# Monitoring of geophysical deformations on a regional scale using the low-cost GNSS collaborative network CentipedeRTK

Pierre Bosser, Julien Ancelin, Marianne Métois, Lucie Rolland, Maurin Vidal

► To cite this version:

Pierre Bosser, Julien Ancelin, Marianne Métois, Lucie Rolland, Maurin Vidal. Monitoring of geophysical deformations on a regional scale using the low-cost GNSS collaborative network CentipedeRTK. EGU General Assembly 2025, Apr 2025, Vienne, Austria. 10.5194/egusphere-egu25-11878. hal-05056593

HAL Id: hal-05056593

https://hal.science/hal-05056593v1

Submitted on 5 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ENST2

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

IP PARIS

INRAE

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

UNIVERSITÉ
DE LYON

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

RéSif

Renag
Métropole régionale
Nord-Saône-Grenoble

# Monitoring of geophysical deformations on a regional scale using the low-cost GNSS collaborative network CentipedeRTK

## EGU25 – 11878

Pierre Bosser(1), Julien Ancelin(2) Marianne Métois(3), Lucie Rolland(4), Maurin Vidal(4)

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<footnote>(1) ENSTA, IP Paris, Lab-STICC, Brest, France</footnote>

<footnote>(2) INRAe DSLP, Saint-Laurent-de-la-Prée, France</footnote>

<footnote>(3) Université de Lyon, UCBL, ENSL, UJM, CNRS, LGL-TPE, Villeurbanne, France</footnote>

<footnote>(4) Université Côte d'Azur, Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur, CNRS, IRD, Laboratoire Géoazur, Valbonne, France</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

# CentipedeRTK

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

## A collaborative GNSS network launched in 2019 – www.centipede-rtk.org

* Mainly low-cost GNSS receivers and antennas

* First established in France, then expanded worldwide

* Free RTK positioning with centimetre accuracy for all user

* Applications: precision agriculture, water level, coastal erosion, vegetation monitoring, ... [Gra+24; Jau+20; Anc+25]

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

Status of the CentipedeRTK network on 08/04/2025 (~900 bases)

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

# Quality of retrievals from CentipedeRTK stations

## ► Comparison with conventional network stations in 2023

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

**Objective:** Can we achieve similar levels of accuracy than conventional GNSS networks?

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

And much, much more:

- Investigation of static and kinematic (5 min.) positioning performances

- Impact of antenna type on position repeatabilities

- Assessment of troposphere retrievals

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>

1 Foreword

2 Dataset and processing strategy

3 Static and kinematic positioning

4 Troposphere monitoring

5 Conclusion

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

# Dataset and processing strategy

## ► Dataset description

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>

* Automatic collect of raw GNSS measurements at the **RÉNAG data center** from the CentipedeRTK NTRIP caster since summer 2022

* Focus on the year 2023 in mainland France

* Use of data from CentipedeRTK bases equipped with a **low-cost antenna and receiver** (ublox ZED-F9P)

* Selection of stations according to **stability** and **operability** (rejection of more than 25% of stations)

* Use of data from permanent stations close to CentipedeRTK stations, from **French conventional networks** (RGP, **RÉNAG**, **ORPHÉON**) covering the area

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Low-cost antennas</th><th>Type</th><th>Cal.</th><th>Rate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>JCA228B0002</td><td>Yes</td><td>66.8%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>AS-ANT2BCAL</td><td>Yes</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ANN-MB-00</td><td>No</td><td>13.0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Other Cal.</td><td>Yes</td><td>1.8%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Other No Cal.</td><td>No</td><td>2.4%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

# Dataset and processing strategy

## Processing strategy and data screening

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>

* Use and check of metadata provided by contributors (receiver & antenna models, approximate position)

* GNSS processing using GipsyX 2.2 in PPP-AR using JPL orbits, clocks and wide lane phase bias products [Ber+20]

* 2 strategies:

