Time V Distance
Time V Distance
Time V Distance
between the
true position of P and the computed position of P for each ob-
serving session. We then computed the RMS (root mean square)
value for the collection of positional differences for each baseline,
each duration, and each positional component. Recall that the
T
he Global Positioning System (GPS) has dramatically
changed the way that surveyors, GIS/LIS professionals,
engineers, and others measure positional coordinates.
These practitioners can now determine the 3D coordinates of a
new point with centimeter-level accuracy relative to a control point
located several hundred kilometers away. That control point,
moreover, may already be associated with a GPS receiver that is
being continuously operated by some institution for any of sever-
al diverse applications. The National and Cooperative CORS (Con-
tinuously Operating Reference Station) network comprises such a
set of active control points (See: www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/ ). To
address the practicality of using either a CORS or a passive con-
trol pointsuch as those comprising the Federal Base Network
(FBN)for providing accurate positioning control, we studied
how the precision of an observed 3D relative position between
two GPS antennas depends on the distance between these anten-
nas and on the duration of the observing session.
For our experiment, we processed 10 days of dual-frequency,
carrier phase observations for each of 11 baselines formed by
pairs of sites in the National CORS network. These 11 baselines
range in length from 26 km to 300 km, and are widely distributed
throughout the coterminous United States (Figure 1). The data
for each baseline comprised 10 non-overlapping 24-hr sessions
that were further subdivided into 20 non-overlapping 12-hr ses-
sions, 30 non-overlapping 8-hr sessions, 40 non-overlapping 6-hr
sessions and, finally, 60 non-overlapping 4-hr sessions. Moreover,
the data for each baseline and each session was processed inde-
pendently from the data of other baselines and other sessions.
In addition to the length of the baseline and the duration of
the observing session, positioning precision will depend on sev-
eral other factors, including the methodology and the software
used for processing GPS data. Here, we used the static-mode,
GPS Precision with Carrier Phase Observations:
Does Distance and/or Time Matter?
Dr. Richard A. Snay, Dr. Toms Soler, and Mark Eckl
Figure 1: Baselines of the National CORS network involved in this
study. Baseline lengths are given in km.
Figure 2: RMS values for each baseline
and each value of T. Note that the ver-
tical scale of the bottom graph differs
from that of the other two graphs.
DISPLAYED WITH PERMISSION PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR MAGAZINE October 2002 WWW.PROFSURV.COM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
RMS value measures the scatter among a set of numbers. The
computed RMS values are plotted in Figure 2 as a function of
baseline length. In this figure, the graph for each of the three di-
mensions
FEATURE
Figure 3: Predicted RMS values for the vertical and horizontal
components of relative position as a function of session duration.
Fig 4a and 4b: Scatter of horizontal
positioning errors for sessions hav-
ing 6-hour durations (4a, right) and
24-hour durations (4b, left).
DISPLAYED WITH PERMISSION PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR MAGAZINE October 2002 WWW.PROFSURV.COM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
these accuracies. It is costly to remain at a single site for several
hours, and this cost may be prohibitive if several tens of sites need
to be positioned. A remedy is available if two or more GPS receivers
are on hand and if the points to be positioned are clustered within
a few kilometers of a site where one of these receivers can be placed
as a local base (hub) station. This scenario would allow the re-
maining GPS receivers to accurately position the various new points
relative to the hub station by spending a relatively short time at each
new point. Meanwhile, the GPS data being collected at the hub sta-
tion can also be used to accurately position this base station relative
to one or more existing CORS. Consequently, all visited points can
be effectively positioned relative to the CORS network. When ex-
cessive spacing occurs among the proposed survey points, then
users should follow the guidelines contained in the Technical Mem-
orandum, NGS TM 58.
In this article, we have considered only that precision associ-
ated with measuring the relative position between two GPS an-
tennas. The total error involved in positioning a new point also
depends on:
the accuracy of the vertical offset measurements that relate
each points position to the position of the GPS antenna
placed above it, and
the accuracy of the positional coordinates of the control point.
The use of fixed-height poles will help to obtain reliable offset
measurements. To help mitigate errors associated with control point
coordinates, we recommend that the new point be positioned in a
statistical manner relative to two or more control points. For exam-
ple, perform a network adjustment involving each baseline con-
necting the new point to a distinct control point, and (in this adjust-
ment) constrain the positional coordinates for these control points to
their adopted values. This strategy has been encoded into the OPUS
(Online Positioning User Service) software that allows a user to sub-
mit GPS data for a point to NGS via the Internet. This data set will
then be automatically processed on an NGS computer using the
PAGES software. In this process, OPUS computes three separate es-
timates of the new points coordinates by using GPS data from each
of three suitable CORS. OPUS then averages these three positional
estimates and emails the resulting positional coordinates (with ap-
propriate documentation) to the user-specified address. Additional
information about OPUS can be found at www.ngs.noaa.gov/OPUS/.
Additional information about our studies can be found in the De-
cember, 2001, issue of the Journal of Geodesy.
DR. RICHARD A. SNAY is Manager of the National Continuously Oper-
ating Reference Station (CORS) program and a geodesist with the Na-
tional Geodetic Survey.
DR. TOMS SOLER is Chief, Global Positioning System Branch, Spatial
Reference Systems Division, National Geodetic Survey.
MR. MARK ECKL is a geodesist in the Global Positioning System
Branch, Spatial Reference Systems Division, National Geodetic Sur-
vey. Mark also serves as the geodetic advisor to the State of Delaware.
FEATURE
DISPLAYED WITH PERMISSION PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR MAGAZINE October 2002 WWW.PROFSURV.COM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED