sensors

Editorial
Advances in GNSS Positioning and GNSS Remote Sensing
Yury V. Yasyukevich 1, * , Baocheng Zhang 2 and Venkata Ratnam Devanaboyina 3

1 Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics SB RAS, Irkutsk 664033, Russia

2 Innovation Academy for Precision Measurement Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Wuhan 430077, China; [email protected]
3 Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation,
Green Fileds, Vaddeswaram 522302, India; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-3952-564554

Scientists and engineers use data utilize global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs)
for a multitude of tasks: autonomous navigation, transport monitoring, construction, GNSS
reflectometry, GNSS ionosphere monitoring, etc. To improve the precision of GNSSs, many
devices combine different sensors and GNSS receivers, scientists have found ways to
enhance GNSS receivers (and satellites), and mathematicians have improved navigation
solutions. Combining different navigation systems (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou) has
also facilitated the achievement of precise positioning and remote sensing.
GNSSs offer various PNT applications in the domains of aviation, maritime, and
land. Engineers have attempted to implement autonomous GNSSs in the mass market [1].
Autonomous vehicles (especially in the urban environment) have expanded the need
for precise navigation. The existing real-time high-precision GNSS positioning services
available to public users continue to face challenges. The main challenges are as follows:
1. Low cost. Precise geodetic GNSS receivers are expensive. The mass market requires
low-cost receivers such as u-blox receivers and smartphone-level GNSS chips [2,3]. It is
crucial that performance and application tests are conducted for these low-cost GNSS
devices for public GNSS services.
2. High accuracy. Due to cost issues, mass market receivers mainly employ noisy
code observations, which result in large range errors [1]. Meter-level positioning based on
single-frequency code observations cannot satisfy the mass market. It is therefore important
that research achieves centimetre-level positioning accuracy based on the precise phase
Citation: Yasyukevich, Y.V.; Zhang, B.;
observations obtained from low-cost receivers [4].
Devanaboyina, V.R. Advances in
3. Reliability. Some GNSS applications (such as autonomous vehicles) require high
GNSS Positioning and GNSS Remote
Sensing. Sensors 2024, 24, 1200.
reliability (including accuracy, integrity, and availability), so they crucially depend on the
https://doi.org/10.3390/
monitoring of integrity [5]. Determining how to ensure stable and continuous precise
s24041200 GNSS positioning for the general public is worth study. For weak GNSS legacy signals
that lack authentication, Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) is another reliability problem;
Received: 2 February 2024
this comprises:
Accepted: 8 February 2024
Published: 12 February 2024
- Natural threats such as space weather events including geomagnetic and ionospheric
storms, solar flares, ionospheric scintillations [6]. The upcoming solar cycle 25 maxi-
mum could cause adverse space weather events that degrade the GNSS signals (the
GNSS RFI threats have increased rapidly since 2018: EASA, the EU Aviation Safety
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Agency, and the European Common Repository reported 4689 GNSS Events in 2022
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and 4147 GNSS Events in the first half of 2023 due to tense international situations [7]).
This article is an open access article - Intentional threats (Jamming and spoofing).
distributed under the terms and - Unintentional interferences (LTE700 band).
conditions of the Creative Commons
Research addressing the three aspects mentioned above will greatly promote the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
application of real-time high-precision GNSS positioning in the mass market and advance
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
autonomous driving and urban digitization. This Special Issue, entitled “Advances in GNSS
4.0/).

Sensors 2024, 24, 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24041200 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2024, 24, 1200 2 of 6

Positioning and GNSS Remote Sensing” in Sensors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors/

special_issues/AGPGRS, (accessed on 2 February 2024)), attracted 10 articles [8–17] on
new GNSS techniques for ionospheric studies, the impact of space weather on GNSS and
methods for precise navigation.
He et al. [8] suggested the use of an index to estimate the effects of space weather on
BeiDou; this is entitled the Percentage of Affected Satellites (PAS). The index depends on
the relative difference between observed satellites and those PSLGS that are theoretically
predicted, the relative number of observations with a loss-of-lock indicator alert PLLI ,
and the relative number of so-called total electron content (TEC) slips (this term is used
according to [18]), i.e., when the geometry-free ionospheric combination exceeds a limit,
PGF . The index is normalized by the number of (affected) stations NS .
N N N
∑n=S 1 PSLGS + ∑n=S 1 PLLI + ∑n=S 1 PGF
PAS = (1)
NS