* Static analysis with a single daily position

* Kinematic analysis with 5 min sampling rate positioning

→ Positions given in RGF93_v2b (~ ETRF2000)

* Complete configuration described in [Bos+24]

* Detection and rejection of outliers (ZTD and positions) using a standard screening procedure

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Rejection</th><th></th><th>C.RTK</th><th>Conv.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Range Check</td><td></td><td>3.90%</td><td>6.76%</td></tr><tr><td>Outlier Check</td><td></td><td>0.25%</td><td>1.05%</td></tr><tr><td>Daily check</td><td></td><td>0.16%</td><td>0.42%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>4.31%</td><td>8.23%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_121.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /></figure>

# Static and kinematic positioning

## ► Repeatabilities: distribution of the weighted repeatabilities

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /></figure>

* For the static processing, there is a slight degradation between CentipedeRTK and conventional stations, with an average increase of around 20%

* This degradation reaches around 50% for kinematic processing

* The dispersion of repeatabilities is much higher (up to 100% increased) for the CentipedeRTK network than for conventional networks

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_140.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_141.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_143.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_144.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_145.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_146.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_147.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_148.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_149.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>

# Static and kinematic positioning

## ► Repeatabilities: space-averaged time evolution over a sliding window

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /></figure>

* Variations in the number of stations (bottom panel) are due to technical problems or the rejection of data by screening

* Static positioning shows the same patterns of temporal variations, slightly higher for the CentipedeRTK network

* Temporal variability is much greater in kinematic positioning, with a more significant level of noise for the CentipedeRTK network

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_156.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_157.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_158.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_161.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_171.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /></figure>

# Static and kinematic positioning

## ► Lomb-Scargle power spectral density estimation

<figure><img src="image_174.png" /></figure>

* As expected, the power levels are slightly higher for CentipedeRTK stations

* The power peaks are very similar; the two kinds of stations are affected by the same effects.

* The power trend at the highest frequencies is consistent with flicker noise ($\propto f^{-1}$), which is fairly common in GNSS

Static

<figure><img src="image_175.png" /></figure>

Static

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /></figure>

Kinematic

<figure><img src="image_177.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_178.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_179.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_180.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_181.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_182.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_184.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_185.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_186.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_187.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_188.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_189.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_190.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_191.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_192.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_193.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_194.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_195.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_196.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_197.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_198.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_199.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_200.png" /></figure>

# Static and kinematic positioning

## Antenna influence on position repeatabilities

<figure><img src="image_201.png" /></figure>

* Stations using one of the 3 most represented antenna models (>95% of stations) are considered

* Antennas JCA228B0002 and AS-ANT2BCAL exhibit similar statistics for both static and kinematic positioning

* Antennas ANN-MB-00 show significantly higher repeatability for both types of positioning

→ Contributors to the CentipedeRTK network have been advised not to use this type of antenna.

<figure><img src="image_202.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_203.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_204.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_205.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_206.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_207.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_208.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_209.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_210.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_211.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_212.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_213.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_214.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_215.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_216.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_217.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_218.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_219.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_220.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

<figure><img src="image_221.png" /></figure>

## Comparisons between CentipedeRTK and conventional networks (static solution)

* An average bias of 2.7 mm is observed, close to the value already observed in the literature.

* The standard deviation values are consistent with those obtained in intercomparison studies

<figure><img src="image_222.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_223.png" /></figure>

Example of time series

<figure><img src="image_224.png" /></figure>

Maps of differences

<figure><img src="image_225.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_226.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_227.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_228.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_229.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_230.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_231.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_232.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## Comparisons between CentipedeRTK and conventional networks (static solution)

<figure><img src="image_233.png" /></figure>

* An average bias of 2.7 mm is observed, close to the value already observed in the literature.

