Evaluation of Integration Degree of the ASG-EUPOS Polish Reference Networks With Ukrainian GeoTerrace Network Stations in the Border Area

Abstract GNSS systems are currently the basic tools for determination of the highest precision station coordinates (e.g. basic control network stations or stations used in the networks for geodynamic studies) as well as for land, maritime and air navigation. All of these tasks are carried out using active, large scale, satellite geodetic networks which are complex, intelligent teleinformatic systems offering post processing services along with corrections delivered in real-time for kinematic measurements. Many countries in the world, also in Europe, have built their own multifunctional networks and enhance them with their own GNSS augmentation systems. Nowadays however, in the era of international integration, there is a necessity to consider collective actions in order to build a unified system, covering e.g. the whole Europe or at least some of its regions. Such actions have already been undertaken in many regions of the world. In Europe such an example is the development for EUPOS which consists of active national networks built in central eastern European countries. So far experience and research show, that the critical areas for connecting these networks are border areas, in which the positioning accuracy decreases (Krzeszowski and Bosy, 2011). This study attempts to evaluate the border area compatibility of Polish ASG-EUPOS (European Position Determination System) reference stations and Ukrainian GeoTerrace system reference stations in the context of their future incorporation into the EUPOS. The two networks analyzed in work feature similar hardware parameters. In the ASG-EUPOS reference stations network, during the analyzed period, 2 stations (WLDW and CHEL) used only one system (GPS), while, in the GeoTerrace network, all the stations were equipped with both GPS and GLONASS receivers. The ASG EUPOS reference station network (95.6%) has its average completeness greater by about 6% when compared to the GeoTerrace network (89.8%).