4.5 Article

Testing GNSS receiver accuracy in Samsung Galaxy series mobile phones at a sports stadium

Journal

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6501/ab75b2

Keywords

validation methodology; positioning accuracy; GNSS; receiver testing; Stadium Cross Track Error; SXTE95; SXTE68

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For many years, global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) have been used in professional navigation, land surveying and transport. The last decade has been a period of extending the area of their use to social applications, including those related to sports and recreation. Nowadays, both handheld recorders and mobile phones equipped with GNSS modules are widely used in fitness. Moreover, due to the popularisation of jogging, a mobile phone has become one of the essential navigational instruments which enables, inter alia, the determination of the distance covered by an amateur athlete, the duration of completing the route and the athlete's speed. However, each of satellite-based solutions is characterised by a different positioning accuracy and positioning availability, which have a decisive influence on the reliability of the parameters being measured. The article proposes a new measure of positioning accuracy, the stadium cross track error (SXTE) with a confidence level of 95% and 68%, as a universal comparison criterion for satellite sport receivers. The application of the method is presented with the example of receivers used in nine Samsung Galaxy series mobile phones. The method uses an athletics stadium that meets the International Association of Athletics Federation's standard for the running track length (400 m). The study demonstrated significant differences in positioning accuracies of particular GNSS receivers in Samsung Galaxy series mobile phones while allowing their accuracy to be unambiguously assessed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available