* The standard deviation values are consistent with those obtained in intercomparison studies

* Antenna models are also suspected to influence ZTD estimates accuracy

<figure><img src="image_234.png" /></figure>

Example of time series

<figure><img src="image_235.png" /></figure>

Maps of differences

<figure><img src="image_236.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_237.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_238.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_239.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_240.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_241.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_242.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_243.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_244.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_245.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_246.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_247.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_248.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_249.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_250.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_251.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_252.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_253.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_254.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_255.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_256.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_257.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_258.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_259.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## Comparisons between CentipedeRTK and conventional networks (static solution)

<figure><img src="image_260.png" /></figure>

* An average bias of 2.7 mm is observed, close to the value already observed in the literature.

* The standard deviation values are consistent with those obtained in intercomparison studies

* Antenna models are also suspected to influence ZTD estimates accuracy

→ Statistically significant bias, probably due to antenna mismodeling and/or multipath

<figure><img src="image_261.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_262.png" /></figure>

Example of time series

<figure><img src="image_263.png" /></figure>

Maps of differences

<figure><img src="image_264.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_265.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_266.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_267.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_268.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_269.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_270.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_271.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_272.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_273.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_274.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_275.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_276.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_277.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_278.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_279.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_280.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_281.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_282.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_283.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_284.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_285.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_286.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_287.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## Comparison with ERA5 Integrated Water Vapor

<figure><img src="image_288.png" /></figure>

* The mean differences are consistent with those reported in the literature for similar comparisons [Bos+21]

* However, a slightly high dispersion of bias per station is observed

<figure><img src="image_289.png" /></figure>

► Example of time series

► Maps of differences

<figure><img src="image_290.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_291.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_292.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_293.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_294.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_295.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_296.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_297.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## ► Atmospheric River monitoring using CentipedeRTK network

<figure><img src="image_298.png" /></figure>

* Weather situation in mid-December 2023, when a **Rhum-Express-type atmospheric river** reached France

* Use of IWV and horizontal gradients from CentipedeRTK stations, rainfall rates from **Météo-France**

* Space & time evolution of the water vapor field from CentipedeRTK stations

<figure><img src="image_299.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_300.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_301.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_302.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_303.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_304.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_305.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_306.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_307.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_308.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_309.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_310.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_311.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_312.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_313.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_314.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_315.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_316.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_317.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_318.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_319.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## Atmospheric River monitoring using CentipedeRTK network

<figure><img src="image_320.png" /></figure>

* Weather situation in mid-December 2023, when a **Rhum-Express-type atmospheric river** reached France

* Use of IWV and horizontal gradients from CentipedeRTK stations, rainfall rates from **Météo-France**

* More locally, tracking of the passage of the wet front at the DELP CentipedeRTK station

<figure><img src="image_321.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_322.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_323.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_324.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_325.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_326.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_327.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_328.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_329.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_330.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_331.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_332.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_333.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_334.png" /></figure>

# Conclusion

## ... and some recommendations (1/2)

<figure><img src="image_335.png" /></figure>

* In order to use the CentipedeRTK network for precise positioning applications, the same operating (and common sense) constraints as for conventional networks must be applied:

* Ensure **data availability** without interruption

* Provide and update **metadata**

* Prefer a **stable position** in a **clear environment**

* One antenna model (ANN-MB-00) is identified as less compatible with accurate position estimation and troposphere monitoring

→ These models are no longer recommended for use by contributors to the CentipedeRTK network

* Efforts should be focused on the **calibration of low-cost antennas and/or their sensitivity to multipath**, which are likely sources of the bias observed

<figure><img src="image_336.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_337.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_338.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_339.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_340.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_341.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_342.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_343.png" /></figure>

# Conclusion

## ... and some recommendations (2/2)

<figure><img src="image_344.png" /></figure>

* In general, **static positioning of low-cost stations provides quite conclusive results** with respect to conventional stations

* In this context, the use of data from CentipedeRTK stations would appear to be compatible with the monitoring of geophysical deformations and the troposphere

* The positions resulting from the **kinematic analysis of the low-cost stations show a significantly higher noise level** than that of the conventional stations (50% on average repeatability)

* This had already been observed during methodological tests, including the ublox ZED-F9P receivers [Vid+24]

* The use of CentipedRTK stations for high-frequency positioning should be considered with care

<figure><img src="image_345.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_346.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_347.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_348.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_349.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_350.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_351.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_352.png" /></figure>

Références

<figure><img src="image_353.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_354.png" /></figure>

J. Ancelin et al. "CentipedeRTK, un réseau pour la géolocalisation haute précision au service de l'environnement". In: **Journal of Interdisciplinary Methodologies and Issues in Sciences** 12 (Jan. 2025). DOI: 10.46298/jimis.14252.

