Practical implementation of the use of GNSS RTK technologies for obtaining topographic and geodetic data

Abstract

This paper analyzes the use of GNSS equipment when conducting topographic surveys. It was revealed that despite the presence of a large number of modern and high-precision GNSS receivers, nowadays, the regulatory and legal framework has established significant restrictions on the use of GNSS equipment when carrying out topographic and geodetic surveys. According to the current legislation, this equipment cannot accurately determine coordinates and heights on the ground. To prove the opposite, a scientific experiment was carried out, as a result of which it was found that modern GNSS receivers can more accurately determine coordinates and heights on the ground than modern total stations and electronic theodolites. Therefore, it is recommended to use the obtained data of the experiment as a basis for making changes to the regulatory framework.

Full text

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Practical implementation of the use of GNSS RTK technologies for
obtaining topographic and geodetic data
To cite this article: D Gura et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 937 042075
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 181.215.50.95 on 22/12/2021 at 04:32

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
1
Practical implementation of the use of GNSS RTK technologies
for obtaining topographic and geodetic data
D Gura1*, K Boltenkova1, D Bespyatchuk1, S Samarin1, and G Turk1,2
1Kuban State Technological University, 2, Moskovskaya Str., Krasnodar, 350072,
Russia
2Kuban State Agrarian University, 13, Kalinina Str., Krasnodar, 350044, Russia
E-mail: gurada@kubstu.ru
Abstract. This paper analyzes the use of GNSS equipment when conducting topographic sur-
veys. It was revealed that despite the presence of a large number of modern and high-precision
GNSS receivers, nowadays, the regulatory and legal framework has established significant re-
strictions on the use of GNSS equipment when carrying out topographic and geodetic surveys.
According to the current legislation, this equipment cannot accurately determine coordinates and
heights on the ground. To prove the opposite, a scientific experiment was carried out, as a result
of which it was found that modern GNSS receivers can more accurately determine coordinates
and heights on the ground than modern total stations and electronic theodolites. Therefore, it is
recommended to use the obtained data of the experiment as a basis for making changes to the
regulatory framework.
1. Introduction
Topographic survey is a complex of geodetic works performed in order to obtain survey material from
topographic maps or plans of a particular area. Topographic survey is carried out by means of obtaining
distances, heights and angles using various measuring instruments. The most important component of a
topographic survey is the accuracy of determining coordinates on the ground, which in turn depends on
the equipment used directly during the survey. Depending on the equipment in use, topographic survey
is subdivided into theodolite, plane-table, tacheometric survey, aerial photography, etc. At the same
time, as practical experience shows, GNSS technologies are a fairly common means of measuring
heights, angles and distances on the ground.
GNSS technology is a global navigation system that allows determining the coordinates (spatial po-
sition) of terrain objects using satellite data arriving at a geodetic satellite receiver. For the implemen-
tation of obtaining these data, three segments are of high importance: space, ground and user. The space
segment represents satellites located in space. Ground component is a system of stations tracking satel-
lites in orbit, performing the correction of the location of satellites. User component - receivers that
receive a signal to determine their location [9].
Satellite geodetic measurements can be carried out by various methods, depending on the required
accuracy of the obtained results. The fastest is the Real-Time Kinematic (hereinafter - RTK) mode [11-
15].

