2016

Identifying the Survey Error Indicators in

GNSS Data Processing

Geodesy Division
Mapping and Geodesy Branch - NAMRIA
4/7/2016
Identifying the Survey Error Indicators in GNSS Data Processing

A. Sampana and R. Gatchalian

Geodesy Division, Mapping and Geodesy Branch, National Mapping and Resource Information Authority

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the various manifestations of survey errors in GNSS data
processing using Trimble Business Center (TBC) software. Six cases of possible survey
errors and its indicators in data processing has been presented. Processing GNSS data
without entering the precise coordinates as well as entering wrong coordinates of the
reference station was also expounded. Similarly, processing results using Broadcast and
Precise satellite ephemerides were compared. Lastly, processing results using the new
Precise Point Positioning (PPP) was compared with the relative positioning technique.
Solution/s for the indicated survey and processing errors were offered as remedy during
processing of GNSS data.

INTRODUCTION

GNSS surveying is relatively straightforward, a surveyor will just set-up a GNSS

receiver on a point, wait for the specified time of observation then pack up and leave
afterwards. To ensure good data, this convenience have to be combined with proper
survey preparation and procedures, such as clear view of the sky, correct station name,
correct antenna height, properly centered and plumbed GNSS antenna, and sufficient
amount of data gathered.
Amateur GNSS observers are mostly oblivious of the requirements of a good GNSS
Survey. A careless observer may have forgotten to indicate the correct antenna height or
station name or even occupied a different station or reference point. A wrong station may
have been entered while converting to RINEX and so on. The data processor in the office
can look out for these signs during processing and adjustment of GNSS data.
The aim of this paper is to investigate and identify the different manifestation of
survey errors in GNSS data processing and adjustment using Trimble Business Center
Software (TBC). To capture these survey errors, some scenarios were intentionally set up
during the study. Solution/s to these errors will also be offered as a remedy during data
processing.
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the TBC software in order to fully
appreciate and comprehend the results of this study.

1
 The possible error/s in conducting a GNSS survey is categorized into cases as
shown below:

1. Survey Procedure Case:

CASE I: Wrong point occupied

CASE II: The bubble of the antenna not centered
CASE III: Wrong antenna height
CASE IV: Wrong input of reference station name
CASE V: Obstructed stations
CASE VI: Receivers have different log rates

2. Data and Processing Procedure Case:

CASE VII: Wrong coordinates entered as reference

CASE VIII: Processing data before entering reference coordinates
CASE IX: IGS Final Orbits vs. Daily Broadcast Ephemeris
CASE X: Precise Point Positioning (PPP) vs. Relative Positioning
-use IGS final orbits ephemeris in relative positioning

The objectives of the study are:

1. To identify survey error indicators in GNSS Data Processing.
2. To determine the solutions for these survey errors.
3. To compare the results of processing using precise and broadcast ephemeris
4. To compare the results of processing using PPP and relative positioning

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Test Network

A network of ten (10) points inside the compound of NAMRIA was selected as
testing points for the study, these points are also used as calibration points for the ten
receivers utilized for the projects of the division (Figure 1). Two of the selected points are
located in areas with obstructions (LM2 and PT3), two other points are existing NAMRIA
GCP (MMA3 and MMA4), two Benchmarks (LM2 and BM2), and others are installed
around the office compound. The longest baseline of the test network is about 135
meters. This network will be used in all cases of the study.

2
 Figure 1. Testing points used for the study. Some points are intentionally installed in obstructed area.

Instruments and Personnel

Trimble R10 dual frequency GNSS receivers were used for the study and Trimble
Business Center (TBC) software is used in the processing and adjustment of the GNSS
data. The test observation for each case was conducted on January 5-12 and September
8, 2015 by the Geodesy Division personnel listed below:

1. Aila Leana Sampana - Processor

2. Ferdinand Fernandez - GNSS Observer
3. Elias Calucag, Jr. - GNSS Observer
4. Dexter Alamar - GNSS Observer
5. Quenie Belarmino - GNSS Observer
6. Vanessa Alcala - GNSS Observer
7. Christian Samin - GNSS Observer
8. Joel Panes, Jr. - GNSS Observer
9. Gerick Aquino - GNSS Observer
10. Aries Zafra - GNSS Observer
11. Melchor Degollado, Jr. - GNSS Observer
12. Arnold Santos - GNSS Observer

3
Establishment of the Test Network

The 10 testing points were observed simultaneously (with correct settings and
procedures) for about an hour to establish the coordinates of the stations, using PTAG (in
Local WGS84) as reference. These coordinates will then be compared to the different
study cases. Table 1 lists the adjusted coordinates (in WGS-UTM Grid) of the test points
with all processing solutions fixed (no floats).

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)in Local WGS

Station ID Easting Northing
Ell. Hts (m)
(m) (m)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509
MMA04 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298
PT1 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057
Table 1. Established coordinates with 1-hr observations of the test network in N, E, and ellipsoidal height.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The different cases were grouped into two categories, the Survey Procedure cases
and the Data and Processing Procedure cases.
1. Survey Procedure cases:
CASE I: Wrong Point Occupied. We have done four tests for this case; one test involves
two unknown points eccentrically occupied and the other three tests involve occupying
the wrong reference stations.
Test A: Two unknown points incorrectly occupied in 1 of 2 sessions.
Field procedures: PTAG as reference, 1-hr observation, for 2 sessions.
Session 1: all receivers occupied the correct stations.
Session 2: two receivers set up at approximately 5m away from the correct point.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. FLOAT solutions in processing are those baselines connected to the wrong occupied
points; horizontal and vertical precision is about 0.264 m.
2. After the first adjustment, the scalar is too high, i.e. 712.89 (normal is <10).
3. The error ellipse components of all stations is from 0.272 m up to 1.074 m and the
control coordinate comparisons of the reference PTAG is more than normal, i.e. ∆E -
0.011, ∆N -0.032, ∆Ht 0.115 (normal is <0.01).
4. Most of the baselines that became outliers in the adjustment are connected to the
incorrectly occupied points. Also, these outliers are from the second session of

4
 observation where in the wrong occupation was introduced (two receivers were set
up 5m away from their original locations).
5. The range of point coordinate differences compared to Table 1 after removing all
outliers are:

±0.056 - 1.589cm (∆Easting)

±0.006 - 1.353cm (∆Northing)
±0.098 - 2.929cm (∆Ellipsoidal Heights)

The incorrectly occupied stations somehow influence the coordinates of the other
points.