<figure><img src="image_355.png" /></figure>

W. Bertiger et al. "GipsyX/RTGx, a new tool set for space geodetic operations and research". In: **Advances in Space Research** 66.3 (2020), pp. 469-489. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.04.015.

<figure><img src="image_356.png" /></figure>

P. Bosser et al. "IWV retrieval from ground GNSS receivers during NAWDEX". In: **Advances in Geosciences** 55 (2021), pp. 13-22. DOI: 10.5194/adgeo-55-13-2021.

<figure><img src="image_357.png" /></figure>

P. Bosser et al. "Evaluation of tropospheric estimates from CentipedeRTK, a collaborative network of low-cost GNSS stations". In: **GPS Solutions** 28.4 (2024). DOI: 10.1007/s10291-024-01699-3.

<figure><img src="image_358.png" /></figure>

J.-P. Gras et al. "Mapping grape production parameters with low-cost vehicle tracking devices". In: **Precision Agriculture** 25.6 (Mar. 2024), pp. 2703-2720. DOI: 10.1007/s11119-024-10125-0.

<figure><img src="image_359.png" /></figure>

M. Jaud et al. "RTK GNSS-Assisted Terrestrial SfM Photogrammetry without GCP: Application to Coastal Morphodynamics Monitoring". In: **Remote Sensing** 12.11 (2020), p. 1889. DOI: 10.3390/rs12111889.

<figure><img src="image_360.png" /></figure>

M. Vidal et al. "Cost-Efficient Multi-GNSS Station with Real-Time Transmission for Geodynamics Applications". In: **Remote Sensing** 16.6 (2024), p. 991. DOI: 10.3390/rs16060991.

<figure><img src="image_361.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_362.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_363.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_364.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_365.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_366.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_367.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_368.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_369.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_370.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_371.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_372.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_373.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_374.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_375.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_376.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_377.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_378.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_379.png" /></figure>

Static positioning

<figure><img src="image_380.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_381.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_382.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_383.png" /></figure>

4 Back

<figure><img src="image_384.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_385.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_386.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_387.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_388.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_389.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_390.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_391.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_392.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_393.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_394.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_395.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_396.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_397.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_398.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_399.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_400.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_401.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_402.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_403.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_404.png" /></figure>

# Kinematic positioning

## 2-hours median windowing

<figure><img src="image_405.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_406.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_407.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_408.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_409.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_410.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_411.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_412.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_413.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_414.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## ZTD estimates for CentipedeRTK and conventional stations

<figure><img src="image_415.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_416.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_417.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_418.png" /></figure>

4 Back

<figure><img src="image_419.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_420.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_421.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_422.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_423.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_424.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_425.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_426.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## Differences between ZTD estimates for CentipedeRTK and conventional stations

<figure><img src="image_427.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_428.png" /></figure>

◀ Back

<figure><img src="image_429.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_430.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_431.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_432.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_433.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_434.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_435.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_436.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## IWV retrievals from CentipedeRTK station and ERA5

<figure><img src="image_437.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_438.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_439.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_440.png" /></figure>

4 Back

<figure><img src="image_441.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_442.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_443.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_444.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_445.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_446.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_447.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_448.png" /></figure>

# Troposphere monitoring

## Differences between IWV retrievals from CentipedeRTK station and ERA5

<figure><img src="image_449.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_450.png" /></figure>

4 Back

<figure><img src="image_451.png" /></figure>