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
2
RTK is a survey method in which a request is made for a mobile receiver to determine the coordinates
of its current location almost instantly. Two receivers are used: one (base) is installed at the selected
site, while the other (rover) is used for surveying.
It should be noted that, despite the significant popularity of GNSS technologies in carrying out topo-
graphic and geodetic works, the current regulatory framework for performing topographic surveys is
significantly outdated in relation to GNSS technologies. The use of methods of geodetic measurements
used in geodesy to obtain topographic and geodetic data is mainly regulated by GKINP (ONTA)-02-
262-02 “Geodetic, cartographic instructions, norms and rules” - instruction for the development of sur-
vey substantiation and surveying of the situation and relief with the use of GLONASS and GPS global
navigation satellite systems. But it is worth noting that this instruction was introduced in 2002 and re-
quires changes taking into account new research, since for 19 years, there has been an intensive process
in the development of geodetic equipment, including GNSS equipment and, accordingly, satellite meas-
urement methods [1,7-10].
This regulatory document describes the requirements for creating a survey substantiation, surveying
the situation and relief, as well as technical requirements for the receivers used, methods and procedure
for performing satellite measurements. The GKINP (ONTA)-02-262-02 distinguishes the following sat-
ellite determination methods [1]:
– static - measurements at the point are performed for at least 1 hour, the time at the station should
be taken into account in accordance with the requirements of the operational documentation of the
equipment used for measurements;
– fast static - measurements should be made with a duration of 5 to 20 minutes, the observation time
should be taken into account with the number of observed satellites and the requirements of the equip-
ment operational documentation. Accordingly, the more satellites are available, the less time must be
spent for making measurements [1];
– reoccupation - a method of measurements in two steps, with the same receiver for 10 minutes,
taking into account the characteristics of the receiver used, and the interval between receptions is 1-4
hours;
– kinematic - a measurement method based on the continuous operation of the receiver, including
when moving between points. A variation of this method is the Stop & Go method, which consists of
initialization (about 15 minutes) and measurement directly dependent on this initialization for up to 1
minute [4-6].
But despite the fact that the kinematic method is presented as possible option for the production of
geodetic measurements, the GKINP (ONTA)-02-262-02 indicates – “However, the accuracy of this
method for the production of topographic surveys is insufficient, and it cannot be recommended for
these works”, and such a method as RTK (Real Time Kinematic) is completely absent as possible for
use. [1-3]
Since the current regulatory framework for geodetic works, which has not been updated for 20 years,
does not recommend GNSS equipment for performing topographic and geodetic survey, the purpose of
this study is to prove that GNSS surveying in RTK mode is not inferior to classical high-precision meth-
ods (theodolite, tacheometric survey) for carrying out topographic and geodetic survey in terms of ac-
curacy.
Research objectives:
1. Carry out field work at the same points using theodolite, tacheometer and GNSS receiver;
2. Process the results obtained and compare them in terms of accuracy;
3. Make the appropriate conclusions.
2. Materials and Methods
During the practical implementation of the application of GNSS RTK technologies for obtaining topo-
graphic and geodetic data, practical measurements of the same section consisting of 10 points were
tested. This site is located in the city of Krasnodar, in the Pashkovsky microdistrict in the park “Kaza-
chya slava” next to tram lines and vegetation. It was done for a clearer picture of the prospects for the

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
3
use of GNSS RTK technologies for obtaining topographic-grapho-geodetic data. The layout of the sur-
vey site is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The layout of the survey site
The approbation was carried out using various geodetic equipment, namely:
− DGT10 electronic theodolite;
− Leica TS06 plus electronic tacheometer;
− Leica GS-15 GPS receiver (2011);
− EFT M3 GPS receiver.
Thus, since, taking into account the normative documentation, the measurements made by an elec-
tronic tacheometer are considered to be the reference ones, the first thing to do is measure 10 points with
an electronic Leica TS06 plus tacheometer [14]. The Leica TS06 plus electronic tacheometer is shown
in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Leica TS06 plus electronic tacheometer
Measurements with an electronic tacheometer were performed by a polar method using a tacheomet-
ric method from two stations in order to obtain redundancy of measurements and compare the discrep-
ancy in resulting coordinates when receiving data from the same points with the Leica TS06 plus elec-
tronic tacheometer.
The next instrument used for measurements was the DGT10 electronic theodolite. The DGT10 elec-
tronic theodolite is a device designed for measuring horizontal and vertical angles, equipped with an

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
4
optical plummet and an electronic control panel for displaying the measured data, the angle measure-
ment accuracy is 5´´. The DGT10 electronic theodolite is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. DGT10 electronic theodolite
Further measurements were performed with the Leica GS15 universal GNSS receiver. Today, this is
not the last device that has shortcomings in operation, but nevertheless a versatile device of the Leica
Viva series. GS15 was created for carrying out geodetic survey in difficult conditions, but taking into
account the fact that it was made in 2011, it was no longer able to take measurements in places with a
dense crown of trees (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Leica GS15 GNSS receiver with RTK option

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
5
An important factor in the production of satellite measurements is the number and location of satel-
lites in space during the measurement period. A schematic location of satellites at the time of measure-
ments by Leica GS15 is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Location of satellites at the time of measurements by Leica GS15
Further measurements were carried out by the EFT M3 GNSS receiver. Nowadays, it is one of the
most compact and convenient to use receivers. Moreover, it is made in 2020, and therefore has newer
data transmission technologies with high accuracy. The schematic location of satellites at the time of
GNSS measurements by the EFT M3 receiver is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Location of satellites at the time of GNSS measurements by EFT M3
Like most EFT satellite solutions, this instrument is based on the high-tech Trimble BD970 GNSS
board with Trimble Maxwell 6 technology to track satellite data on 220 channels. The integrated wide-
range GNSS antenna allows tracking the signals of all currently available satellite positioning systems:
GPS, including L2C and L5, GLONASS, BEIDOU, GALILEO, QZSS, SBAS.