Test B: Two reference stations incorrectly occupied at 1 session only.

Field procedures: PT1 and MMA4 as references, 1-hr observation, for 1 session only.
Receiver at the reference stations were set-up approximately 5m away from their correct
locations.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. After a free adjustment, control coordinate comparisons show apparent movement of
the reference stations.
PT1 ∆E = 0.416m ∆N = -0.253m ∆Ht = 0.020m
MMA4 ∆E = -4.157m ∆N = 2.533m ∆Ht = -0.228m
2. Fixing both references yielded more outliers which are those baselines connected to
the reference. The error ellipse components of all stations range from 0.074m to
0.275m; and the scalar is high, i.e. 118.05.
3. After removing all the outliers and adjusting the network, the range of coordinate
differences compared to Table 1 are:

±473.641 - 477.032cm (∆Easting)

±222.915 – 225.741cm (∆Northing)
±0.153 – 3.815cm (∆Ellipsoidal Heights)

This indicates apparent movement of the stations, which is not true. The inaccurate
occupation of the reference controls affects the coordinates of the new points.
Examining the control coordinate comparisons is the only way of recognizing this
survey error.

Test C: Two reference stations incorrectly occupied in 1 of 2 sessions.

Field procedures: PT1 and MMA4 as references, 1-hr observation, for 2 sessions.
Session 1: all receivers stationed to the correct stations.
Session 2: receiver at reference points were set-up approximately 5m away from their
correct locations

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. FLOAT solutions in processing are those baselines connected to the wrong occupied
points.
2. After the free adjustment, the scalar value is high, i.e. 716.81.
3. The error ellipse components of all stations and the control coordinate comparisons
of the references are large.

5
 PT1 ∆E = 1.079m ∆N = 1.283m ∆Ht = -1.804m
MMA4 ∆E = -0.595m ∆N = 4.411m ∆Ht = 0.052m

4. Most of the baselines that became outliers in adjustment are connected to the
incorrectly occupied stations. Also, these outliers are from the second session of
observation where in the receivers were moved from their original locations.
5. The range of coordinate differences compared to Table 1 are:

±0.170 – 3.112cm (∆Easting)

±0.256 – 2.558cm (∆Northing)
±0.004 – 2.481cm (∆Ellipsoidal Heights)

The automatic merging of points while importing the 2 sessions introduced an error
in processing which gives an apparent movement of the two reference controls and
the new points. The second session data of this survey was made useless due to
occupation error.

Test D: One reference station incorrectly occupied in 2 sessions.

Field procedures: PTAG, MMA3, and MMA4 as references, 1-hr observation, for 2 sessions.
Session 1 and 2: receiver at reference point MMA4 was set-up approximately 20m away
from the correct location.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. FLOAT solutions in processing are mostly those baselines connected to the wrong
occupied reference (MMA4).
2. After the free adjustment, the scalar value is small, i.e. 4.85.
3. The error ellipse components of all stations are small; ranging from 0.003 – 0.014 in
semi-major axis and 0.003 – 0.009 in semi-minor axis.
4. There are no outliers but the control coordinate comparisons of the references are
large.

MMA3 ∆E = 9.218m ∆N = 6.961m ∆Ht = -7.323m

MMA4 ∆E = -11.073m ∆N = -8.353m ∆Ht = 8.734m
PTAG ∆E = 9.233m ∆N = 6.960m ∆Ht = -7.287m

The comparisons show that the two other references (PTAG & MMA3) are affected by
the incorrectly occupied point, but it is noticeable that the erroneously occupied
reference have the largest comparison and the other two have similar coordinate
differences. Fixing the references (MMA3 and PTAG) with the smallest and similar
coordinate comparisons generated no outliers, small error ellipse components, and
with the following control coordinate comparisons on MMA4:

MMA4 ∆E = -20.310m ∆N = -15.313m ∆Ht = 16.024m

Trying to fix the third reference MMA4 will generate an error message: “Network
adjustment could not be successfully completed. The inverse of the normal equation
matrix could not be computed. There may be an error in your data”. MMA4 should never
be fixed in this case because it has been incorrectly occupied.

6
Recommended Solutions:

The possible solution that can be done for the wrong point occupation error is to review
the GNSS loop closure results. The GNSS loop closure results show the number of loops
observed and the status of each loop, i.e. failed or passed. Review the failed loop results
to determine any bad vectors and points. In the summary of the results, the worst loop
with the highest PPM is shown together with its horizontal, vertical, and 3D accuracy.
From this WORST loop, explode each point and look at all the observations connected to
it. Exploding the points will separate the points occupied for each session. These points
should be given a different name to distinguish it from the correct control. The incorrectly
occupied stations may be deleted (or renamed) from the network to prevent further
confusion. In cases where the station names are interchanged during the survey or
downloading, exploding the points will separate the data and relocate the points to its
“right” position. The relocated points must be properly renamed and merged to its
duplicate.
When reference station/s are incorrectly occupied, analyzing the control coordinate
comparisons will detect the point occupation error. Reference Controls with large (but
similar) coordinate comparisons indicate that they are consistent therefore correctly
occupied. The reference/s with different coordinate comparison value among the rest
is/are suspect as erroneously occupied. Remove the Office Entered Coordinates of this
reference/s and re-adjust the network. Check the coordinate comparisons and look out
for large values; if there are none, then all remaining references are correctly occupied.
To check the consistency of the network adjustment, plot the network to Google Earth
and check their locations. If the points are consistent with Google Earth, then you are
confident of your adjustment.
It is always prudent to have 2 sessions and as many references (more than one) in all
GNSS surveys. Using only one (incorrectly occupied) reference point will shift the
network of points to the amount and direction of the occupation error.

