Low-Cost GNSS Receivers Reliability Using Centipede RTK Network

for Land Surveying

Muhammad Ali Sammuneh

, Mojtaba Eslahi

, Rani EL Meouche

and Elham Farazdaghi

Institut de Recherche en Construction (IRC), ESTP Paris, 94230 Cachan, France

Keywords: GNSS, Land Surveying, RTK, Centipede-RTK, Low-Cost GNSS.

Abstract: The question of using low-cost Multiband Global Navigation Satellite System GNSS receivers and antennas

in land surveying is real and important. In France, mainly a collaborative Real Time Kinematic (RTK)

network called Centipede covers the country providing the corrections open access in real time to the users.

Furthermore, the low-cost interface application and software called SW Maps connect the Low-cost GNSS

receiver to the Centipede-RTK network using a smartphone. The cost of surveying projects using all these

elements is certainly economical. The main question here is the reliability of this package to perform

continuous, stable, and reliable RTK land surveying. We test this capability by examining the differences in

the RTK position of known control points with a series of measurements over different mount points. The

results show that we can use this package for land surveying only with necessary validation and control by

experimental users, as the indicators of Centipede RTK accuracy via the SW Maps interface are not

representative.

1 INTRODUCTION

Low GNSS cost concept is attractive economically

and it can offer an alternative to accomplish some

kinds of engineering projects. Nevertheless, the main

question is to examine the reliability of this package

(Low-cost dual frequency receiver, low-cost antenna,

open access Centipede-RTK network in France and

free Android GIS application SW Maps on

smartphone) to achieve land surveying in RTK in a

continues, stable and reliable way. We explore this

possibility by examining the differences in RTK

position of known control points with a series of

measurements over different mount points.

We start with the necessary definitions of technical

terms and their abbreviations to ensure a good

understanding of this work. A GNSS, or Global

Navigation Satellite System, is a generic name for a

group of artificial satellites consisting mainly of

constellations from the United States (GPS), Russia

(GLONASS), Europe (Galileo), and the China

(Beidou) that transmit position and timing data from

their high orbits (Teunissen and Montenbruck, 2017).

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4977-7386

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5005-1867

c https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5063-6638

d https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9935-1553

NTRIP (Network and Transport of RTCM via Internet

Protocol) is a protocol for transmitting Real Time

Kinematic (RTK) corrections over the Internet to

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers.

RTK, on the other hand is a technique for improving

the accuracy of GNSS positioning using information

from (GNSS-RTK base or a mount point) a fixed

reference station whose position is well known (GNSS

Science Support Centre fosters collaboration across

scientific communities through the provision of GNSS

science-based products and services., 2021). Typical

nominal accuracy for RTK systems is 1 cm

horizontally and 2 cm vertically (Seeber, 2003).

Centipede RTK is a network of shared, open-

access GNSS RTK bases. The Centipede project aims

to create a network of open RTK bases available to

anyone in the coverage area. Public institutions,

individuals, and private stakeholders (farmers or

other public partners) extend the network. The

objective of the project is to provide complete

coverage of the metropolitan area. The French public

research institute working for the coherent and

sustainable development of agriculture, food and the

Sammuneh, M. A., Eslahi, M., El Meouche, R. and Farazdaghi, E.

Low-Cost GNSS Receivers Reliability Using Centipede RTK Network for Land Surveying.

DOI: 10.5220/0013444800003935

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM 2025), pages 211-218

ISBN: 978-989-758-741-2; ISSN: 2184-500X

211

environment (INRAE) (“INRAE: research for

Agriculture, Food and Environment,” n.d.),

financially supports the project and since its launch in

2019, it has benefited from shared resources between

research institutes, public bodies, farmers, and private

companies (“Le Reseau Centipede RTK,” n.d.). SW

Maps is a free Android GIS and mobile mapping

application for collecting, presenting, and sharing

geographic information (“SW Maps - GIS & Data

Collector – Applications - Google Play,” n.d.). It

allows users to perform high-precision GPS surveys

using external RTK-compatible Bluetooth or USB

serial receivers. It can be used with low-cost GNSS

receivers and requires a USB-C male to USB-A male

cable to work with an Android phone.

