## 3 Results
### Overall Analysis
Regarding the 2D error, in case of the E, values of about 20 mm were obtained with a standard deviation of 10 mm, except for Function_6 and Function_8, for which 25 mm and 26 mm were obtained with a standard deviation of 16 mm, respectively. For the G, the values were 16-17 mm for Function_2, Function_3, Function_4 and Function_7, with standard deviations of 8-9 mm, whereas for the remaining functions, the values reached 19-22 mm, with standard deviations of 12-15 mm. In case of the GE and GE1, the values amounted to 12-13 mm, with standard deviations of 4-7 mm for all weighting functions,  
Figure 8: Mean accuracy with standard deviation from all stations and all periods for all analyzed weighting functions. Blue—E solution, orange—G solution, red—GE solution, green—GE1 solution. except Function_4 for which errors of 16 mm and 14 mm were obtained, respectively. For the GE1 and GE, and Function_6, standard deviations of 8 mm and 9 mm were obtained. Regarding the analysis for the 3D error, lower values were obtained for the G than for the E. The accuracy for the G amounted 25-33 mm with a standard deviation of approximately 10 mm, except for Function_6 and Function_8, for which the values of 43 mm and 46 mm were obtained with a standard deviation of 20 mm and 16 mm, respectively. The best values were obtained for Function_3, i.e., 26 \(\pm\) 9 mm. For the E, the error values ranged from 32-37, mm with a standard deviation of approximately 10 mm. Again, the worst results were obtained for Function_6 and Function_8, with 46 \(\pm\) 18 mm. On the other hand, the best results were obtained for Function_5, i.e., 32 \(\pm\) 8 mm. For the GE and GE1, better results were obtained than for the G and E. The error values ranged from 17-23 mm with standard deviations of 6-8 mm. Additionally, for these solutions, the worst values were obtained for Function_6 and Function_8. In case of the GE1, they amounted to 32 \(\pm\) 14 mm and 32 \(\pm\) 12 mm, whereas for the GE, they amounted to 29 \(\pm\) 13 mm and 28 \(\pm\) 12 mm. The best values for both solutions were obtained for Function_2 17 \(\pm\) 7 mm. The use of different weighting functions was reflected most for the Up component. The best results for the G were obtained by applying Function_3, whereas for the E, the best results were obtained for Function_5. For all solutions (i.e., G, E, GE, GE1), the worst accuracies were obtained with Function_6 and Function_8. Likewise, it can be noted that slightly larger errors were obtained for the GE1 than for GE, confirming that the Galileo system already allows for achieving similar accuracy to the GPS. Thus, defining lower weights for Galileo observations is not necessary. Figure 9 shows the results of the convergence time analysis. The best results were obtained for the North component, where it was below 16 min in most cases. In case of the East component, convergence time was below 20 min in most cases. For the horizontal components, the advantage of Galileo solutions over GPS solutions can be seen. The convergence time is on average 3 min (about 15%) shorter. It is an opposite situation for the vertical component, where GPS solutions gave better results than Galileo. The convergence time here is comparable to the values obtained for the eastern component, which was less than 20 min, except for Function_4, Function_6 and Function_8, where it was 20 min and 22 min; 24 min and 24 min; and 28 min and 24 min, for the E and G, respectively. For the Up component, there is a clear improvement for GPS+Galileo solutions compared to GPS-only and Galileo-only. The total effect of all components (East, North and Up) is presented in the analysis for the 3D error, for which the convergence time in all solutions very much depends on the weighting functions used. For the E, the shortest convergence time was obtained for Function_5, being 36 \(\pm\) 16 min. In contrast, the longest convergence time was obtained for Function_8, amounting to 69 \(\pm\) 54 min.