## 4 Conclusions  
The comparison of RTK receivers using a newly developed method (MRA) allowed us to draw the following conclusions: (1) RTK receivers with a built-in INS (Receiver A and Receiver B) had better \(SSR\) results. Receiver D achieved a much worse \(SSR\) result during the dynamic measurements than during the static measurements. (2) The \(RMS_{err}\) value of Receiver D from the whole measurement period was 94 times higher than \(RMS_{err}\) value of Receiver A. These error indicators from the whole measurement period (3) always had worse results than the error indicators from the \"FIX\" status period. Distant deviations from this period had a significant impact on the values of the error indicators. During the dynamic measurements, none of the assessed RTK receivers reached the values of \(RMS_{err}\) accuracy for the \"FIX\" mode as stated by the manufacturer. (4) During the static measurements, only two of the four receivers in the \"FIX\" period met the stated \(RMS_{err}\) values by the manufacturer. The static measurement error indicators were also always several times better than the dynamic measurement error indicators. (5) It was possible to assume that the RTK receivers with an INS unit (Receiver A and Receiver B) were able to return to the \"FIX\" state earlier. (6) A linear dependence between the current values of the deviation, speed, acceleration or the state of the RTK receiver was not confirmed. (7) The median values of the deviations always had better results in the \"FIX\" state than in the \"FLOAT\" state, and in the same vein, the devices performed better in the \"FLOAT\" state than in the \"GNSS\" state. (8) The median values of the deviations always had better results in the uniform movement phase of the testing scenario than during the acceleration or braking phases. These findings should be considered in the future development of modern agricultural machinery and technology.  
Conceptualization, J.K., V.S. and P.M.; methodology, J.K., V.S. and P.M.; software, J.K.; validation, J.K., V.S. and P.M.; formal analysis, J.K., V.S. and P.M.; investigation, J.K., V.S. and P.M.; resources, J.K., V.S., P.M. and M.K.; data curation, J.K., V.S. and P.M.; writing--original draft preparation, J.K., V.S., P.M. and F.K.; writing--review and editing, J.K., V.S., P.M. and F.K.; visualization, J.K., V.S. and P.M.; supervision, F.K.; project administration, J.K., V.S., P.M. and F.K.; funding acquisition, J.K. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This study was funded by two grants from the Internal Grant Agency of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague: \"Evaluation of Determined Position Accuracy by RTK Receivers in movement\" (No. 31160/1312/3114) and \"Influence of velocity, acceleration, and use of mathematical models on the positioning accuracy of RTK receiver\" (No. 2019:31160/1312/3114).  
At this point, we would like to thank Valeo Autoklimatizace, k.s. and Geoobochod, s.r.o., without whose willing support this long-term study would not have been completed.  
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.