Hi > On Dec 15, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Angus <not.ag...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:55:20 -0500, you wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Simple answer - there is no simple answer. >> >> You will get significantly better results by intelligently processing the >> data than by a giant average everything in sight approach. >> >> Also consider that various GPS modules seem to have offsets in their nav >> solution. The NIST papers on various GPSDOs show this pretty clearly. >> Simply having a correct solution may not help as much as you might think. >> >> Of course if you want a truly correct solution, your local surveyor is >> indeed your best friend. He probably has a GPS gizmo that with about a half >> hour or sitting there, tell you where you are to under an inch. Who knows >> how much that will cost. It probably depends on how interested you can get >> him in coming over and looking at your toys. > > But is it the closest to the 'true' position that you really want, or > the best estimate of where the particular GPS you are testing thinks > it is? >
I would *guess* that the position reported by the GPS would be the better alternative. The distances (errors) involved are often fairly small. Proving which one is correct may not be easy. Obviously, the ideal case is the one where there is no error. If the error exists it says that the firmware has some sort of bug. Of course *my* code never ever has bugs … :) Bob > Angus > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
