## 3 Results
The distribution of errors after equalization in the hybrid network in version 2 is closer to the normal distribution than in version 1. Transformation using isometric, conformal and affine methods showed that the affine method had the smallest transformation error m\({}_{0}\). Other parameters of the affinity transformation are shown in Table 8.  
Displacement parameters (center of gravity coordinates)--secondary system (ZS2)--are the same in any transformations. There are differences in the axial scale control parameter in axial Z. The introduction of the Hausbrandt correction in the transformation provided a better fit to the results of the hybrid network. Using fewer adjustment points in the transformation resulted in smaller transformation errors. It has been demonstrated that Hausbrandt's correction is important not only when transforming from ellipsoidal heights to normal heights, but also when transforming vertical movements determined on the basis of coordinates from these two height systems. This is normal behavior of the sets as the networks are less rigid. However, this suggests that the adjustment points should not only be taken in terms of the distance criterion but also the vertical movements adjustment criterion; so, the transformation should be performed in several iterations. The largest differences in vertical movements in all tested variants were at adjustment points that were identified as having their own movements or those not related to the movements of the Earth's crust. These points should be removed before the final version of the VCM model is developed. Adjustment of the hybrid network also showed that some of these points had been leveled (Inowroclaw, Rzeszow). Figure 14 shows examples of relative VCM using leveling data, GNSS data, hybrid data (equalization) and hybrid (transformation) data. Triangulation with linear interpolation was used for modeling. They show dominating points mainly due to uneliminated GNSS stations (vertical movements that differ from the others) and local surface movements from leveling data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Isometric** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Conformal**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Affine**} \\ \hline  & **Ver 1** & **Ver 2** & **Ver 1** & **Ver 2** & **Ver 1** & **Ver 2** \\ \hline Displacement parameters & & & & & & \\ (center of gravity & & & & & \\ coordinates)—secondary system (ZS2) & & & & & & \\ \hline Axial scale control: & & & & & & \\ \hline Sx & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline Sy & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline Sz & 1 & 1 & 9,9999 \(\times 10^{-001}\) & 9,9999 \(\times 10^{-0001}\) & 2,9474 \(\times 10^{-0001}\) & 6,7190 \(\times 10^{-0001}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Affine, isometric and conformal transformation parameters. A visual comparison of the figures 'Hybrid model adjustment' and 'Hybrid model transformation' shows a greater number of local extreme values compared to the figures 'Data alignment--DLN' and 'GNSS data--GTN'. Due to the lower spatial resolution, the model from GNSS data is less differentiated than the model from leveling data. There is a general convergence of hybrid models. The differences that arise are influenced by the lack of current leveling data (measurement 1997-2003), the GNSS-PPP method used to determine coordinates, and vertical anthropogenic movements.