The current research presents studies on low-cost

receivers and antennas that address their accuracy or

stability. In addition, publications related to the

Centipede collaborative network discuss the accuracy

of this network using high-quality geodetic GNSS

receivers and antennas. Nowadays several researches

have been done on low-cost GNSS. In fact, we

recently have access to low-cost GNSS receivers and

low-cost antennas (LCRA). In addition, free

smartphone applications serve as an interface to

connect LCRA to the Centipede mount point

(Sammuneh et al., 2023). We found it interesting to

explore the possibility of securing land surveying in

an economical and trustworthy manner. Our work

differs from others in that we gather all the low-cost

concepts and tools (receivers, antennas, correction

network, interface, and software); and tried to answer

this simple question: Could we trust the RTK results

of LCRA within the Centipede network for reliable

land surveying ?

There is an increasing number of studies on the

accuracy of low-cost GNSS receivers and dual-

frequency receivers (Jackson et al., 2018). A recent

review, found that “Low-cost GNSS receivers

generally exhibit lower observation quality compared

to geodetic GNSS receivers in both open sky and

urban conditions” and “Sub-centimeter accuracy can

be achieved in the static relative method while a few

centimeter accuracy is possible in RTK when open

sky conditions are guaranteed (Stopar et al., 2024).

However, for longer baselines and areas with

obstructed views of the sky, low-cost GNSS receivers

still can’t achieve the same positioning quality as

geodetic GNSS receivers”. Studies on the

performance of low-cost dual-frequency GNSS

receivers and antennas for surveying in urban areas

are the main subject of recent research (Hamza et al.,

2023, 2021b, 2021a, 2020). There are many studies

on the accuracy of RTK using LCRA in different

scenarios, including open-sky environments.

(Bellone et al., 2016; Broekman and Gräbe, 2021;

Cina and Piras, 2015). Semler et al. (2019) showed

that 1 cm spatial accuracy is possible in open sky

conditions using LCRA (Semler et al., 2019). Other

researches discuss the limits of baseline distances,

giving a limit of up to 20 km for short baselines, since

beyond this distance the quality of positioning

deteriorates due to ionospheric distortion (Caldera et

al., 2016; Tsakiri et al., 2017). Moreover, when

testing the kinematic performance of RTK in a non-

urban area with a long baseline of about 30 km, the

RTK solutions showed good concordance with the

post-processed data, with less than 5% of the

differences exceeding 3 cm in the planimetric

component and 10 cm in the vertical component

(Sanna et al., 2022).

However, Centipede is a network of mount points,

each of which sends its own RTK corrections to the

user but it is not NRTK. The Centipede website states

that “This technology can be used, for example, to

carry out naturalistic surveys (flora, fauna) with a

high degree of localization accuracy, to carry out

aerial photographic surveys (using drones) and to

automate the driving of agricultural vehicles” (“Le

Reseau Centipede RTK,” n.d.).

Thus, now the Centipede RTK databases are

archived in RINEX (Receiver Independent Exchange

Format) in the RENAG databases, which is a serious

guarantee of durability for the network's data.

Conversely, the Centipede databases are used for

RENAG's daily analyses (“Le Reseau Centipede

RTK,” n.d.).

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

In our project, we use the Leica GNSS receivers &

antenna, u-blox dual-frequency GNSS chip ZED-F9P

Survey GNSS low-cost receiver (“ZED-F9P

module,” 2023) and Calibrated Survey GNSS

Multiband antenna (IP67) (“Calibrated Survey GNSS

Tripleband + L-band antenna (IP67),” n.d.), SW maps

android application, and smartphone. We use the

GNSS calculations online service network of the IGN

website to manage the Rinex files and to calculate

control points coordinate (“Calculs GNSS Réseau en

ligne | RGP,” n.d.). The centipede website is used to

show the actual situation of the mount points.

In our case, we used two main modes:

Static mode: Relative positioning to the phase in

deferred time. The precision is of the order of

GISTAM 2025 - 11th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management

212

centimetres or even millimetres for high-quality

receivers (Teunissen and Montenbruck, 2017).

RTK mode: Relative phase positioning in real-time.

The precision is of the order of 5 cm. The data is sent

via internet (Teunissen and Montenbruck, 2017).

