## 3 GNSS Network Results  
The final results can be visualized as a 2D time series for the East and North coordinates in Appendix A, where values are expressed in meters. Appendix A shows the time series of all stations in horizontal coordinates (East and North). Analyzing time series from Appendix A, most exhibit a standard behavior; however, we will discuss those that may present any notable details. Some of the stations such as ALJI, BENI, ERRA, LIJA, LOJA, TAZA, and TIOU have already been exploited by other authors; The key contribution of our study is the inclusion of newly available data over the four-year period analyzed. For example, in the case of TIOU, an additional 10 years of uninterrupted data have been incorporated. ALHU is the newest station with two years of data collection; the abrupt change in result dispersion is due to an instrumentation upgrade to a higher-performance model. ALJI experienced a period of inactivity following the Topo-Iberia project; however, once reactivated and analyzed, the time series showed stability and validity, maintaining the trend observed previously. LIJA and LOJA have experienced communication issues but currently have real-time data available. Lastly, in TARI, there was a slight change in the antenna position, but the time series appears to remain completely stable. The time series from Alboran Island, where the IGN and ROA stations are located, have also been compared. Given that the IGN station exhibits better stability, we have chosen to use it for the final results, even though both stations display fairly similar behavior. In Melilla, when encountering a similar situation, we proceeded to compare both stations. However, in this case, the time series are virtually identical even though the IGN time series was affected by the 2016 earthquake, and we opted to use the ROA station. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that a small co-seismic offset had to be introduced in both the Alboran and Melilla time series due to the 2016 Alboran earthquake, although this does not significantly affect the time series for this study. An initial assessment suggests that if a highly noisy environment or complex errors were present, processing with MIDAS would offer significant advantages over least-squares. However, the results obtained indicate that this is not the case, as the final values are very similar. The differences found when comparing LS with MIDAS are within the range of tenths of a millimeter, which is consistent with the results published in [43]. Additionally, to verify PPP processing with PRIDE, the final results of the IGS stations have been cross-checked using SARI, obtaining satisfactory results across all stations confirming publications such as [49]. Table 2 shows the results obtained in SFER as an example. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Station**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Vel (mm/year)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SD (mm/year)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EURA Vel (mm/year)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SD (mm/year)**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **East** & **North** & **East** & **North** & **East** & **North** & **East** & **North** \\ \hline SFER & \multirow{2}{*}{16.55} & \multirow{2}{*}{16.98} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\pm\)0.01} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\pm\)0.01} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)3.12} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.32} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\pm\)0.01} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\pm\)0.01} \\ PRIDE & & & & & & & \\ SFER IGS & 16.37 & 17.02 & \(\pm\)0.02 & \(\pm\)0.02 & \(-\)3.28 & 0.39 & \(\pm\)0.02 & \(\pm\)0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison between the results obtained by the PRIDE-PPPAR (3.1.2) processing and those provided by the IGS for the SFER station. Information: displacement velocity with respect to ITRF20 in mm/year and its standard deviation in mm/year, displacement velocity with respect to EURA, and its standard deviation in mm/year.