CASE II: Centering Error

Field procedures: PTAG as reference, 1-hr observation for 2 sessions.
Session 1: all receivers with bubble centered.
Session 2: two stations with bubble not centered.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. No visible indicator in processing for the centering error.
2. The range of coordinate differences compared to Table 1 are:

±0.022 – 1.763cm (∆Easting)

±0.038 – 4.283cm (∆Northing)
±0.001 – 2.110cm (∆Ellipsoidal Heights)
Error in centering slightly degrades the accuracy of the coordinates.

7
CASE III: Antenna Height Error
Field procedures: PTAG as reference, 1-hr observation, for 2 sessions.
Session 1: all receivers with correct antenna heights.
Session 2: two stations with wrong antenna heights (PT6 and MMA4).

Error Indicators in Processing:

There are outliers in the network adjustment. They are the ∆Ht component of the
baselines connected to points 6 and MMA4 in the second session where the surveyor
input the wrong antenna heights. The points with wrong antenna heights became outliers
in the adjustment and is rendered useless.

Recommended Solution:
When most outliers during adjustment are the ∆Ht component of the baselines, take note
of the stations connected to those baselines and compare the imported antenna heights
to the GNSS Field Sheet of each observed station. Review and modify the antenna heights
in the occupation spreadsheet (TBC) then reprocess the baselines and readjust.

CASE IV: Reference Naming Error. Two tests were conducted for this case. Test A
involves 2 sessions; one session with their correct station names, the other with the
interchanged station name of the references. Test B involves 1 session only with the
interchanged reference name.
Test A:
Field procedures: PT1 and MMA4 as references, 1-hr observation, for 2 sessions.
Session 1: all station with correct names.
Session 2: wrong station names entered for the references.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. During data importing of the second session, a merge window appeared indicating the
horizontal and vertical distances of the interchanged points with respect to its plotted
position from the first session.

PT1 H. Dist. = 44.597 m V. Dist. = 17.956 m

MMA4 H. Dist. = 45.839 m V. Dist. = 7.778 m

2. Merging the first and second session data resulted into 17.273% of FLOAT solutions
baselines after processing.
3. All FLOAT solutions are those baselines connected to the reference points.
4. In the free network adjustment, the scalar is 10.11 and the control coordinate
comparisons show almost the same differences for both reference:

PT1 ∆E = 1.417 ∆N = -2.665 ∆Ht = 0.831

MMA4 ∆E = 1.417 ∆N = -2.665 ∆Ht = 0.830

8
5. Fixing all the references yielded small coordinate differences compared to Table 1 (all
outliers removed):

±0.007 – 0.955cm (∆Easting)

±0.004 – 0.801cm (∆Northing)
±0.000 – 1.313cm (∆Ellipsoidal Heights)

The reference coordinates appear to have moved, showing large coordinate

differences. The good observations of the incorrectly named stations has become
outliers and are made useless.

Test B:
Field procedures: PT1 and MMA4 as references. One session only of 1-hr observation
with interchanged station names of references.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. Almost all of the baselines have FLOAT solutions (92.727%).
2. Most of the baselines FAILED the horizontal and vertical precision tolerance
(horizontal precision > 0.100m+1.0ppm; vertical precision > 0.200m+1.0ppm).
3. In the free network adjustment, there are no outliers and the scalar is small but the
error ellipse components are high, and the control coordinate comparisons show
large differences:

PT1 ∆E = 4.152 ∆N = -45.912 ∆Ht = -12.689

MMA4 ∆E = -5.391 ∆N = 44.208 ∆Ht = 14.985

4. The network cannot be adjusted after fixing the references showing an error message
that says: “Network adjustment could not be successfully completed. The inverse of the
normal equation matrix could not be computed. There may be an error in your data”.

Recommended Solutions:
It is recommended that when a merge window appears during data import, lookout for
the indicated horizontal and vertical distances. When the distances exceed 5 meters, do
not merge the points, they are most probably different. Check the coordinates of the
stations written in the GNSS Field Sheet and compare it to the plotted position generated
in TBC. Rename the suspect station/s in its correct location before merging and
processing.
In the case of one session only, there is no way of detecting the error except in the control
coordinate comparisons. View the points in Google Earth using the TBC toolbar and check
if the location of the reference are the same as in the point description sheet. Rename and
edit the coordinates, reprocess then adjust.

9
CASE V: Obstructed Stations
Field procedures: PTAG as reference.
Session 1: 5-min observation time.
Session 2: 10-min observation time.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. Baselines connected to the points that are located in obstructed areas have FLOAT
solutions.
2. Outliers in adjustment are connected to points with obstructions.
3. Fixing all the references yielded the following coordinate differences from Table 1:

±0.073 – 1.815cm (∆Easting)

±0.014 – 1.609cm (∆Northing)
±0.106 – 9.665cm (∆Ellipsoidal Heights)

Recommended Solutions:
After importing GNSS data, the Time-based View may be displayed to see how the
occupations and sessions relate to each other and check for valid sessions. Review
sessions and occupations properties and edit if necessary. Disable problematic baselines
that should not be processed or cross-out sections of GPS observations containing large
number of cycle slips and residuals to improve baseline processing results.
Process and review GNSS baselines, fixed solution are the primary indicator of a quality
data that indicate precise position solutions. Flag indicators in the horizontal and vertical
columns also indicate the precision of baselines. Review the processing details in the
Baseline Processing Reports to determine why certain baselines were flagged or failed to
process. Take note of all the baselines with float solutions then check the GNSS loop
closure. Bear in mind that longer baselines need longer observation times; and
obstructed stations have multipath and cycle slips.

