## 4 Results
### LIDAR and UWB Comparison
In LoS conditions, where there is a direct line of sight between the beacon and the receiver, the average measurement distances were closer to the reference values. It is worth noting that the number of measurements in the NLoS condition was significantly higher than in the LoS condition, which may suggest greater difficulties in localization under limited visibility conditions. The analysis of the impact of various obstacles on the location accuracy showed that the material of the obstacle significantly affected measurement accuracy. Obstacles such as glass or masonry resulted in greater location errors compared to wooden obstacles. The material of the obstacle significantly affected wave propagation, with denser materials such as concrete and glass showing greater effectiveness in absorbing or reflecting waves than wood. This is an important observation that should be taken into account during the implementation of the location system. A comparison of the results obtained using LIDAR and UWB beacons showed that both technologies achieved similar accuracy in static conditions. However, under dynamic conditions, the accuracy of measurements obtained using LIDAR was higher. This is because LIDAR is less susceptible to motion-related disturbances. During the experiment, we observed several problems and limitations of potential solutions based on UWB beacon technology for the navigation of visually impaired individuals. First, localization accuracy in NLoS was lower than in LoS conditions, suggesting that the system may have difficulty localizing under limited visibility. Moreover, comparing the results obtained with LIDAR and UWB beacons, we noticed that in dynamic conditions the accuracy of measurements obtained using LIDAR was higher. Despite UWB's tendency to underestimate the results, this system can still be valuable in dynamic environments. This is due to its stability and relatively low standard deviation compared to LIDAR. In summary, measurements using LIDAR and UWB positioning systems reveal differences in measurement accuracy depending on static and dynamic conditions, as well as variations in susceptibility to disturbances related to movement and environmental obstacles. Based on the conducted research, it may seem clear that location accuracy depends on various factors, such as phone position, LoS conditions, and the type of obstacle. Additionally, comparing the results obtained using different location technologies, we can notice that every one of these technologies comes with its own set of benefits and drawbacks. Nevertheless, considering all the arguments for and against based on the measurements performed, UWB beacon technology has promising prospects for the future. To improve localization accuracy in NLoS conditions, data fusion from different sensors can be considered. Numerous studies attempt to achieve results with sub-centimeter accuracy using methods such as fusion or angle of arrival/departure (AoA/AoD) [86]. Moreover, research conducted by [87] demonstrates that with the emergence of new AoA/AoD-based methods, BLE can achieve better accurate measurements than existing RSSI-based methods. In response to market demand, with the release of Bluetooth 5.1, there was a focus on the centimeter-level indoor positioning market. The Bluetooth 5.1 specification, released in December 2020 [88], supports two methods for determining the direction of a Bluetooth signal. Both methods are based on the use of antenna arrays: AoA and AoD. In the analysis carried out by [89], stationary evaluations of BLE versions 4.2 (older) and 5.0 (never) were executed. The researchers demonstrated that under line-of-sight (LoS) conditions in a sports hall when using only AoA to estimate the distance to the device, the average error was 0.04 m on the X axis and 0.01 m on the Y axis. Consistent with prior research, it was noted that as the separation between the beacon and the device increased, the error likewise escalated.