## 4 Conclusions  
We performed a comparative study and assessment of signals from low cost GNSS receiver data collected through a survey campaign in selected sites in the urban areas. The data collection sites were selected in such a way that the antenna is surrounded by objects that degrade the signals. The detailed data analysis using the PPP and static relative methods, following the standard accuracy regulations in Mexico, concludes the following. * Low-cost GNSS receivers are sensitive to the multipath effect, which directly impacts positioning. However, the static relative method presents the best solution in urban environments. The antenna that is generally used with low-cost receivers turns out to be a viable option. * The PPP method is most suited to use in clear environments, however, in urban areas it is considerably affected (where the vertical component is the most affected). Nevertheless, it is possible to use the low cost GNSS in areas where the buildings and vegetation degrade the received signal. Similarly, the PPP and static relative methods are feasible options for the establishment of a geodetic point in urban areas using low-cost dual-frequency GNSS receivers. * The ANN-MB-00 antenna is highly affected by the multipath effect generated by the environment near to the antenna location, likewise, it has a poor design for mitigating the multipath effect. The combination of the ANN-MB-00 and ZEP-F9P receiver is suitable for precise measurements and provides centimeter accuracy, provided it has sufficient horizon exposure. The static relative and PPP methods show a mm and cm level accuracy, respectively. In both cases, the obtained precision is not dependent only on the antenna and receiver, but also on the processing method and applied models. * Single-frequency receivers present similar results in both methods, even when they have the antenna calibration parameters, unlike low-cost receivers. On the other hand, the observation time considerably affects the solution, resulting in a similar behavior in the low-cost receivers. * The heights are affected depending on the geoid model, however, the differences remain constant whether or not the GGM10 model is used. Nevertheless, for the low-cost receiver of single frequency (LCSF), the precision in height was lowest, being highly affected by the urban environment. * The static relative method achieved the best performance, enabling usage of low-cost receivers in urban areas. Therefore, the use of dual-frequency low-cost GNSS receivers is recommendable, with the static relative method for the geodetic works where the requirement of accuracy is in order of cm. This is achievable on geodetic baselines  
Figure 14: Absolute differences between orthometric height and ellipsoidal height. with 20 km or less. The vertical component continues to be a problem, nevertheless, the LCDF is constant in both methods with or without inclusion of the GGM10 model. Conceptualization, R.R.-A. and A.V.-A. ; methodology, R.R.-A. ; software, R.R.-A., A.V.-A., D.H.-A. ; validation, R.R.-A., A.V.-A. and D.H.-A. ; formal analysis, R.R.-A., D.H.-A. and J.R.V.-O. ; investigation, R.R.-A., A.V.-A. and M.E.T.-S.; resources, R.R.-A. ; data curation, [PERSON]-[PERSON] and [PERSON]; writing--original draft preparation, R.R.-A. and A.V.-A. ; writing--review and editing, D.H.-A., [PERSON]-O., G.S. ; visualization, D.H.-A. ; supervision, M.E.T.-S. and [PERSON]-[PERSON]; project administration, R.R.-A. and D.H.-A. ; funding acquisition, R.R.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research was funded by CONACyT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia) and Autonomous University of Sinaloa, in Mexico, grant number CVU: 429125. Not applicable. All data, models, or code generated or used during the study are available from the corresponding author by request, including GPS data raw, GPS data processed, Quality Check of the observations and Figures.