CASE VI: Inconsistent Logging Rates

Field procedures: PTAG as reference, 1-hr observation.
Session 1: all receivers with 15s logging rate.
Session 2: two receivers with 5s and 10s logging rate.

Error Indicators in Processing:

1. The logging rate (update rate) can be seen in the properties of the imported files.
2. No visible indicator for the inconsistent logging rates except for more compressed
residual plots.
There is no significant coordinate dissimilarity with Table 1.

10
2. Data and Processing Procedure cases:
CASE VII: Wrong Coordinates Entered as Reference
Procedure: PTAG as reference, 1-hr observation 1 session only.
Before data processing, wrong coordinates are entered to the reference station PTAG.
Error Indicators in Processing:
1. There are no outliers and the control coordinate comparison shows small differences:

PTAG ∆E = -0.001 ∆N = 0.003 ∆Ht = -0.008

2. No visible indicator for the error during processing and adjustment, but comparing
the generated coordinates to the coordinates in Table 1, the differences of 3D
coordinates are almost the same for all points.
Differences in centimeters
Station ID ∆Ell. Ht.
∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(cm)

BM2 -669.230 -1737.677 -194.291

LM2 -668.844 -1737.856 -194.614
MMA03 -669.435 -1737.654 -194.558
MMA04 -669.185 -1737.765 -194.361
PT1 -669.196 -1737.780 -194.489
PT2 -669.308 -1737.736 -194.424
PT3 -669.678 -1737.396 -194.435
PT4 -669.239 -1737.603 -194.249
PT5 -668.943 -1738.025 -194.640
PT6 -669.233 -1737.733 -194.364
PTAG -669.232 -1737.813 -194.300
Table 2. Differences of resulting coordinates with Table 1 for case vii

Recommended Solutions:
The error could not be detected until coordinates are compared to known stations.
Double check the coordinates of the reference before processing; and always use two or
more reference stations in GNSS surveys. Always plot coordinates of the processing
results to Google Earth to check location accuracy. The accuracy of the new points greatly
depends on the accuracy of the reference coordinates.

CASE VIII: Processing Data before Entering Reference Coordinates

Procedure: PTAG as reference, 1-hr observation.
Coordinates of reference PTAG were entered after processing the data.
Error Indicators in Processing:
1. The Scalar, Error Ellipse Components, and Control Coordinates Comparisons are all
larger than the generated values from the processed data where in the coordinates of
the reference was entered before processing.
2. There are also more baselines that became outliers during the adjustment.
3. After entering the reference coordinates and performed the final adjustment, the
coordinate differences compared to Table 1 are:

11
 Differences in centimeters
Station ID ∆Ell. Ht.
∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(cm)
BM2 -0.002 -0.006 0.065
LM2 0.000 -0.009 0.021
MMA03 0.019 -0.058 -0.006
MMA04 -0.007 0.000 0.051
PT1 0.028 -0.041 -0.029
PT2 -0.007 -0.004 0.046
PT3 -0.405 0.401 -0.520
PT4 -0.006 -0.007 0.047
PT5 0.041 -0.066 -0.024
PT6 -0.032 0.020 0.137
PTAG 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 3. Differences of resulting coordinates with Table 1 for case viii

Recommended Solutions:
Remove processing results and enter the correct coordinates then reprocess baselines.
Although there is not much difference in the resulting coordinates for this case, some of
the data became outliers and are wasted.

CASE IX: IGS Final Orbits vs. Daily Broadcast Ephemeris

In this case, five (5) hours of GPS data were processed in Local WGS84 datum using the
daily broadcast ephemeris and IGS final orbits. Table 4 shows the differences of
coordinates using the IGS Final Orbits versus the Daily Broadcast Ephemeris with Iono
Model. The highest difference is about 0.060 cm. in Easting, 0.055 cm. in Northing, and
0.20 cm. in Ellipsoidal Heights.

Differences in centimeters
Station ID ∆Ell. Ht.
∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(cm)
BM2 -0.002 -0.002 -0.006
LM2 0.029 -0.055 0.168
MMA03 0.001 -0.010 0.041
MMA04 0.000 -0.001 -0.027
PT1 -0.004 0.004 -0.004
PT2 -0.007 -0.004 -0.011
PT3 0.060 -0.038 0.173
PT4 0.000 0.033 0.202
PT5 0.011 -0.039 -0.084
PT6 -0.001 0.001 0.001
PTAG 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 4. Resulting Coordinate differences using IGS Final Orbits and Daily Broadcast Ephemeris.

12
CASE X: PPP vs. Relative Positioning
Test A: PPP_CSRS vs. ITRF_TBC
In this case, five (5) hours of Rinex data were sent to Canadian Spatial Reference System
(CSRS) to determine the Precise Point Positioning (PPP) coordinates of the test points.
Since the PPP coordinates are in ITRF, IGS Final Orbits and ITRF coordinates are used for
the relative positioning using TBC. The comparison of coordinates show millimeter to
centimeter differences in the Easting, Northing and Ellipsoidal Heights. The highest
difference in Easting is 14.194 cm. and 7.632 cm. in Northing with approximately 115.221
cm. difference in Ellipsoidal Height.

Differences in centimeters
Station ID ∆Ell. Ht.
∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(cm)
BM2 -2.646 -0.129 -2.035
LM2 -14.194 -7.632 -11.449
MMA03 8.410 1.032 8.092
MMA04 0.529 0.247 2.738
PT1 0.965 -0.080 -2.503
PT2 0.597 -0.566 6.080
PT3 -6.435 -6.561 -115.221
PT4 -3.576 2.004 -19.125
PT5 1.708 1.032 13.151
PT6 0.838 -0.075 6.500
PTAG 1.092 -0.541 1.300
Table 5. Resulting Coordinate differences between PPP (using CSRS) and Relative Positioning (using TBC). LM2 and PT3
are obstructed points.

