[aprssig] DGPS?

[Gerry Creager]

More to the point, without decoupling the autocorrelation component of 
positioning, averaging will not result in a statistically satisfactory 
value.  In other words, it really doesn't get better with a larger 
sample unless your sample is, well, infinitely large.

Reducing teh sampling rate to, e.g., 1 min between each sample should be 
sufficient to remove the autocorrelation component for most users of 
code-phase operation.

Geodetically yours,
Gerry

Steve Noskowicz wrote:
> 
>    Of course.  Sorry if I was vague, but I thought it was obvious in referring
> to a stationary posit.  
>    Going back and refreshing my knowledge from some DGPS sites, I see this is
> was a dumb question and averaging is obviously invalid.  DGPS applies measured
> corrections correcting the location error inherent in the basic GPS system. 
> Too bad the DGPS data stream is so complex or it would be easier to tap into
> the data for an average hacker without one of the DGPS receivers.
>    I suspect averaging only minimizes the error to the location which is
> defined by the limit of the basic system accuracy.  DGPS would be needed to get
> to the" true" location.
> 
> 
> 
> --- Jason KG4WSV <kg4wsv at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Steve Noskowicz <noskosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Possibly related - can't you just do a long term average of the posits to
>>>  improve accuracy?
>> I don't think that technique is too effective when you're moving...
>>
>> (:
>>
>> -Jason
>> kg4wsv
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
>> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University	
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843