioning accuracy at a lower cost, they can be considered an alternative to high-quality geodetic GNSS devices. The main objectives of this work were to analyze the differences between geodetic and low-cost calibrated antennas on the quality of observations from low-cost GNSS receivers and to evaluate the performance of low-cost GNSS devices in urban areas. In this study, a simple RTK2B V1 board u-blox ZED-F9P (Thalwil, Switzerland) was tested in combination with a low-cost calibrated and geodetic antenna in open-sky and adverse conditions in urban areas, while a high-quality geodetic GNSS device was used as a reference for comparison. The results of the observation quality check show that low-cost GNSS instruments have a lower carrier-to-noise ratio (C/N 0 ) than geodetic instruments, especially in the urban areas where the difference is larger and in favor of the geodetic GNSS instruments. The root-mean-square error (RMSE) of the multipath error in the open sky is twice as high for low-cost as for geodetic instruments, while this difference is up to four times greater in urban areas. The use of a geodetic GNSS antenna does not show a significant improvement in the C/N 0 and multipath of low-cost GNSS receivers. However, the ambiguity fix ratio is larger when geodetic antennas are used, with a difference of 1.5% and 18.4% for the open-sky and urban conditions, respectively. It should be noted that float solutions may become more evident when low-cost equipment is used, especially for short sessions and in urban areas with more multipath. In relative positioning mode, low-cost GNSS devices were able to provide horizontal accuracy lower than 10 mm in urban areas in 85% of sessions, while the vertical and spatial accuracy was lower than 15 mm in 82.5% and 77.5% of the sessions, respectively. In the open sky, low-cost GNSS receivers achieve a horizontal, vertical, and spatial accuracy of 5 mm for all sessions considered. In RTK mode, positioning accuracy varies between 10-30 mm in the open-sky and urban areas, while better performance is demonstrated for the former.

Low-Cost Dual-Frequency GNSS Receivers and Antennas for Surveying in Urban Areas