Test B: PPP_TBC vs. ITRF_TBC

Five (5) hours of GPS data was processed to determine the PPP and relative coordinates
of the test points using TBC. The highest difference in Easting is 38.01cm, Northing is
13.029cm, and 39.051cm in Ellipsoidal Height.

Differences in centimeters
Station ID ∆Ell. Ht.
∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(cm)
BM2 22.854 -13.029 0.865
LM2 21.606 -4.032 39.051
MMA03 38.010 -9.068 16.692
MMA04 22.429 -12.353 4.038
PT1 22.065 -12.380 -0.703
PT2 22.197 -12.366 4.180
PT3 28.065 -10.561 18.479
PT4 18.824 -11.596 -8.825
PT5 21.508 -11.868 8.151
PT6 23.138 -11.675 8.400
PTAG 21.792 -12.841 2.300
Table 6. Resulting Coordinate differences between PPP and Relative Positioning using TBC.

13
Test C: PPP_TBC vs. ITRF_AUSPOS
Relative positioning coordinates of the test points was computed using the AUSPOS
Online GPS Processing Service and PPP using TBC. The comparison shows large
differences from centimeter to meter. The highest difference is 78.719m in Latitude,
74.047m in Longitude, and 31.802m in Ellipsoidal Height.
Differences in meters
Station ID
∆Latitude (m) ∆Longitude (m) ∆Ell. Ht. (m)

BM2 46.508 -26.919 37.236

LM2 6.372 -12.280 -13.064
MMA03 0.586 11.603 -20.685
MMA04 -0.116 0.221 0.146
PT1 -0.117 0.208 0.128
PT2 -0.119 0.216 0.135
PT3 78.719 74.047 31.802
PT4 -0.116 0.171 0.023
PT5 -0.120 0.203 0.044
PT6 -0.110 0.220 0.182
PTAG -0.121 0.208 0.017
Table 7. Resulting Coordinate differences between PPP (using TBC) and Relative Positioning (using AUSPOS).

Stations with large differences are located in obstructed areas.

CONCLUSION

Various types of survey errors committed in the field and their indicators in GNSS
data processing have been investigated. Six cases of field survey errors and two cases of
processing errors were presented.
In the following field survey errors; station is incorrectly occupied (Case I); station
is incorrectly named (Case IV); and station located in obstructed area (Case V), the
indicators of error are those baselines with float solutions in processing and those that
became outliers in network adjustment. Those baselines are connected to incorrectly
occupied, incorrectly named, and obstructed stations. The control coordinate
comparisons can expose an incorrectly occupied or named reference station. Controls
with similar coordinate comparisons suggest that they are correctly occupied and the
control/s that deviates among the rest are suspects. Outliers with ∆Ht component of the
baselines during adjustment indicates that the stations connected to those baselines have
wrong antenna heights (Case III). For the centering error (Case II) and for different
logging rates (Case VI), there is no obvious error indicator.
The solution for the wrong point occupation, station naming error and antenna
height error is to thoroughly check the imported data before doing the baseline
processing. Check the date and time of data files, receiver details, and antenna details.
Change the station name or antenna height if necessary by comparing the imported data
to the data written in the GNSS Field Sheet of each observed station. If a merge window
appears during data import, do not merge the points when the horizontal and vertical
distance is greater than 5 meters. Compare the processed coordinates generated in TBC
to the coordinates written in the GNSS Field Sheet and rename the suspect stations before

14
processing. It is also advisable to review the GNSS loop closure results and look for the
failed loops or the worst loop in the network. Explode each point from the worst loop to
separate the points for each session and to see if there is any incorrectly occupied
stations. Separated points that are incorrectly occupied may be deleted from the network
to ensure the quality of data. For the stations located in obstructed areas, analyze the
Time-based View before processing to see how the occupations and sessions relate to
each other. Check for valid sessions and disable or cross-out sections of GPS observations
containing large number of cycle slips to improve baseline processing results.
Data processing errors such as wrong coordinates entered as reference (Case VII)
and processing data before entering reference coordinates (Case VIII) were also
analyzed. The error of entering wrong coordinates as reference could not be detected
until the results from its processing is compared with that of the correct reference
coordinates. To avoid wrong input of reference coordinates, always double check the
input coordinates of references before processing.
Error indicators in processing GNSS data without reference coordinates are large
error ellipse components, scalar, control coordinates comparisons, and the outliers
during adjustment. The solution is to remove processing result, enter the reference
coordinates, and reprocess the baselines.
GNSS processing using the IGS Final Orbits versus the Daily Broadcast Ephemeris
with Iono Model were also explored. Only millimeter differences in the Easting (E),
Northing (N), and Ellipsoidal Heights (h) are seen in the comparison. This may be due to
refined satellite orbits and advance GNSS processing.
Finally, the accuracy of PPP technique is compared with relative positioning
technique. Three (3) tests were performed for this comparison. First, the PPP coordinates
processed by the CSRS was compared to the relative coordinates processed by TBC. The
coordinates show millimeter to centimeter differences in the E, N and h. The second test
compares the PPP coordinates and relative coordinates both processed by TBC. The 3D
comparison shows centimeter differences. Lastly, PPP coordinates computed using TBC
is compared to relative coordinates processed by the AUSPOS Online GPS Processing
Service. The comparison shows large differences from centimeter to meter in Latitude,
Longitude, and height in obstructed stations; but the “good” stations give 10 – 20 cm in
N, E, Up.

