## 6 Discussion  
Based on our results, we focused on a deeper evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the TLS and MLS methods. We analyzed parameters such as accuracy, efficiency, and the applicability of TLS and MLS in urban environments, with particular attention to noise in the collected data and methods for its minimization. To compare our results, this section draws on the results of previous studies that have addressed similar issues. We compare achieved accuracy, data structure, and point cloud density with studies conducted in similar urbanized areas, allowing us to better understand the benefits and limitations of TLS and MLS. Figure 15: Noise in the point clouds obtained by the devices under study—an example on the wall of the building. The greatest advantage of the TLS method is the high accuracy and detail of the data. TLS provides highly precise measurements with high resolution, making it suitable for capturing detailed surfaces and objects. Since the device remains static during scanning, errors caused by movement are minimized, ensuring consistent results. Modern TLS systems have a long range, allowing data collection from greater distances without the need for frequent repositioning. TLS is effective in capturing complex and detailed surfaces such as buildings, bridges, or other infrastructure. Additionally, TLS can be easily integrated with GNSS measurement or other geodetic systems such as total stations (TS), facilitating precise alignment of the data within geographic reference systems. However, compared to MLS, one of the disadvantages of TLS is its time-consuming fieldwork. Setting up and performing the scans can take a significant amount of time, especially in larger areas where multiple positions are required. TLS can also struggle with coverage if there are obstacles in the way, such as tall buildings or trees, necessitating frequent scanner relocation. The scanner and its accessories are often heavy and bulky, which reduces mobility and increases logistical demands. On the other hand, the main advantages of the MLS method include speed and data collection efficiency. MLS is highly effective at acquiring large amounts of data in a short period, as the scanner is mounted on a moving platform (vehicle, UAV, backpack). MLS is suitable for various platforms, making it useful in hard-to-reach places such as narrow streets, parks, or riverbanks. Thanks to its mobility, MLS allows for rapid scanning of large areas without the need for frequent repositioning. Mobile MLS devices can be easily and directly linked with an RTK GNSS device to ensure accurate positioning in an outdoor environment. As shown by the results, the tested MLS systems are capable of collecting precise point cloud data under good GNSS coverage conditions. However, MLS is generally less accurate compared to TLS, especially during dynamic scans where precision loss can occur. The accuracy of the results depends on the trajectory of the moving platform, which can lead to data distortion if the platform is unstable or moving too quickly. Mobile scanners may also struggle with accuracy when encountering surfaces with high or low reflectivity, affecting the quality of the point cloud. The use of both methods in urban environments is particularly remarkable. TLS is ideal for scanning buildings, bridges, and other fixed structures where high accuracy and detail are required. In historic city centers, TLS is crucial for capturing detailed textures and building surfaces. However, in urban areas, visibility can be limited, reducing the efficiency of TLS measurements. Access to certain locations may also be restricted, which can slow down the scanning process. MLS, on the other hand, offers a fast way to collect data in urban environments where large areas, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, need to be covered. The presence of moving objects like cars and people in cities can introduce noise into the data and affect the quality of the point cloud.