## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparison of Positioning Deviations according to the Scenario Phase
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Whole Measurement**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**“FIX” State Epoch**} \\ \cline{2-9}
**RTK Receiver** & _Me(STAT)_ & _Me(ACC)_ & _Me(UNIF)_ & _Me(DEC)_ & _Me(STAT)_ & _Me(ACC)_ & _Me(UNIF)_ & _Me(DEC)_ \\ \hline Receiver A & 0.008 m & 0.050 m & 0.038 m & 0.04 m & 0.008 m & 0.049 m & 0.037 m & 0.039 m \\ Receiver B & 0.009 m & 0.039 m & 0.027 m & 0.035 m & 0.009 m & 0.036 m & 0.026 m & 0.032 m \\ Receiver C & 0.009 m & 0.17 m & 0.035 m & 0.083 m & 0.009 m & 0.032 m & 0.026 m & 0.032 m \\ Receiver D & 0.027 m & 0.198 m & 0.161 m & 0.187 m & 0.01 m & 0.036 m & 0.032 m & 0.037 m \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Median values of the positioning deviations divided according to the phase of the scenario of the four RTK receivers (m). This evaluation was performed independently from the whole measurement period and independently from the “FIX” system status period. As expected, the best result of the median values of the positioning deviations was always the phase without movement “STAT”, and within the dynamic measurements, the best was always the “UNIF” phase of the uniform movements. Figure 9: The distribution of the deviations during the current scenario phase of all the RTK receivers from the whole measurement period (**a–d**) and from the period “FIX” (**e–h**). The boxplots display plots for each condition in a rectangular area \(\pm\)25% of the values occurring around the median, as shown by the red line. The extreme red lines show the boundaries dividing the contents of the external observations from the outlier area. The outsiders are shown with a black dot with a set transparency of 20%. A logarithm of base 10 was used to display the deviation axis. As expected, the best result of the median values of the positioning deviations was always the phase without movement “STAT”, and within the dynamic measurements, the best was always the “UNIF” phase of the uniform movements. and \(RMS_{err}\), which was most clearly reflected in the evaluation within the period of the \"FIX\" system. Paradoxically, the best median values were produced by Receiver C, with Receiver B coming second, Receiver D third and Receiver A fourth. Even in this evaluation, however, the volume of the datasets for the calculation of the median values had to be taken into account, as was the case in Evaluation (3) and Evaluation (4). In the whole measurement period of the dynamic measurements, Receiver B had the best median values, Receiver A coming second, Receiver C third and Receiver D fourth. Looking at the median values and comparing the three phases of the dynamic measurements: \(Me\)(ACC), \(Me\)(UNIF) and \(Me\)(DEC), it was clear that the best results were systematically achieved during the phases of the uniform movement \"UNIF\". Therefore, it was assumed that the starting phases of the \"ACC\" trolley and the braking phases of the \"DEC\" trolley had a negative effect on the positioning capability of all the four RTK receivers. In addition, during the whole measurement period, the \"ACC\" phase clearly had a more negative effect on the positioning ability of all four RTK receivers than the \"DEC\" phase. The same was demonstrated by Receiver A and Receiver B during the \"FIX\" system status period. It is clear from Table 7 that if the median values of the positioning deviations were around 10 mm in the static mode for all the monitored receivers, it was approximately four times more than in the dynamic mode. Thus, in the dynamic mode, the positioning accuracy decreased from about one centimetre to 4 centimetres, and the situation was even worse when changing the speed of the movement. The results of the error indicators (\(SSR\), \(RMS_{err}\) and \(Me\)) (Table 8) were compared to each other to interpret the significance of the motions more easily to accurately measure the position of the RTK receiver.