The method of this study aims to have serial

estimations of the coordinates of well-known Control

points in RTK based on different mounting points

going from the nearest one to 60 km distance. We

start by using static mode with 3 hours of GNSS

observation using a high quality receiver and antenna

to generate a RINEX observation file with 30-sec

frequencies. We then wait for 2 weeks to obtain the

precise orbit file to calculate the final coordinates of

the reference point REF1 (“Calculs GNSS Réseau en

ligne | RGP,” n.d.). Once the REF1 coordinates are

fixed, we start using a Low-cost GNSS receiver and

antenna to connect to the Centipede network via

smartphone using the SW maps application. We start

by creating a GIS project in SW Maps and allow only

RTK fix quality features to be stored.

We examine the possibility of connecting the

Centipede mount points and getting RTK fix quality

from them by recording 3-4 minutes of RTK

observations, with 5 seconds frequency for each

mount point, within 60 km distance from our

reference point. Then we collect the data related to

each functional mount point within 30 minutes and 5

seconds frequency .After analysis, we focus on three

mount points for the next data collection for one day

with ten series of 30 minutes and 5 seconds frequency

for each one of the three mount points to investigate

their continuity, stability, and reliability. We examine

three levels of planimetric accuracy, less than 5 cm,

from 5 to 10 cm, and over 10 cm.

3 LOW-COST RELIABLE GNSS

RECEIVERS DUE TO THE

CENTIPEDE RTK NETWORK

3.1 Reference Point

We choose a reference point with an open sky view

to make our measurements using (the signal) GNSS

constellations without multipath effects. We call this

point “REF1”. We collect the observations using a

LEICA GS10 dual frequency receiver and LEIAS10

Leica antenna (“Leica Viva GS10 et GS25 –

Récepteurs GNSS de haute précision,” n.d.). The

measurements are made in static mode with 30

seconds frequency for 3 hours to generate the RINEX

file of REF1. We use the IGN online site calculation

service to obtain the final position coordinates

(“Calculs GNSS Réseau en ligne | RGP,” n.d.). The

calculations use Bernese GNSS software. It calculates

vectors from 12 permanent GNSS stations (RGP) and

REF1, using the precise orbits to determine the final

coordinates of REF1. The estimated accuracy given

by the calculation report is (North: 9 mm, East: 10

mm, Height: 23 mm), with final coordinates in UTM

31 N (E = 450714.314 m, N = 5404846.437 m).

3.2 Centipede Mount Points

In this section, we will mainly use the U-blox dual-

frequency GNSS chip ZED-F9P Survey GNSS low-

cost receiver & Calibrated Survey GNSS Multiband

antenna connected to a smartphone by SW Map

Android GIS application. In this part, we will discuss

the possibility of contacting the mounting points of

Centipede via the application within 60 km distance

from the reference station REF1 to verify the

connectivity and to ensure a fixed ambiguity solution

(RTK Fixed). Then we will examine the stability of the

observations for each mount point by observing the

differences in behaviour over time (changes). Finally,

we will concentrate on three stable mount points to test

the accuracy for ten sets of measurements covering 6

hours of RTK observation to ensure the reliability of

the mount station’s diffused corrections.

3.2.1 Connectivity

The Centipede network covers the French territories

but there are some gaps. For the practical use of this

network and as we aim to propose a strategy, we will

examine the connectivity and the differences in the

plan components for near and far points within the

limit of 60 km. The connection is made through the

NTRIP settings in SW-Maps, and then we can

indicate the type of solution (DGPS or RTK Fix),

PDOP, HDOP, VDOP, satellite in view, satellite in

use, the horizontal and vertical accuracy. However,

the accuracy is given in meters. This does not help to

ensure the user the accuracy needed for his work in

land surveying. We are looking for an indicator that

shows the level of accuracy in cm. However, we will

verify in section 3.2.4, whether this indicator change

has any impact on the results.

As mentioned in Table 1, we have mainly 14

mount points and we found that 12 mount points can

be contacted giving RTK Fix solution except the

GRIG mount point which gave DGPS RTK solution

and is discarded from the test set. Table 1. 14

Centipede-RTK network mount points within 60 km

of the reference point.

Low-Cost GNSS Receivers Reliability Using Centipede RTK Network for Land Surveying

213

Table 1: 14 Centipede-RTK network mount points within

60 km of the reference point.

