Remote Sensing (Jan 2023)
Some Key Issues on Pseudorange-Based Point Positioning with GPS, BDS-3, and Galileo Observations
Abstract
Nowadays, BDS-3 and Galileo are still developing and have global service capabilities. This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of pseudorange-based/single point positioning (SPP) among GPS, BDS-3, and Galileo on a global scale. First, the positioning accuracy distribution of adding IGSO and GEO to the MEO of BDS-3 is analyzed. The results show that after adding IGSO and GEO, the accuracy of 3D in the Asia-Pacific region is significantly improved. Then, the positioning accuracy of the single-system and single-frequency SPP was validated and compared. The experimental results showed that the median RMS values for the GPS, Galileo, and BDS-3 are 1.10/1.10/1.30 m and 2.57/2.69/2.71 m in the horizontal and vertical components, respectively. For the horizontal component, the GPS and Galileo had better positioning accuracy in the middle- and high-latitude regions, while BDS-3 had better positioning accuracy in the Asia-Pacific region. For the vertical component, poorer positioning accuracy could be seen near the North Pole and the equator for all three systems. Meanwhile, in comparison with the single-system and single-frequency SPP, the contribution of adding pseudorange observations from the other satellite system and frequency band was analyzed fully. Overall, the positioning accuracy can be improved to varying degrees. Due to the observation of noise amplification, the positioning errors derived from dual-frequency SPP were much noisier than those from single-frequency SPP. Moreover, the positioning performance of single-frequency SPP with the ionosphere delay corrected with CODE final (COD), rapid (COR), 1-day predicted (C1P), and 2-day predicted (C2P) global ionospheric map (GIM) products was investigated. The results showed that SPP with COD had the best positioning accuracy, SPP with COR ranked second, while C1P and C2P were comparable and slightly worse than SPP with COR. SPP with GIM products demonstrated a better positioning accuracy than that of the single- and dual-frequency SPP. The stability and variability of the inter-system biases (ISBs) derived from the single-frequency and dual-frequency SPP were compared and analyzed, demonstrating that they were stable in a short time. The differences in ISBs among different receivers with single-frequency SPP are smaller than that of dual-frequency SPP.
Keywords
