# The EGNOS Augmentation in Maritime Navigation +
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Kinematic Test  
As detailed in Section 3.2, raw data have been collected in kinematic using the u-blox receiver and the smartphone Xiaomi Mi 8 located onboard a small boat. The data from both devices has been processed using the considered configurations (described in 3), except for IF combination used for the ionospheric correction in DGPS setup using data from the Xiaomi smartphone due to the absence of dual frequency measurements for some GPS satellites. Finally, the positioning solutions obtained through processing the data from the smartphone have been compared to the reference solution described in 3.2. Table 3 shows the performance analysis of positioning solutions obtained processing data collected by the u-blox receiver and the Xiaomi Mi 8 devices. Figure 10: Horizontal and vertical positioning errors (in meters) as function of the time for GPS SPP (blue line), GPS + SBAS SPP (magenta line) and DGPS (orange line) configurations. Using the u-blox device, the best performance in terms of accuracy on vertical component of the position can be highlighted for GPS + SBAS SPP configuration, with differences of meter order, especially with respect to GPS SPP. On the other hand, DGPS shows comparable performance on a vertical plane, even with differences of decimeter order compared to the other configurations, while worsening behavior on a horizontal plane can be observed for DGPS. In fact, mean and RMS values on a horizontal plane vary from 0.99 and 1.01 m (with a maximum error value equal to 2.00 m) for DGPS, to 0.68 and 0.72 m for GPS + SBAS SPP (and a maximum error equal to 1.89 m). Furthermore, also in this case, as static one, the horizontal errors are always less than 10 m, fully satisfying the IMO requirement for horizontal accuracy. Finally, as discussed in Section 3.2, IMO requirements such as signal availability and continuity are fully satisfied: indeed, they are equal to 100%, as can be noted in Table 3. Focusing on horizontal accuracy, it is possible to notice that the DGPS solution is worse than the GPS SPP solution and better than on vertical accuracy. Despite this, the 3D accuracy of DGPS is better than GPS SPP. Conversely, analyzing the results obtained processing data collected by the Xiaomi Mi 8, the figures of merit considered for the performance analysis in terms of positioning accuracy are higher compared to u-blox ones, as can be noted in Table 3. In this case, the best performance can be noted for a GPS SPP configuration on horizontal component of the position, while a DGPS configuration provides lower values than GPS SPP on a vertical plane. Indeed, a GPS + SBAS SPP configuration fails at giving worse performance compared to the others. Furthermore, all the configurations provide horizontal errors lower than 10m, with probability values higher than 99%. Also, in this case, the DGPS solution is characterized by a worse horizontal accuracy than GPS SPP and a better vertical accuracy; however, as previously highlighted, 3D accuracy is always better than GPS SPP. Finally, the performance analysis in terms of signal availability and continuity obtained using the GPS SPP configuration to process data from the smartphone satisfies the thresholds defined by IMO, and conversely to the GPS + SBAS and DGPS. Indeed, the behaviors of horizontal and vertical errors obtained by applying the three configurations to data collected by the u-blox and Xiaomi Mi 8 devices are also shown, respectively, in Figures 11 and 12.