3.2.2 Planimetric Differences

In this work, we will focus only on horizontal or

planimetric results. To estimate the accuracy of the

measurements, we assume that the coordinates of

reference REF1 are accurate and precise. Therefore,

the 2D horizontal or planimetric differences  are

considered as the accuracy levels to be discussed. It

is given by difference of the components east  and

north  of the observed coordinates 



  



from the reference point   :

  



 



(1)

  



 



(2)

 







 



(3)

We keep the term difference when talking about

accuracy because it is more representative in our case

with only one reference point. As Figure 1 shows, the

2D planimetric differences give an idea of the

connectivity of the mount points, but also alert the

results concerning the OUIL station for example. We

expect the distant mount points to give high differences

like COND-50KM which gives for some observations

a 2D difference level of 20 cm. The OUIL station is 19

km away from our reference point and it shows a

steady level of 15 cm 2D planimetric differences that

exceed all the other mount points within 60 KM of

distance. Mount points show except (OUIL and

COND) in Figure 1, 2D planimetric differences

reaching a maximum level of 7 cm for the RTK fix

solution.

We see that for some mount points the behaviour

is not stable giving a 5 cm level of difference and

suddenly jumping to a 20 cm level COND-50 KM

while. BARB-48 KM gives differences less than 5 cm

level, but it changes for every 5 sec observation.

Therefore, we need to verify the stability of the 2D

planimetric differences with time for these eleven

mount points over a longer observation period. It is

quite interesting that the mount stations @50km and

@60km show differences of about 5 to 7 cm.

Nevertheless, our sets of measurements in this section

are intended to verify the connectivity.

Figure 1: The difference in 2D Planimetric coordinates of

11 mount points of Centipede Network within one minute

per station with 5 seconds frequency.

3.2.3 Stability

We collect observations for each mount point within

five minutes with a five-second frequency. This

choice is made to collect data within the period that

the satellite configuration is likely to gives the same

positioning dilution of the precision PDOP for each

data set, and to preserve the same metrology

conditions for the troposphere and ionosphere. Figure

2 shows the difference in 2D planimetric coordinates

of 11 mount points of Centipede Network within five

minutes per station with 5 seconds frequency.

Figure 2: Difference in 2D Planimetric coordinates of 11

mount points of Centipede Network within five minutes per

station with 5 seconds frequency.

The poor accuracy of the OUIL mount point is

again shown and it means that the corrections sent by

this point are not good enough to be used for 2D

topographic surveying with a 5 cm accuracy level.

This confirms our suspicion about Centipede mount

points and the need to verify their reliability before

any surveying. Still talking about OUIL, the changes

go from 20 to 16 cm which means that the rate of

change is 4 cm within five minutes. Another

interesting result comes from a distance of 20 km

between two mount points on the same building,

GISTAM 2025 - 11th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management

214

ENSG (Ecole national des sciences geographies),

called ENSG and ENSG2. The first provides a level

of 4 cm difference while ENSG2 indicates 10 cm.

Therefore, one should use the first mount point

rather than the second if they have the same distance

from our reference point. The indicators in the SW-

Maps interface are the same for both mount points.

Beyond 20 km distance, the differences are quite

above 5 cm level. HBC77@40km distance shows

some exceptions to be below 5 cm level for some

times. Remembering the results in (Sanna et al., 2022)

about the performance of RTK in a non-urban area

with a long baseline of about 30 km, the RTK

solutions have shown a good concordance with post-

processed data, with less than 5% of differences

surpassing 3 cm in the planimetric component.

Meanwhile, the BARB@48km mount point has a 6-

10 cm level. COND@50km has quite troubling

behaviour by giving less than a 5 cm level for the first

two minutes and then suddenly it reaches a 15 cm

level of difference. The difference then decreases

slightly over time, but remains above the 5 cm level.

Therefore, the stability of this mount point again

shows its chaotic behaviour. SEG@51km has more

than a 15 cm difference level and sometimes some

pics reach 50 cm. GPTR@60km has a stable 20 cm

level of difference with one pic reaching 40 cm. In

(Caldera et al., 2016; Tsakiri et al., 2017) a limit of 20

km for short baselines is given because more than this

distance, the quality of positioning deteriorates due to

the ionospheric bias. We focus on three mount points

stations RICE@8km, LAUR@20km, and ENSG@20

km. As Figure 3 illustrates ENSG@20km has a

mainly 5 cm level of difference within five minutes.