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
6
The EFT M3 GNSS receiver is controlled by Field Survey software, which has been specially devel-
oped for Android OS. The EFT M3 GNSS receiver also supports the familiar Carlson SurvCE software.
3. Results and Discussion
In this scientific work, we will determine the accuracy of the instruments using the average values of
the coordinates Δx, Δy, and the height ΔH. First of all, we will calculate the accuracy of determining
the geodetic coordinates and height with the Leica TS06 plus electronic tacheometer. The calculation
results are presented in table 1.
Table 1. Discrepancy of Δx and Δy measurements made with the Leica TS 06 tacheometer
Point
No.
Coordinates of Х
Δx
Coordinates of Y
Δy
Point
marks,
H, m
Point
marks,
H`, m
ΔH
X, m
Х´, m
Y, m
Y´, m
1
477044.303
477044.275
0.028
1387782.051
1387782.072
-
0.021
31.686
31.729
-
0.043
2
477067.403
477067.376
0.027
1387768.403
1387768.411
-
0.008
31.624
31.668
-
0.044
3
477082.244
477082.209
0.035
1387759.699
1387759.701
-
0.002
31.520
31.561
-
0.041
4
477133.221
477133.181
0.040
1387726.238
1387726.250
-
0.012
31.233
31.279
-
0.046
5
477119.896
477119.861
0.035
1387729.286
1387729.293
-
0.007
31.133
31.179
-
0.046
6
477074.621
477074.581
0.040
1387746.024
1387746.038
-
0.014
31.327
31.369
-
0.042
7
477058.485
477058.455
0.030
1387754.168
1387754.182
-
0.014
31.415
31.459
-
0.044
8
477047.987
477047.952
0.035
1387737.811
1387737.831
-
0.020
31.312
31.352
-
0.040
9
477049.679
477049.651
0.028
1387757.838
1387757.868
-
0.030
31.539
31.581
-
0.042
10
477048.026
477048.003
0.023
1387758.739
1387758.759
-
0.020
31.557
31.600
-
0.043
Δx average =
0.032
Δy average =
-
0.015
ΔН average =
-
0.043
According to the results of a comparative analysis, the average value of ∆х = 0.032 m, the average
value of ∆у = -0.015 m, and the average over height ∆Н = -0.043 m.
Next, we will consider the accuracy of determining the coordinates and heights by the DGT10 elec-
tronic theodolite (table 2).
Table 2. Discrepancy of Δx and Δy measurements made by DGT10electronic theodolite
Point
No.
Coordinates of Х
Δx
Coordinates of Y
Δy
Point
marks,
H, m
Point
marks,
H`, m
Co-
ordi-
nates
of Y
Х, m
Х´, m
Y, m
Y´, m
1
477044.289
477044.227
0.062
1387782.061
1387782.022
0.039
31.709
31.721
-
0.012
2
477067.389
477067.442
-
0.053
1387768.407
1387768.421
-
0.014
31.646
31.594
0.052
3
477082.226
477082.327
-
0.101
1387759.700
1387759.857
-
0.157
31.540
31.467
0.073
4
477133.201
477133.315
-
0.114
1387726.244
1387726.328
-
0.084
31.256
31.148
0.108

