## 3 Results
### Comparative Analysis of PPP and Static Relative Methods in Urban Areas  
Table 8 shows the standard deviation obtained from the static relative and PPP methods. For the static relative method, the standard deviation is in the order of mm. For the stations where the dual-frequency geodetic receiver was used, the standard deviation is in the order of mm, even in the stations where there are obstructions to the antenna. For the stations where the single frequency geodetic receiver was used, the values are approximately 3 mm. On the other hand, the dual and single frequency low-cost receivers have similar behavior to single-frequency geodetic receivers; however, it is in the vertical component where the most affected values were found (centimeter level). Thus, it could be related to the non-calibration antenna. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Station** & \(\sigma_{\Phi}\)**(m)** & \(\sigma_{\lambda}\)**(m)** & \(\sigma_{h}\)**(m)** & \(CEP_{95}\) & \(EPV_{95}\)**GGM10** & \(EPV_{95}\) \\ \hline Est1 & 0.011 & 0.038 & 0.043 & 0.060 & 0.409 & 0.084 \\ \hline Est2 & 0.023 & 0.049 & 0.066 & 0.088 & 0.428 & 0.129 \\ \hline Est3 & 0.013 & 0.024 & 0.046 & 0.045 & 0.402 & 0.090 \\ \hline Est4 & 0.033 & 0.057 & 0.132 & 0.110 & 0.448 & 0.259 \\ \hline Est5 & 0.011 & 0.047 & 0.050 & 0.071 & 0.416 & 0.098 \\ \hline Est6 & 0.013 & 0.056 & 0.057 & 0.084 & 0.426 & 0.112 \\ \hline ISL1 & 0.526 & 0.758 & 1.034 & 1.571 & 3.105 & 2.027 \\ \hline ISL2 & 0.889 & 1.725 & 1.297 & 3.199 & 6.282 & 2.542 \\ \hline ISL3 & 0.667 & 1.254 & 1.487 & 2.263 & 4.648 & 2.915 \\ \hline LCSF & 0.733 & 2.033 & 1.780 & 3.385 & 6.646 & 3.489 \\ \hline LCDF & 0.041 & 0.232 & 0.254 & 0.334 & 0.763 & 0.498 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of the CEP and EPV of Precise Point Positioning according to the INEGI technical standard. Figure 10: Differences in the CEP and EPV of Precise Point Positioning according to the INEGI technical standard. (**a**) EPV with inclusion of geoidal model GGM10; (**b**) EPV without inclusions of geoidal model GGM10. The precision of the PPP method is less in comparison to the static relative method, as is evident in Figure 12. For the static relative method, dual and single-frequency geodetic and low-cost receivers show similar levels of precision. In the PPP method, the single-frequency geodetic receiver (ISL1-3) has the lowest accuracy, reaching 1.5 m. Similar behavior is found in the low-cost single-frequency receiver (LCSF), with a standard deviation of less than 2 m. The presented behavior in ISL1-3 and LCSF stations could be related to the fact that they are single frequency receivers and cannot eliminate some positioning error compared to double frequency ones. Therefore, the low-cost dual-frequency receiver (LCDF) has \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Station** & \(\sigma_{\phi}\)**(m)** & \(\sigma_{\lambda}\)**(m)** & \(\sigma_{h}\)**(m)** & \(\sigma_{\phi}\)**(m)** & \(\sigma_{\lambda}\)**(m)** & \(\sigma_{h}\)**(m)** \\ \hline Est1 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.002 & 0.392 & 0.006 \\ Est2 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.392 & 0.008 \\ Est3 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.392 & 0.008 \\ Est4 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.392 & 0.008 \\ Est5 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.004 & 0.392 & 0.006 \\ Est6 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.392 & 0.008 \\ ISL1 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.392 & 0.008 \\ ISL2 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.011 & 0.010 & 0.393 & 0.022 \\ ISL3 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.004 & 0.005 & 0.393 & 0.008 \\ LCSF & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.011 & 0.011 & 0.393 & 0.022 \\ LCDF & 0.006 & 0.005 & 0.014 & 0.013 & 0.393 & 0.027 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of the CEP and EPV of the static relative method according to the INEGI technical standard. Figure 11: Differences in the CEP and EPV of the static relative method according to the INEGI technical standard. (**a**) EPV with inclusion of geoidal model GGM10; (**b**) EPV without inclusions of geoidal model GGM10.