RICE@8km is better than the 2 cm level, however,

LAUR@20km is still below than the 3.5 cm level but

with fluctuating behaviour.

Figure 3: Difference in 2D Planimetric coordinates of three

mount points of Centipede Network within five minutes per

station with 5 seconds frequency.

3.2.4 Reliability

We need to extend the research for one day to study

the behaviour of these three “short baselines” over

time. We have ten sets of observations for each mount

point. The observations are 5 minutes for RICE and

then 5 minutes for LAURE and finally 5 minutes for

ENSG within a 20 minute time span. We wait 20-30

minutes to restart the observations of the next set. We

will consider nine sets to show the behaviour of the

LAUR@20km mount point. Figure 4 shows sub-ten-

centimeter level differences of all LAUR mount point

sets. We can distinguish four sets with differences

below the 5 cm level (3, 5, 6, and 8). The RTK

measurements are for 5 minutes with 5 seconds

frequency, which means that for these four sets the

surveying work reaches the required level of 5 cm

maximum of accuracy. Nevertheless, the other sets

except set 2 go beyond the five centimeters level but

below the seven centimeters level. Set 2 shows

instability and the difference level reaches 10 cm.

Figure 4: 2D planimetric differences of nine sets of

observations based on LAUR mount point.

The LAUR mount point shows good results

(<5cm) and bad results; therefore one can use it to

periodically verify his measurements by comparing

them with known points around his work. These

conclusions of results are with 20 km distance from

LAUR mount point. It is worth future research work

to verify for <10 km distance whether the differences

for all sets go lower than the five cm level of

difference. LAUR mount point could be used for

topographic or surveying works within a 20 km

distance, with strict periodic verifications and

controls on the site.

Low-Cost GNSS Receivers Reliability Using Centipede RTK Network for Land Surveying

215

Figure 5: 2D planimetric differences of nine sets of

observations based on ENSG mount point.

Figure 5 shows the differences with sub-nine-

centimeter levels of all ENSG@20km mount point

sets. We can distinguish four sets (1, 3, 5 and 8). Sets

5 and 8 reappear again to have good results like as in

the LAUR case. The values of sets (2, 4, 6, and 7) are

lower than the seven-centimeter difference level. Sets

9&10 shows chaotic behavior with differences

varying between 2 and 9 cm difference level. We can

give the same conclusion as for the LAUR mount

point. Both have a 20 km distance from the reference

point. We can use them as alternative mount points if

the RICE mount point is disabled.

Figure 6: 2D planimetric differences of 10 sets of

observations based on RICE mount point.

Figure 6 shows the differences with sub-five

centimeter levels of all RICE@9km mount point sets.

The measurement differences are stable within one

centimeter for each set. These results confirm the

preliminary results and ensure the continuity,

stability, and reliability of this mount point for use in

topographic or surveying works within a 9 km

distance.

4 DISCUSSION

Knowing that topographic works in France are

subject to the decree of September 16, 2003. The

accuracy classes Land surveying needs to respect an

accuracy level depending on the objective of the

project and the scale of the plan (“Arrêté du 16

septembre 2003 portant sur les classes de précision

applicables aux catégories de travaux topographiques

réalisés par l’Etat, les collectivités locales et leurs

établissements publics ou exécutés pour leur compte

- Légifrance,” n.d.). It gives 10 cm accuracy class for

cadastral map scale of 1/500 and 20 cm for 1/1000 to

1/2000. With this discussion, we can confirm that the

RICE Centipede mount point within 10 km tends to

provide a five cm accuracy level. On the other hand,

the 20km mount points (LAUR and ENSG) offer a 10

cm accuracy level. Therefore, the accuracy of RTK

positioning presented in this work indicates that it is

possible to use it in land surveying with 1/500 –

1/1000 and 1/2000 map scale factor.

15 cm with no confirmed stability (SGC and

GPTR). If the accuracy level is fixed to be 10 cm

level, one should not use mount points with distances

over 48 km. Nevertheless, this criterion of distance is

to be reconsidered after the OUIL mount point at 19

km distance has an accuracy level above 16 cm.