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
7
5
477119.878
477119.711
0.167
1387729.289
1387729.363
-
0.074
31.156
30.223
-
0.067
6
477074.601
477074.611
-
0.010
1387746.031
1387746.993
0.038
31.348
31.299
0.049
7
477058.470
477058.383
0.087
1387754.175
1387754.200
-
0.025
31.437
31.423
0.014
8
477047.969
477047.916
0.053
1387737.821
1387737.845
-
0.024
31.332
31.370
-
0.038
9
477049.665
477049.609
0.056
1387757.853
1387757.872
-
0.019
31.560
31.570
-
0.010
10
477048.014
477048.127
-
0.113
1387758.749
1387758.749
-
0.090
31.578
31.593
-
0.015
Δx average =
0.082
Δy average =
-
0.056
ΔН average =
0.044
We get that ∆х average = 0.082 m, ∆у average = 0.056 m, ∆Н average = 0.044.
The measurement result of the Leica GS15 GNSS receiver can be seen in table 3. Moreover, this
receiver could not make measurements only at 2 points - 1 and 5, due to the low accuracy and the
impossibility of performing initialization.
Table 3. Discrepancy of Δx and Δy measurements made by GPS GS-15
Point
No.
Coordinates of Х
Δx
Coordinates of Y
Δy
Point
marks,
H, m
Point
marks,
H`, m
Co-
ordi-
nates
of Y
Х, m
Х´, m
Y, m
Y´, m
1
477044.289
1387782.061
31.709
2
477067.389
477067.435
-
0.049
1387768.407
1387768.360
0.047
31.646
31.635
0.011
3
477082.226
477082.234
-
0.008
1387759.700
1387759.614
0.086
31.540
31.520
0.020
4
477133.201
477133.131
0.070
1387726.244
1387726.204
-
0.040
31.256
31.262
-
0.006
5
477119.878
1387729.289
31.156
6
477074.601
477074.582
0.019
1387746.031
1387746.965
0.066
31.348
31.271
0.077
7
477058.470
477058.453
0.017
1387754.175
1387754.194
-
0.019
31.437
31.459
-
0.022
8
477047.969
477047.882
0.087
1387737.821
1387737.848
-
0.027
31.332
31.346
-
0.014
9
477049.665
477049.675
-
0.010
1387757.853
1387757.893
-
0.040
31.560
31.567
-
0.007
10
477048.014
477048.027
-
0.013
1387758.749
1387758.783
-
0.034
31.578
31.550
-
0.028
Δx average =
0.034
Δy average =
0.045
ΔН average =
0.023
Thus, it was revealed that the average value for ∆х turned out to be 0.034 m, ∆у average = 0.045 m,
∆Н average = 0.023 m.
The results obtained by the EFT M3 GNSS receiver can be observed in table 4.
Table 4. Discrepancy of Δx and Δy measurements made by the EFT M3 GNSS receiver
Point
No.
Coordinates of Х
Δx
Coordinates of Y
Δy
Point
marks,
H, m
Point
marks,
H`, m
Co-
ordi-
nates
of Y
Х, m
Х´, m
Y, m
Y´, m

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
8
1
477044.289
477044.303
-
0.014
1387782.061
1387782.090
-
0.029
31.709
31.682
0.027
2
477067.389
477067.401
-
0.012
1387768.407
1387768.390
0.017
31.646
31.663
-
0.017
3
477082.226
477082.217
0.009
1387759.700
1387759.688
0.012
31.540
31.548
-
0.008
4
477133.201
477133.204
-
0.003
1387726.244
1387726.216
0.028
31.256
31.288
-
0.032
5
477119.878
477119.876
0.002
1387729.289
1387728.276
0.013
31.156
31.107
-
0.049
6
477074.601
477074.590
0.011
1387746.031
1387746.038
-
0.007
31.348
31.396
0.048
7
477058.470
477058.458
0.012
1387754.175
1387754.183
-
0.008
31.437
31.415
-
0.022
8
477047.969
477047.955
0.014
1387737.821
1387737.847
-
0.026
31.332
31.356
-
0.024
9
477049.665
477049.674
-
0.009
1387757.853
1387757.863
-
0.010
31.560
31.585
-
0.025
10
477048.014
477048.031
-
0.017
1387758.749
1387758.753
-
0.004
31.578
31.597
-
0.019
Δx average =
0.010
Δy average =
0.015
ΔН average =
0.027
As a result, in comparison with the reference measurements, the following discrepancies were ob-
tained: ∆х average = 0.010 m, ∆х average = 0.015 m, ∆х average = 0.027 m. Moreover, the measure-
ments for points 1 and 5, which were not detected by the older device of 2011, were easily determined
by this receiver, with a sufficiently high accuracy.
A general comparison of the accuracy of all four instruments is presented in table 5.
Table 5. The values of Δx, Δy and ΔН obtained during measurements with the DGT10 electronic
theodolite, Leica TS06 plus electronic tacheometer, Leica GS-15 GPS receiver, and EFT M3 GPS re-
ceiver.
Δx
Δy
ΔH
DGT10 electronic theodolite
0.082
0.056
0.044
Leica TS06 plus electronic tacheometer
0.032
-0.015
-0.043
Leica GS-15 GPS receiver
0.034
0.045
0.023
EFT M3 GPS receiver
0.010
0.015
0.027
Based on the obtained values indicated in Table 5, it can be concluded that GNSS receivers more
accurately determine the coordinates and heights on the ground than modern high-precision tacheome-
ters and electronic theodolites.
4. Conclusion
Thus, we can conclude that the technology for determining spatial coordinates using satellite geodetic
measurements in real time has long established itself as an effective means of topographic and geodetic
survey. Taking into account the carried out experiment, it is possible to make a conclusion about the
irreplaceability of RTK survey method and the possibility of its legal and expedient use for obtaining
topographic and geodetic data. The benefits of surveying in RTK mode are also worth mentioning.
It should be noted that recently, no research has been carried out in the field of global satellite meas-
urement methods, and the RTK survey method is generally not presented in the regulatory framework
as possible for use in the Russian Federation. But taking into account the fact that the development of
GNSS equipment does not stand still, it is simply necessary to study the methods of satellite geodetic

