## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Isometric**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Conformal**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Affine**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Transformation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Transformation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Transformation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Transformation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Transformation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Transformation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Transformation**} \\  & **with Correction** & **Transformation** & **with Correction** & **with Correction** & **with Correction** & **with Correction** & **with Correction** & **with Correction** & **Transformation** \\ \hline
**Version** & **1** &  
The biggest differences between the vertical movements in the DLN and hybrid networks (version 1) are at GNSS stations--ELBL, SIPC, WODZ, WRON, NYSA, TRNW, WLOC, SOCH, which are in the vicinity of Zulaywy (Vistula delta plain rising just above the Baltic Sea level--Figure 1), on the border of the TT zone, and parts of the Mountains Sudetes and Western Mountains Carpathians (south of Wroclaw--Figure 3), an area of influence of mining areas. The maximum vertical movements' differences at double-leveling nodes are smaller than for the vertical movements at permanent GNSS stations, and in terms of area, they largely coincide with the vertical movements of GNSS stations, except for the border areas with the Kaliningrad Oblast (Russia). The maximum relative vertical movements (Figure 3) near Inowroclaw (disused salt mine) and near the border with Ukraine (natural gas mines--Rzeszow area) were reduced and are no longer outliers. Figure 11 shows the differences between the vertical movements at the GTN network points and the hybrid network in version 1 and version 2. The differences between the vertical movements at the GTN network points and the hybrid network in version 1 do not exceed 1 mm/yr, while between the hybrid network in version 2, they do not exceed 0.5 mm/yr. Figure 12 shows the spatial arrangement between the two versions of the hybrid network. Between the two versions of the hybrid network, the biggest differences are at the ELBL, SIPC and WODZ stations. The differences are slightly smaller at the TRNW, WROC, KROT and NYSA stations and double-leveling nodal points in the vicinity of these stations, and in the Zulay region. From this, we can see that nodal points with different vertical movements in DLN and GTN networks play an important role. Figure 11: Spatial distribution of vertical movements differences between the GTN network and the hybrid network—version 1 (**a**); and the hybrid network—version 2 (**b**) (source: own study). From the vertical movements' comparison of the affine transformation and hybrid network adjustment (Figure 13), the biggest differences are in the vertical movements for version 1; in version 2, there is much better consistency in the results. The largest vertical movements differences for version 1 of the affine transformation and the hybrid network are at stations identified as outliers [5]: ELBL, SIPC, WLBR, WODZ, KATO, and PRZM. The are slightly smaller at the following stations: KLDZ, NYSA, WROC, WLOC, SOCH, NODW, CCHN, ILAW, DRWP, TRNW, KROS, BILG, TABG, and HOZD. In version 1 of the hybrid network adjustment, the post-adjustment errors for the DLN network nodes decreased by an average of 0.02 mm/yr, while the errors for the GTN network points increased by 0.02 mm/yr. These values are not significant from the point of view of the movements of the Earth's crust. In the hybrid network, the errors did not exceed 0.1 mm/yr. In version 1 of the transformation, the average unit error m\({}_{0}\) and the transformation error are the smallest for the affine transformation, and the isometric and conformal transformations are characterized by a similar error. For isometric and conformal transformations, the median is the same regardless of the application of the Hausbrandt correction. For the affine transformation, the median was 0.55.