## 5 Solution of the Design and Testing
### Environmental Assessment and Measurement Practice  
1. Assessment of outdoor positioning  
The realm of outdoor positioning diverges significantly from its indoor counterpart. Outdoors, the necessity for an overly dense array of wireless sensing points diminishes. This discourse delves into pertinent research regarding the strategic deployment of outdoor access nodes. It advocates for the utilization of a centralized context in the placement methods of the Multi-Delivery Positioning Access (MDPA) algorithm. These methods exert influence over the signal strength and the actions at each training location, grounded in the measurement data derived from the CN [61]. These methods encompass the following:  
* Arranging peripheral nodes and inner nodes at a 60\({}^{\circ}\) separation. * Arranging peripheral nodes and inner nodes at a 90\({}^{\circ}\) separation. Figure 39: Flowchart of reinforcement learning framework. Nevertheless, given the outdoor positioning application requirements, a hybrid approach emerged. A fusion of the \"120\({}^{\circ}\) segmentation and layout method\" with the \"feasible path node sample comparison method\", rooted in geographical location characteristics, can efficiently carve out blocks in the most streamlined fashion. Research findings indicate that the initial 60\({}^{\circ}\) access point layout method is well-suited for expansive outdoor deployments. Conversely, the second method finds its niche in rectangular area deployments. However, its coverage area is confined to either 60\({}^{\circ}\) or 90\({}^{\circ}\), delivering effective coverage solely within the ambit of the wireless radio frequency. Alas, it remains insufficient for practical use in regional positioning. This article posits a third methodology, judicious for the economical deployment of ZigBee devices, preserving practicality. This approach amalgamates the \"120\({}^{\circ}\) split deployment method\" and the \"feasible path-like node sample ratio\", anchored in geographical location characteristics, yielding optimal outcomes. Node Placement Strategy  
It is posited that the communicative expans of a Zigbee routing apparatus equates to its communicative radius. Deliberations encompass the ascertainment of the communicative realm, interference precinct, coverage expans, and debilitation quotient predicated upon this radius. Several routing contrivances have employed this methodology to deduce the authentic communicative realm subsequent to amalgamation, directing an enhanced deployment. The enveloping domain consists of the overall coverage span of the routing mechanism [(A + B) \(-\) (A\(\cap\)B)]. The area of interference denotes the intersecting region of the two routing contrivances (A\(\cap\)B), and the total area of the routing device is depicted in Figure 40.  
In assuming the communicative radius of both routing devices is denoted as R, the combined area of the routing devices amounts to 2\(\pi\)r\({}^{2}\). The impairment quotient signifies the proportion of area relinquished subsequent to coverage by the routing device, divided by the total area of the routing device expressed as ((A\(\cap\)B)/(A+ B)) \(\times\) 100%. In scenarios involving multiple routing devices, this methodology is applied to compute the genuine communicative realm subsequent to the amalgamation of routing devices, instrumental in discerning a more judicious deployment approach. The 60\({}^{\circ}\) bisecting arrangement entails that the intersection arc of each inscribed circle and circumscribed circle is precisely 60\({}^{\circ}\). Commencing from a designated reference point, each device intersects with the next at an angle of 60\({}^{\circ}\), as depicted in Figure 41.  
Figure 40: Schematic of the intersection placement of devices A and B. Nonetheless, it may intersect with other CNs, and it will conclude once the deployment surpasses the anticipated position. (3).