15
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. Coordinate Differences on Survey Procedure Cases

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseItestA (Wrong Stationed Pts_2sessions) Differences in centimeters

Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.752 1607806.414 71.504 0.633 0.039 -0.434
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.987 1607792.126 71.846 0.946 -1.353 -2.929
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.417 1607804.302 71.522 -0.301 -0.230 -1.368
MMA04* 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.494 1607844.936 86.299 0.056 0.006 -0.098
PT1* 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.284 1607799.920 72.530 1.331 -0.981 -1.769
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.199 1607819.174 71.202 0.114 0.022 -0.142
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.415 1607874.203 68.081 1.589 -1.306 -1.604
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.777 1607874.290 69.388 0.474 -0.362 -0.116
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.225 1607845.737 70.565 -0.999 0.181 0.487
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.512 1607811.822 72.242 -0.162 0.175 0.216
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 0.000 0.000 0.000

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseItestB (Wrong Stationed Reference Pts_1ses) Differences in centimeters
Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288846.993 1607804.162 71.498 476.527 225.263 0.153
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288842.228 1607789.883 71.855 476.837 222.915 -3.815
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288826.665 1607802.053 71.525 474.956 224.740 -1.676
MMA04* 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 -0.007 -0.004 0.000
PT1* 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.297 1607799.911 72.513 -0.009 -0.014 0.000
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288854.444 1607816.923 71.200 475.570 225.160 0.089
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288862.660 1607871.958 68.074 477.032 223.246 -0.964
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288943.021 1607872.040 69.381 476.085 224.549 0.575
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288953.479 1607843.482 70.566 473.641 225.741 0.473
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288940.759 1607809.569 72.239 475.229 225.419 0.463
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288879.571 1607843.913 88.054 475.445 225.011 0.279

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseItestC (Wrong Stationed Reference Pts_2ses) Differences in centimeters
Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.751 1607806.392 71.499 0.727 2.255 0.004
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.988 1607792.099 71.842 0.798 1.373 -2.481
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.411 1607804.274 71.516 0.355 2.558 -0.774
MMA04* 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 -0.007 -0.004 0.000
PT1* 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.297 1607799.911 72.513 -0.009 -0.014 0.000
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.196 1607819.158 71.198 0.358 1.693 0.318
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.400 1607874.204 68.072 3.112 -1.428 -0.774
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.784 1607874.311 69.383 -0.170 -2.528 0.406
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.242 1607845.754 70.560 -2.699 -1.484 1.002
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.535 1607811.826 72.238 -2.414 -0.256 0.644
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.322 1607846.160 88.057 0.305 0.283 0.009

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseII (Centering Error) Differences in centimeters

Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.753 1607806.413 71.500 0.479 0.097 -0.018
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.985 1607792.121 71.832 1.096 -0.884 -1.462
MMA03* 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.432 1607804.257 71.530 -1.763 4.283 -2.110
MMA04* 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.500 1607844.933 86.295 -0.494 0.326 0.259
PT1 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.297 1607799.909 72.515 -0.022 0.162 -0.263
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.198 1607819.174 71.201 0.209 0.089 0.001
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.416 1607874.199 68.060 1.495 -0.864 0.481
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.783 1607874.279 69.392 -0.096 0.669 -0.496
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.220 1607845.739 70.571 -0.500 -0.038 -0.021
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.511 1607811.822 72.245 -0.058 0.113 -0.063
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 0.000 0.000 0.000

16
 TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseIII (Antenna Height Error) Differences in centimeters
Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.756 1607806.416 71.501 0.214 -0.150 -0.205
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.989 1607792.118 71.827 0.733 -0.538 -0.956
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.415 1607804.297 71.521 -0.075 0.297 -1.211
MMA04* 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.494 1607844.935 86.306 0.036 0.056 -0.855
PT1 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.296 1607799.910 72.518 0.101 0.071 -0.563
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.197 1607819.174 71.202 0.321 0.056 -0.142
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.424 1607874.190 68.071 0.654 0.000 -0.659
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.780 1607874.286 69.390 0.157 -0.034 -0.294
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.211 1607845.742 70.574 0.420 -0.253 -0.353
PT6* 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.508 1607811.824 72.255 0.242 -0.018 -1.061
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 0.000 0.000 0.000

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseIVtestA (Reference Name Error) Differences in centimeters

Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.750 1607806.415 71.506 0.807 -0.125 -0.629
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.988 1607792.120 71.824 0.877 -0.801 -0.738
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.418 1607804.295 71.522 -0.406 0.521 -1.313
MMA04* 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 -0.007 -0.004 0.000
PT1* 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.297 1607799.911 72.513 -0.009 -0.014 0.000
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.201 1607819.175 71.202 -0.108 0.012 -0.081
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.423 1607874.192 68.065 0.774 -0.244 -0.004
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.779 1607874.287 69.384 0.325 -0.070 0.297
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.225 1607845.737 70.566 -0.955 0.159 0.403
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.513 1607811.823 72.244 -0.174 0.050 0.011
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.326 1607846.163 88.058 -0.120 -0.055 -0.062

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseV (Insufficient Data) Differences in centimeters

Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.740 1607806.413 71.507 1.815 0.165 -0.790
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.981 1607792.128 71.901 1.552 -1.609 -8.414
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.432 1607804.291 71.605 -1.742 0.862 -9.665
MMA04 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.495 1607844.935 86.304 -0.073 0.095 -0.593
PT1 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.301 1607799.897 72.529 -0.425 1.292 -1.635
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.202 1607819.175 71.219 -0.178 0.014 -1.812
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.413 1607874.203 68.108 1.771 -1.348 -4.325
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.774 1607874.277 69.386 0.786 0.896 0.106
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.224 1607845.733 70.578 -0.890 0.648 -0.737
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.514 1607811.818 72.251 -0.338 0.551 -0.675
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 0.000 0.000 0.000

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseVI (Inconsistent Logging Rates) Differences in centimeters

Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.757 1607806.414 71.495 0.083 0.037 0.435
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.993 1607792.115 71.823 0.357 -0.300 -0.581
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.409 1607804.300 71.524 0.501 -0.040 -1.559
MMA04 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.494 1607844.936 86.299 0.052 -0.038 -0.122
PT1 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.297 1607799.910 72.515 0.014 0.036 -0.264
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.201 1607819.174 71.201 -0.062 0.040 -0.018
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.421 1607874.195 68.070 0.993 -0.451 -0.531
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.783 1607874.288 69.392 -0.097 -0.196 -0.501
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.222 1607845.735 70.560 -0.712 0.431 0.996
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.512 1607811.821 72.242 -0.160 0.215 0.150
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 0.000 0.000 0.000