AFE 2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 937 (2021) 042075
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042075
9
measurements and revise the regulatory legal framework. It is recommended to use the obtained data of
the experiment as a reason for making changes to the regulatory and legal framework.
The reported study was funded by Russian Foundation for Basic Research and Administration of Krasnodar Region of the
Russian Federation according to the research project № 19-48-233020 Study of the possibility of using the complex of three-
dimensional laser scanning for monitoring and ensuring the safety of infrastructure facilities in the city of Krasnodar and the
Krasnodar Territory.
The research was carried out using the equipment of the Research Center for Food and Chemical Technologies of KubSTU
(CKP_3111)
References
[1] Alfaro P, Sánchez-Alzola A, Martin-Rojas I. García-Tortosa F J, Galindo-Zaldívar J, Avilés M,
López Garrido A C, Sanz de Galdeano C, Ruano P, Martínez-Moreno F J, Pedrera A, Lacy M C,
Borque M J, Medina-Cascales I, Gil A J 2021 Journal of Geodynamics 144 101815, ISSN 0264-
3707, doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2021.101815.
[2] Qi Liu, Shuangcheng Zhang 2021 Advances in Space Research 67 (3) 975-984, ISSN 0273-1177,
doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.10.050.
[3] Jincheng Liu, Tauheed Ullah Khan, Zhengang Nie, Qiang Yu, Zhongke Feng 2021 Measurement
173 108494, ISSN 0263-2241, doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108494.
[4] Jianguo Zhou, Henglin Xiao, Weiwei Jiang, Wenfeng Bai, Guanlan Liu 2020 Measurement 151
107251, ISSN 0263-2241, doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.107251.
[5] Francisco Klauser, Dennis Pauschinger 2021 Journal of Rural Studies 84.
[6] Osennyaya A, Khakhuk B, Sokolova Y, Husht N 2019 E3S Web of Conferences 110 02121.
[7] Gura D, Markovskii I, Khusht N, Rak I, Pshidatok S 2021 Transportation Research Procedia 54
775-782
[8] Shkorkina I, Chubyr N, Gudza V, Urtenov M 2020 E3S Web of Conferences 224.
[9] Shevchenko G G, Bryn M J, Afonin D A, Gura D A 2020 Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 50
163–175
[10] Gura D A, Pavlyukova A P, Solodunov A A 2020 IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering 913 (4).
[11] Atroshchenko V A, D'yachenko R A, Kichkar' I Yu 2020 Chemical and petroleum engineering
56 (3-4) 223-229 JUL
[12] Miriam Zámečníková, Hans Neuner 2018 ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
144 268-284, ISSN 0924-2716, doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.07.008.
[13] Shevchenko G, Ustinovichius L, Walasek D 2019 Sustainability 11 (9) 2660, doi
10.3390/su11092660.
[14] Bannikov A, Gordeev V 2020 International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Survey-
ing Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM (2020-August) (2.2).
[15] Madjid Abbasi, Saeed Abbasy, Alireza Amiri-Simkooei 2019 Measurement 141 258-266, ISSN
0263-2241, doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.04.044.