## 3 Results
In Model-3, although the GCPs are homogeneously distributed, the vertical error is higher than the vertical error due to the low number of GCPs. In indirect georeferencing, the lowest median value in horizontal differences was obtained in Model-5 with 1.8 cm, while the highest median value was 2.35 cm in Model-6. There are outlier values in vertical differences in Model-1, Model-2, and Model-4. Model-5 and Model-6 are spread over a wider range than the other distribution models. The graphs of the errors in X, Y, and Z directions according to the positioning technique for each CP are presented in Figures 11-13. X errors in the RTK method range from \(-\)3.3 cm to 3.2 cm. X errors in the RTK method range from \(-\)3.3 cm to 3.2 cm. The errors in the Y direction range between \(-\)4.5 cm and 4.4 cm. Generally, the points in the Y direction have fewer errors, although they are higher in some points. The errors in the Z direction are generally positive. The highest error was 13.9 cm without the use of GCP. In the PPK method, the errors in the X direction range from \(-\)3.9 cm to 3.3 cm. Errors in the Y direction range between \(-\)4.8 cm and 4.3 cm. The errors in the Z direction are between \(-\)8.5 cm and 8.5 cm. In the PPP-AR method, the errors in the Z direction are higher than X and Y. There are positive errors in the Z direction except for three GCPs. In the X direction, the errors vary between \(-\)3.6 cm and 3.5 cm, while in the Y direction, they vary between \(-\)4.6 cm and 4.1 cm. The highest absolute error is about 15 cm. In indirect georeferencing, the highest absolute error difference in the X coordinate is 4.2 cm. Errors in the Y direction were observed between \(-\)4.8 cm and 4.3 cm. In the Z coordinate direction, especially in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & **No GCP** & **Model-1** & **Model-2** & **Model-3** & **Model-4** & **Model-5** & **Model-6** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{RTK} & H & 2.7 & 2.6 & 2.7 & 2.6 & 2.7 & 2.7 & 2.8 \\  & V & 8.1 & 4.5 & 4.8 & 6.5 & 6.8 & 6.2 & 7.1 \\  & 3D & 8.5 & 5.2 & 5.5 & 7.0 & 7.3 & 6.7 & 7.7 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{PPK} & H & 2.9 & 2.9 & 2.8 & 2.7 & 2.9 & 3.0 & 3.0 \\  & V & 4.2 & 3.5 & 3.6 & 3.5 & 4.2 & 4.1 & 4.3 \\  & 3D & 5.0 & 4.5 & 4.5 & 4.4 & 5.1 & 5.1 & 5.2 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{PPP-AR} & H & 2.9 & 2.9 & 2.9 & 2.8 & 2.7 & 2.9 & 3.1 \\  & V & 9.9 & 4.1 & 4.3 & 6.6 & 6.9 & 6.4 & 8.8 \\  & 3D & 10.3 & 5.0 & 5.2 & 7.2 & 7.4 & 7.0 & 9.3 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Indirect} & H & - & 2.9 & 2.8 & 2.5 & 3.0 & 3.0 & 2.7 \\  & V & - & 3.3 & 3.4 & 3.0 & 3.8 & 3.8 & 3.8 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3D & - & 4.4 & 4.4 & 3.9 & 4.9 & 4.7 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: RMSE values of CPs for each the positioning techniques based on the GCP distribution models. The unit of RMSE values is cm. GCP-7, high errors were observed in models using many GCPs. Errors in the Z direction are between \(-9\) cm and \(7.5\) cm. Figure 10: Box plot for horizontal and vertical differences in CPs. Red dots refer to outliers. Figure 11: The errors in the X-axis were evaluated for each positioning technique. Figure 12: The errors in the Y-axis were evaluated for each positioning technique.