17
APPENDIX B. Coordinate Differences on Data and Processing Procedure Cases

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseVII (WrongCoordinatesEnteredAsReference)1hr Differences in centimeters

Station ID Easting Northing Ellipsoidal Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) Heights (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288858.451 1607823.791 73.442 -669.230 -1737.677 -194.291
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288853.685 1607809.491 73.763 -668.844 -1737.856 -194.614
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288838.109 1607821.677 73.454 -669.435 -1737.654 -194.558
MMA04 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288903.187 1607862.313 88.241 -669.185 -1737.765 -194.361
PT1 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288907.989 1607817.288 74.458 -669.196 -1737.780 -194.489
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288865.893 1607836.552 73.145 -669.308 -1737.736 -194.424
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288874.128 1607891.564 70.009 -669.678 -1737.396 -194.435
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288954.474 1607891.662 71.329 -669.239 -1737.603 -194.249
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288964.905 1607863.119 72.517 -668.943 -1738.025 -194.640
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288952.203 1607829.201 74.188 -669.233 -1737.733 -194.364
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288891.017 1607863.541 90.000 -669.232 -1737.813 -194.300

TestNetwork (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseVIII (ProcessingDataBeforeEnteringRefCoords)1hr Differences in centimeters

Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 288851.758 1607806.414 71.499 -0.002 -0.006 0.065
LM2 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 288846.996 1607792.112 71.817 0.000 -0.009 0.021
MMA03 288831.414 1607804.300 71.509 288831.414 1607804.301 71.509 0.019 -0.058 -0.006
MMA04 288896.495 1607844.936 86.298 288896.495 1607844.936 86.297 -0.007 0.000 0.051
PT1 288901.297 1607799.910 72.513 288901.297 1607799.911 72.513 0.028 -0.041 -0.029
PT2 288859.200 1607819.175 71.201 288859.200 1607819.175 71.200 -0.007 -0.004 0.046
PT3 288867.431 1607874.190 68.064 288867.435 1607874.186 68.070 -0.405 0.401 -0.520
PT4 288947.782 1607874.286 69.387 288947.782 1607874.286 69.386 -0.006 -0.007 0.047
PT5 288958.215 1607845.739 70.570 288958.215 1607845.740 70.571 0.041 -0.066 -0.024
PT6 288945.511 1607811.823 72.244 288945.511 1607811.823 72.243 -0.032 0.020 0.137
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 0.000 0.000 0.000

Daily Broadcast vs Final Orbits

5hrObservation (Daily Broadcast)WGS caseIX5hrObservation (Final Orbits)WGS Differences in centimeters
Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.744 1607806.419 71.489 288851.744 1607806.419 71.489 -0.002 -0.002 -0.006
LM2 288846.981 1607792.127 71.861 288846.981 1607792.127 71.860 0.029 -0.055 0.168
MMA03 288831.413 1607804.298 71.527 288831.413 1607804.298 71.526 0.001 -0.010 0.041
MMA04 288896.493 1607844.938 86.297 288896.493 1607844.938 86.298 0.000 -0.001 -0.027
PT1 288901.292 1607799.905 72.511 288901.292 1607799.904 72.511 -0.004 0.004 -0.004
PT2 288859.192 1607819.176 71.201 288859.192 1607819.176 71.202 -0.007 -0.004 -0.011
PT3 288867.409 1607874.200 68.061 288867.409 1607874.200 68.060 0.060 -0.038 0.173
PT4 288947.770 1607874.283 69.391 288947.770 1607874.283 69.389 0.000 0.033 0.202
PT5 288958.226 1607845.735 70.562 288958.225 1607845.735 70.563 0.011 -0.039 -0.084
PT6 288945.512 1607811.821 72.245 288945.512 1607811.821 72.245 -0.001 0.001 0.001
PTAG 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 288884.325 1607846.163 88.057 0.000 0.000 0.000

18
 PPP_CSRS vs Relative_TBC
caseXtestA(PPP_CSRS) caseXtestA(Relative_TBC) Differences in centimeters
Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.012 1607811.263 70.107 288850.986 1607811.262 70.087 -2.646 -0.129 -2.035
LM2 288846.366 1607797.046 70.571 288846.224 1607796.970 70.457 -14.194 -7.632 -11.449
MMA03 288830.572 1607809.130 70.044 288830.656 1607809.140 70.125 8.410 1.032 8.092
MMA04 288895.729 1607849.778 84.866 288895.734 1607849.780 84.893 0.529 0.247 2.738
PT1 288900.523 1607804.748 71.134 288900.533 1607804.747 71.109 0.965 -0.080 -2.503
PT2 288858.428 1607824.024 69.737 288858.434 1607824.018 69.798 0.597 -0.566 6.080
PT3 288866.714 1607879.107 67.811 288866.650 1607879.041 66.659 -6.435 -6.561 -115.221
PT4 288947.048 1607879.106 68.177 288947.012 1607879.126 67.986 -3.576 2.004 -19.125
PT5 288957.451 1607850.567 69.025 288957.468 1607850.577 69.157 1.708 1.032 13.151
PT6 288944.745 1607816.665 70.776 288944.753 1607816.664 70.841 0.838 -0.075 6.500
PTAG 288883.556 1607851.011 86.64 288883.567 1607851.006 86.653 1.092 -0.541 1.300