Here, we slightly changed the equation, excluding coefficients k from the equation in
the initial article.
The suggested index expands the approaches introduced by E. Afraimovich and E.
Astafyeva [18,19]. ROTI and PAS were correlated at ~0.9% [8]; however, PAS was thought to
be superior for disturbed time because, due to the loss of lock (even for a single epoch within
5 min), we could not calculate ROTI. The Pearson correlation coefficients for PAS with Kp or
Dst were ~0.85. The PPP errors for low (<30%) and high (>30%) PASes, which indicated a
huge increase in the positioning error during magnetic storms. While this proves previous
results regarding geomagnetic storms [6], it is impossible to make a prediction without
large statistics. We feel that this index could be an appropriate indicator and suggest that a
model for PPP quality alerts based on PAS is made. A shortcoming of the research is the
small number of statistics considered; the authors considered only one magnetic storm
(12 May 2021), but the results are promising and we anticipate the publication of additional
papers demonstrating different aspects of the suggested index.
Because most GNSS users still apply single-frequency equipment [20], it is vital that
the ionospheric models more suitable for ionospheric range correction are determined.
Rovira-Garcia et al. [21] showed that the positioning domain could be a reliable factor. In
the current Special Issue, an article by an international team from Russia, China and Italy [9]
compares nine ionosphere models, namely Klobuchar, NeQuickG, BDGIM, GLONASS, IRI-
2016, IRI-2012, IRI-Plas, NeQuick2, GEMTEC, from two perspectives: (1) how accurately
the models can calculate TEC, and (2) how precisely the single-frequency receivers can
calculate the position. The article contains a brief description of the models and various
information, including the statistical distributions, precision dependencies from time, Kp,
F10.7, local time, and latitude. The authors align the models, with regard to the positioning
error, against the noncorrected solution from the mean absolute error and root-mean-square
error as GIM IGSG, BDGIM, NeQuick2, GEMTEC, NeQuickG and IRI-2016, Klobuchar,
IRI-2012, IRI-Plas, GLONASS, and in the TEC domain as GEMTEC, BDGIM, NeQuick2,
IRI-2012, NeQuickG, IRI-2016, Klobuchar, GLONASS. However, the peculiarities of error
distribution could have resulted in differences in the mean absolute percentage error (see
Figure 1). The obtained results revealed that (1) the quality should be estimated for the
region in which one is going to use a model, that (2) we should use several parameters to
estimate the quality of a model, and that (3) we still need a procedure to compare different
ionospheric models.
Sensors 2024,24,
Sensors2024, 24,1200
x FOR PEER REVIEW of66
3 of