Furthermore, we detect for a set of observations using

the LAUR@19km mount point we see a huge leap in

accuracy. The problem is that there are no indicators

in real-time to alert the user of such a sudden out-of-

accuracy range and thus out of use. We can point to

the case of two mount points ENSG and ENSG2,

where both are in the same place so the same distance

from the user. However, they give different levels of

accuracy for broadcast corrections (ENSG-5 cm and

ENSG2-10cm). Hence, there is doubt about the

quality of broadcast corrections without any kind of

warnings sent to users in real-time.

After all, the user can use Centipede RTK network

with Low-cost GNSS receivers and SW Maps

application, but the user needs to control his work. To

do so we suggest having some control points in the

surveying area. These control points could be the

result of high accuracy GNSS receiver for example.

Then periodically compare the Centipede-RTK

coordinates with the control point coordinates to

eliminate the out-of-use problem and verify the

consistency of the accuracy level. Finally, in the case

of land surveying with a map scale of 1/200 to 1/500,

we cannot trust the use of LCRA dependent on

Centipede-RTK without verification with control

points, because the user has no reliable indication of

accuracy in real time. Nevertheless, it is a good

alternative to be used for small-scale maps starting

from 1/1000.

GISTAM 2025 - 11th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management

216

5 CONCLUSIONS

We test the feasibility of using a low-cost GNSS

receiver and antenna for land surveying based on

corrections broadcast from a collaborative network of

RTK mount points in France. The interface is SW

Maps, a free GIS Android application for

smartphones. We conclude that the nearest centipede

mount point does not mean that it is the best one to

use. The indicators of accuracy are not representative

in real-time using the SW Map smartphone

application and the mount points of the collaborative

free RTK network (Centipede). The corrections sent

by Centipede mount points may change dramatically

without any warning message for users in real-time.

The use of low-cost GNSS receivers/antennas with

the Centipede-RTK network connected via SW Maps

GIS free smartphone application should be controlled

and verified to ensure the reliability of the corrections

used for land surveying.

For Future work, we intend to automatically

record the data without the user intervention in the

SW Map to generate temporal series for long-term

measurement. Test the differences near ENSG,

ENSG2, LAUR, and OUIL mount points within less

than 10 km to examine the results of our work. Use

the corrections of Centipede using a high-quality

receiver-antenna and compare at the same time with

low-cost GNSS receiver-antenna results for the same

conditions to examine if there are notable differences.

Explore the possibility of using Centipede corrections

as an alternative solution in RTK mode for high-

quality receivers when the paid network broadcast is

lost. Finally, explore the archive of Centipede RTK

databases in RINEX format newly available in the

RENAG databases.

REFERENCES

Arrêté du 16 septembre 2003 portant sur les classes de

précision applicables aux catégories de travaux

topographiques réalisés par l’Etat, les collectivités

locales et leurs établissements publics ou exécutés pour

leur compte - Légifrance [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000

000794936 (accessed 2.18.25).

Bellone, T., Dabove, P., Manzino, A.M., Taglioretti, C.,

2016. Real-time monitoring for fast deformations using

GNSS low-cost receivers. Geomatics, Natural Hazards

and Risk 7, 458–470.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2014.966867

Broekman, A., Gräbe, P.J., 2021. A low-cost, mobile real-

time kinematic geolocation service for engineering and

research applications. HardwareX 10, e00203.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx.2021.e00203

Calculs GNSS Réseau en ligne | RGP [WWW Document],

n.d. URL https://rgp.ign.fr/SERVICES/calcul_online.

php (accessed 9.8.22).

Caldera, S., Realini, E., Barzaghi, R., Reguzzoni, M.,

Sansò, F., 2016. Experimental study on low-cost

satellite-based geodetic monitoring over short

baselines. Journal of Surveying Engineering 142,

04015016.

Calibrated Survey GNSS Tripleband + L-band antenna

(IP67) [WWW Document], n.d. Geo-matching. URL

https://geo-matching.com/products/calibrated-survey-

gnss-tripleband-l-band-antenna-ip67 (accessed

2.18.25).

Cina, A., Piras, M., 2015. Performance of low-cost GNSS

receiver for landslides monitoring: test and results.

Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 6, 497–514.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2014.889046

GNSS Science Support Centre fosters collaboration across

scientific communities through the provision of GNSS

science-based products and services., 2021. GSSC

Home [WWW Document]. URL https://gssc.esa.int/

(accessed 2.19.25).

Hamza, V., Stopar, B., Ambrožič, T., Sterle, O., 2021a.

Performance Evaluation of Low-Cost Multi-Frequency

GNSS Receivers and Antennas for Displacement

Detection. Applied Sciences 11, 6666.

https://doi.org/10.3390/app11146666

Hamza, V., Stopar, B., Ambrožič, T., Turk, G., Sterle, O.,

2020. Testing Multi-Frequency Low-Cost GNSS

Receivers for Geodetic Monitoring Purposes. Sensors

20, 4375. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20164375

Hamza, V., Stopar, B., Sterle, O., 2021b. Testing the

Performance of Multi-Frequency Low-Cost GNSS

Receivers and Antennas. Sensors 21, 2029.

https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062029

Hamza, V., Stopar, B., Sterle, O., Pavlovčič-Prešeren, P.,

2023. Low-Cost Dual-Frequency GNSS Receivers and

Antennas for Surveying in Urban Areas. Sensors 23,

2861. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052861

INRAE: research for Agriculture, Food and Environment

[WWW Document], n.d. URL https://www.inrae.fr/en

(accessed 2.18.25).

Jackson, J., Saborio, R., Anas Ghazanfar, S., Gebre-

Egziabher, D., Davis, B., University of Minnesota.

Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics,

2018. Evaluation of Low-Cost, Centimeter-Level

Accuracy OEM GNSS Receivers (No. MN/RC 2018-

10).

Le Reseau Centipede RTK [WWW Document], n.d.

Centipede RTK. URL https://docs.centipede.fr/

(accessed 2.18.25).

Leica Viva GS10 et GS25 – Récepteurs GNSS de haute

précision [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://leica-

geosystems.com/fr-fr/products/gnss-

systems/receivers/leica-viva-gs10-gs25 (accessed

2.18.25).

Sammuneh, M.A., El Meouche, R., Eslahi, M., Farazdaghi,

E., 2023. Low-Cost Global Navigation Satellite System

Low-Cost GNSS Receivers Reliability Using Centipede RTK Network for Land Surveying

217

(Low-Cost GNSS) for Mobile Geographic Information

System (GIS), in: Ben Ahmed, M., Boudhir, A.A.,

Santos, D., Dionisio, R., Benaya, N. (Eds.), Innovations

in Smart Cities Applications Volume 6. Springer

International Publishing, Cham, pp. 105–117.

Sanna, G., Pisanu, T., Garau, S., 2022. Behavior of Low-

Cost Receivers in Base-Rover Configuration with

Geodetic-Grade Antennas. Sensors 22, 2779.

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22072779

Seeber, G., 2003. Satellite Geodesy. Walter de Gruyter.

Semler, Q., Mangin, L., Moussaoui, A., Semin, E., 2019.

DEVELOPMENT OF A LOW-COST CENTIMETRIC

GNSS POSITIONING SOLUTION FOR ANDROID

APPLICATIONS. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote

Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XLII-2/W17, 309–314.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-

309-2019

Stopar, B., Sterle, O., Pavlovčič-Prešeren, P., Hamza, V.,

2024. Observations and positioning quality of low-cost

GNSS receivers: a review. GPS Solut 28, 149.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-024-01686-8

SW Maps - GIS & Data Collector – Applications - Google

Play [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=np.com.

softwel.swmaps&hl=fr (accessed 2.18.25).

Teunissen, P.J., Montenbruck, O. (Eds.), 2017. Springer

handbook of global navigation satellite systems.

Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.

Tsakiri, M., Sioulis, A., Piniotis, G., 2017. Compliance of

low-cost, single-frequency GNSS receivers to

standards consistent with ISO for control surveying.

International Journal of Metrology and Quality

Engineering 8, 11.

ZED-F9P module [WWW Document], 2023. u-blox. URL

https://www.u-blox.com/en/product/zed-f9p-module

(accessed 2.18.25).

GISTAM 2025 - 11th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management

218