## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparison of Positioning Deviations according to the Scenario Phase  
Figure 8a displays the distribution of the density of occurrence of the values of \(a_{f}\) from all the dynamic measurements in a percentage ratio, as well as three areas of selected scenario phases (\"ACC\"--yellow, \"UNIF\"--blue and \"DEC\"--red). Figure 8b aims to give a better idea of such division, displaying the current value of the acceleration \(a_{f}\) (together with other values: \(a_{r}\), \(v_{f}\), \(v_{r}\) and \(t_{h}\)) of a selected scenario (second day, approximate required speed 6.5 m s\({}^{-1}\)). For the phases of the \"STAT\" scenario, a separate set obtained from the static measurements described in the section Evaluation (4) was used. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Static Measurement**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Dynamic Measurement**} \\ \cline{2-6}
**RTK Receiver** & _Me(FIX)_ & _Me(FLOAT)_ & _Me(GNSS)_ & _Me(FIX)_ & _Me(FLOAT)_ & _Me(GNSS)_ \\ \hline Receiver A & 0.008 m & - & 0.006 m & 0.038 m & - & 0.109 m \\ Receiver B & 0.009 m & - & - & 0.026 m & 0.081 m & 0.663 m \\ Receiver C & 0.009 m & - & - & 0.026 m & 0.967 m & 2.868 m \\ Receiver D & 0.01 m & 0.072 m & - & 0.033 m & 0.174 m & 11.079 m \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Median values of the positioning deviations divided according to the current system state of each of the four RTK receivers (m) for static and dynamic measurements. In the dynamic measurements, only Receiver A reached the “FIX” and “GNSS” states during the whole measurement period. In the static measurements, all the RTK receivers did not reach some states. For all the RTK receivers, the current system state had a significant effect on the positioning deviation, except for Receiver A in the static measurements, where a short-term condition out of “FIX” did not affect the accuracy. Figure 8: The distribution of the density of occurrence of the smoothed instantaneous angular acceleration \(a_{f}\) values (s) from the whole measurement in a percentage ratio (**a**) with marking of the areas of the phases of the scenario, where “ACC”—yellow area in the interval of (\(-\infty_{j}\) -0.2 \(>\) m s\({}^{-2}\), “UNIF”—blue area in the interval of (\(-\)0.2; 0.4 \(>\) m s\({}^{-2}\) and “DEC”—red area in the interval of (0.4; \(\infty\)) m s\({}^{-2}\). (**b**) The selected scenario (second day, approximate required speed 6.5 m s\({}^{-1}\)) plot \(a_{f}\) values in the time of day (s), together with the other values: raw instantaneous angular acceleration \(a_{r}\) (m s\({}^{-2}\)), raw instantaneous angular speed \(v_{r}\) (m s\({}^{-1}\)), smoothed instantaneous angular speed \(v_{f}\) (m s\({}^{-1}\)) and time of received signal from the Hall sensor \(t_{h}\) (s). The graphs (Figure 9) below show the distribution of the positioning deviations during the individual phases of the scenario in the form of boxplots. The values of the determined median positioning deviations are also recorded in Table 7.  
According to the evaluation of the deviations using the values of the medians _Me(STAT)_, _Me(ACC)_, _Me(UNIF)_ and _Me(DEC)_, it was also clear that all the RTK receivers always performed better during the \"FIX\" system state. The median values of the static measurement errors _Me(STAT)_ were always significantly better than the errors of the dynamic measurement phases _Me(ACC)_, _Me(UNIF)_ and _Me(DEC)_. The best accuracy in the static measurements was achieved by Receiver A, but it should be noted that this receiver provided a reference by averaging its position. In the dynamic measurements, Receiver B was not burdened with such a large degree of influence of outliers, as was the case with the evaluation of the error indicators