PPP_TBC vs Relative_TBC
caseXtestB(PPP_TBC) caseXtestB(Relative_TBC) Differences in centimeters
Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288850.757 1607811.392 70.078 288850.986 1607811.262 70.087 22.854 -13.029 0.865
LM2 288846.008 1607797.010 70.066 288846.224 1607796.970 70.457 21.606 -4.032 39.051
MMA03 288830.276 1607809.231 69.958 288830.656 1607809.140 70.125 38.010 -9.068 16.692
MMA04 288895.510 1607849.904 84.853 288895.734 1607849.780 84.893 22.429 -12.353 4.038
PT1 288900.312 1607804.871 71.116 288900.533 1607804.747 71.109 22.065 -12.380 -0.703
PT2 288858.212 1607824.142 69.756 288858.434 1607824.018 69.798 22.197 -12.366 4.180
PT3 288866.369 1607879.147 66.474 288866.650 1607879.041 66.659 28.065 -10.561 18.479
PT4 288946.824 1607879.242 68.074 288947.012 1607879.126 67.986 18.824 -11.596 -8.825
PT5 288957.253 1607850.696 69.075 288957.468 1607850.577 69.157 21.508 -11.868 8.151
PT6 288944.522 1607816.781 70.757 288944.753 1607816.664 70.841 23.138 -11.675 8.400
PTAG 288883.349 1607851.134 86.63 288883.567 1607851.006 86.653 21.792 -12.841 2.300

PPP_TBC vs Relative_AUSPOS
caseXtestC(PPP_TBC) caseXtestC(Relative_AUSPOS) Differences in meters
Station ID
Latitude (") Longitude (") Ell. Hts (m) Latitude (") Longitude (") Ell. Hts (m) ∆Latitude (m) ∆Longitude (m) ∆Ell. Ht. (m)

BM2 6.292 25.670 70.078 7.843 24.773 107.314 46.508 -26.919 37.236
LM2 5.823 25.516 70.066 6.036 25.107 57.002 6.372 -12.280 -13.064
MMA03 6.216 24.987 69.958 6.236 25.374 49.273 0.586 11.603 -20.685
MMA04 7.558 27.154 84.853 7.554 27.161 84.999 -0.116 0.221 0.146
PT1 6.094 27.327 71.116 6.090 27.334 71.244 -0.117 0.208 0.128
PT2 6.709 25.916 69.756 6.705 25.923 69.891 -0.119 0.216 0.135
PT3 8.501 26.172 66.474 11.125 28.641 98.276 78.719 74.047 31.802
PT4 8.526 28.859 68.074 8.522 28.865 68.097 -0.116 0.171 0.023
PT5 7.601 29.216 69.075 7.597 29.222 69.119 -0.120 0.203 0.044
PT6 6.494 28.800 70.757 6.490 28.808 70.939 -0.110 0.220 0.182
PTAG 7.594 26.747 86.63 7.590 26.754 86.647 -0.121 0.208 0.017

PPP_CSRS vs PPP_TBC
caseXtestD(PPP_CSRS) caseXtestD(PPP_TBC) Differences in centimeters
Station ID Easting Northing Easting Northing ∆Ell. Ht.
Ell. Hts (m) Ell. Hts (m) ∆E (cm) ∆N (cm)
(m) (m) (m) (m) (cm)
BM2 288851.012 1607811.263 70.107 288850.757 1607811.392 70.078 -25.500 12.900 -2.900
LM2 288846.366 1607797.046 70.571 288846.008 1607797.010 70.066 -35.800 -3.600 -50.500
MMA03 288830.572 1607809.130 70.044 288830.276 1607809.231 69.958 -29.600 10.100 -8.600
MMA04 288895.729 1607849.778 84.866 288895.51 1607849.904 84.853 -21.900 12.600 -1.300
PT1 288900.523 1607804.748 71.134 288900.312 1607804.871 71.116 -21.100 12.300 -1.800
PT2 288858.428 1607824.024 69.737 288858.212 1607824.142 69.756 -21.600 11.800 1.900
PT3 288866.714 1607879.107 67.811 288866.369 1607879.147 66.474 -34.500 4.000 -133.700
PT4 288947.048 1607879.106 68.177 288946.824 1607879.242 68.074 -22.400 13.600 -10.300
PT5 288957.451 1607850.567 69.025 288957.253 1607850.696 69.075 -19.800 12.900 5.000
PT6 288944.745 1607816.665 70.776 288944.522 1607816.781 70.757 -22.300 11.600 -1.900
PTAG 288883.556 1607851.011 86.64 288883.349 1607851.134 86.63 -20.700 12.300 -1.000

19
 Relative_TBC vs Relative_AUSPOS
caseXtestE(Relative_TBC) caseXtestE(Relative_AUSPOS) Differences in meters
Station ID
Latitude (") Longitude (") Ell. Hts (m) Latitude (") Longitude (") Ell. Hts (m) ∆Latitude (m)
∆Longitude (m)∆Ell. Ht. (m)
BM2 6.288 25.678 70.087 7.843 24.773 107.314 46.634 -27.149 37.227
LM2 5.822 25.523 70.457 6.036 25.107 57.002 6.410 -12.496 -13.455
MMA03 6.213 25.000 70.125 6.236 25.374 49.273 0.671 11.222 -20.852
MMA04 7.554 27.161 84.893 7.554 27.161 84.999 0.003 -0.004 0.106
PT1 6.090 27.335 71.109 6.090 27.334 71.244 0.002 -0.014 0.135
PT2 6.705 25.923 69.798 6.705 25.923 69.891 -0.001 -0.008 0.093
PT3 8.497 26.182 66.659 11.125 28.641 98.276 78.820 73.765 31.617
PT4 8.523 28.866 67.986 8.522 28.865 68.097 -0.005 -0.018 0.111
PT5 7.597 29.223 69.157 7.597 29.222 69.119 -0.007 -0.014 -0.038
PT6 6.490 28.808 70.841 6.490 28.808 70.939 0.002 -0.013 0.098
PTAG 7.590 26.755 86.653 7.590 26.754 86.647 0.003 -0.012 -0.006

Reference
Online help TBC Software; Trimble Business Center Help

20