## 1 Introduction
### Follow-Up on Previous Research
The work specified measurements that took 14 min of driving a robot-driven vehicle on a test track. The results of the dynamic measurements were reported with an accuracy of 0.02 m but without specifying the metric used for this evaluation. No speed or acceleration constraint was specified in this work. The author of reference [27] compared GNSS/INS fusion (MEMS) against the reference trajectory of the Novatel SPAN-CPT RTK receiver. The measurements took 33 min on the road in traffic, with tunnel sections included, and evaluated the accuracy of the in-house developed fusion-basedsoftware with IMU and odometry. The study did not report comparable error rates, and, in addition, it was a method that did not evaluate the RTK receiver. The study of the authors of reference [28] used the ground truth values of the Imar INS device to evaluate the accuracy of the determination of the orientation of an object using the developed algorithms for UAV control. The dynamic measurements lasted 6 min without specifying the movements performed. The metrics were focused on angular variation, so it was not possible to provide a related indicator for any comparison. The study of reference [29] evaluated two low-cost RTK receivers based on the deviation of the distance of two antennas firmly anchored to a robot passing through the field moving at the speed 0.325 m s\({}^{-1}\). A detailed comparable motion specification for the ground truth was not given. The stability of the positioning of these pairwise comparisons of distance deviations did not exceed 0.382 m. An interesting methodological idea for verifying the dynamic properties of the GNSS was described by the authors of reference [30]. A downhill rollerooster with a set of photocells and antennas placed on a cart was used as a reference system. However, it focused on error indicators of instantaneous velocity deviations from samples of a mere 36 surveyed photocells. The measurements were made over a range of velocities from 12.5 m s\({}^{-1}\) to 15.6 m s\({}^{-1}\). A similar method was used by the study of the authors of reference [31], where a trajectory from a rail targeted by 32 points using the total station was used to evaluate GNSS receivers. Long-term measurements were made for 24 h at a constant speed of 4 m s\({}^{-1}\). Within the resolution of the reference number points used, the distances performed and carrying platform speed limits, it was reasonable to use the proposed method only to evaluate the uniform movements. Unfortunately, the GNSS technology evaluated in this investigation was unsuitable for comparison of the RTK accuracy. A very similar investigation was carried out by the team of authors of reference [32] using an industrial three-axis robotic arm whose trajectory served as a very accurate ground truth. However, this study focused on the approach of evaluating the deviation angles (roll, pitch and yaw) for validating self-developed algorithms for the improvement of estimating accurately the attitude but did not present comprehensive deviation results and conclusions comparing multiple types of RTK receivers, such as this paper.