Figure1.1.The
Figure Thequality
qualityofof nine
nine ionospheric
ionospheric models
models (aggregating
(aggregating thethe data
data from
from Table
Table 2 in 2[9]).
in [9]).
The The
single-
single-frequency positioning accuracy improvements are shown in green, the mean absolute per-
frequency positioning accuracy improvements are shown in green, the mean absolute percentage
centage TEC errors are shown in red.
TEC errors are shown in red.
Twoarticles
Two articles[10,11]
[10,11] address
address thethe global
global ionospheric
ionospheric weather
weather andand global
global electron
electron con-
content
tent (GEC, suggested by E. Afraimovich [22]). We would
(GEC, suggested by E. Afraimovich [22]). We would like to add that the GEC is routinely like to add that the GEC is rou-
tinely calculated and is freely available via SIMuRG (https://simurg.space/rec,
calculated and is freely available via SIMuRG (https://simurg.space/rec, accessed date: accessed
1date: 01 February
February 2024) [23].2024) [23].
An international
An international team teamfrom fromRussia,
Russia,Spain,Spain,and andPoland
Polandinvestigated
investigatedthe theSpaceX
SpaceXmag- mag-
neticstorms
netic storms[10], [10],namely,
namely,the thestorms
stormsthat thatoccurred
occurredwhen whenSpaceXSpaceXlaunched
launchedits itsStarlink
Starlink
satellites (on 3 February 2022 and 7 July 2022). For these
satellites (on 3 February 2022 and 7 July 2022). For these case studies, the IZMIRAN and case studies, the IZMIRAN and
CAS prediction products seemed to perform a little better
CAS prediction products seemed to perform a little better than those produced by CODE than those produced by CODE
andBeijing
and BeijingUniversity
UniversityofofAeronautics
Aeronauticsand andAstronautics.
Astronautics.The Theauthors
authorssuggest
suggestthat
thatthetheGECGEC
is a good indicator of space weather, but insist that the community
is a good indicator of space weather, but insist that the community requires a significant requires a significant
improvementin
improvement inthe
theforecast
forecastofofglobal
globalionospheric
ionosphericmaps maps(used(usedfor forGEC
GECcalculation).
calculation).The The
articleshows
article showsthat thataareliable
reliableionosphere
ionosphereforecast
forecastisisnot notcurrently
currentlyavailable.
available.We Webelieve
believethatthat
bycombining
by combiningthe theapproaches
approachesproposedproposedinin[9,10],[9,10],the theGNSS
GNSScommunity
communitycould couldobtain
obtainmore more
reliable estimates and overcome the
reliable estimates and overcome the related problems. related problems.
InIntheir
theirstudy,
study,Aroca-Farrerons
Aroca-Farreronsetetal.al.suggest suggestthe theutilization
utilizationofofthe theGECGECspectrum
spectrumasas
anindicator
an indicatorof ofspace
spaceweather
weather[11]. [11].Compared
Comparedwith withthe thepapers
papersmentioned
mentioned [22,23],
[22,23],Aroca-
Aroca-
Farreronsetetal.
Farrerons al.[11]
[11]used
usedshort-term
short-termspectra.
spectra.The The15-minute
15-minuteUQRG UQRGGIM GIMenhanced
enhancedthe the
suggestedapproach.
suggested approach.The Theauthors
authorsassessed
assessed34 34magnetic
magneticstorms stormsoccurring
occurringinin2000–2020
2000–2020toto
find
findthat
that>50%>50%of ofthe
thespectrograms
spectrogramsof ofthetheGECGECand andKp Kpare arecorrelated
correlatedand andthat
that<21%
<21%ofof
spectrograms are not correlated. Their most important finding was that the GEC andKp
spectrograms are not correlated. Their most important finding was that the GEC and Kp
spectrums
spectrumscorrelated
correlatedbetter
betterthan thantheir
theirtimetimeseries.
series.ThisThisindicates
indicatesthat thatthetheGEC
GECspectrum
spectrum
could
couldbe beaabetter
betterindicator
indicatorofofspace spaceweather
weatherthan thanthe theGEC
GECitself.
itself.
InIntheir
their study, Bronk Bronketetal.al.[12][12] suggest
suggest thatthat a risk
a risk assessment
assessment analysis
analysis of GNSS of GNSS
threats
threats (intentional
(intentional and unintentional)
and unintentional) be performed
be performed for the forupcoming
the upcoming Galileo
Galileo Public
Public Regu-
Regulated
lated Service (PRS) in Poland. The paper highlights how
Service (PRS) in Poland. The paper highlights how the amateur services within the 1240–the amateur services within the
1240–1300 MHz band could interfere with the Galileo E6
1300 MHz band could interfere with the Galileo E6 (central frequency—1278.75 MHz). (central frequency—1278.75 MHz).
Poland
Polandcontributes
contributestototwo twointernational
internationalresearch
researchcollaborative
collaborativePRS PRSprojects—(1)
projects—(1)the thePRS
PRS
Pilot
PilotProject
Projectfor forDemonstration
Demonstration(3PfD) (3PfD)and andthe the(2)(2)GNSS
GNSSInterference
InterferenceMonitoring
Monitoringand andMiti-
Mit-
gation
igationfor forEndEndUsers–PRS
Users–PRS(GIMME (GIMMEPRS)—and
PRS)—andhas hasbuilt
builtaawaveform
waveformdatabase
databasecontaining
containing
the potential PRS signal interferers. A Galileo PRS Threats
the potential PRS signal interferers. A Galileo PRS Threats Detection system is proposed, Detection system is proposed,
and
andthetheGNSS
GNSSJamming
JammingTest Testresults
resultsininaaControlled
ControlledLaboratory
LaboratoryEnvironment
Environmentwith withvarious
various
GNSS smartphones and chipsets under various interference
GNSS smartphones and chipsets under various interference scenarios are presented. scenarios are presented. Bronk
etBronk
al. [12] found that the resistance observed to various jamming
et al. [12] found that the resistance observed to various jamming signals depends signals depends on the
Sensors 2024, 24, 1200 4 of 6

manufacturer of the GNSS receiver, and suggestive measures are discussed regarding the
importance of the national systems employed in GNSS threat detection.
Krietemeyer et al. [13] developed a web-based tool for GNSS Antenna phase centre
offset (PCO) calibration for low-cost GNSS receivers and antennas. The PCO calibration
procedure employed an elevation-based residual averaging method and a short baseline.
In order to conduct the antenna calibration tests, the authors used different GNSS antennas
to evaluate the stability of the positioning and offsets. The results revealed that a 1◦
binning width represents a good trade-off between effectiveness and smoothing when
compared to other binning widths. The online tool accepts GNSS RINEX [24,25] files and is
compatible with IGS ANTEX standard tropospheric, atmospheric, and crustal deformation
monitoring systems.
In their study, Islam et al. [14] suggest the utilization of a jamming detector with
multi-frequency and multi-constellation software that was able to define the GNSS receiver
for Maritime Navigation in the Gulf of Finland. GPS-L5-only, Galileo-E5a-only, and Galileo-
E5b-only signals and their multi-GNSS combination positioning results revealed that the
Galileo-E5 and E5b signals performed better than other frequency bands in a maritime
operational environment. By utilizing different signals, it is easier to combat jamming,
especially if it does not cover all the GNSS signals. This paper suggests that a jamming
impact analysis of GPS L5 signals is performed with full constellation and E5 full-band
AltBoC signals.
Hamza et al. [15] provide a comprehensive examination of the utilization of low-cost
GNSS receivers in positioning applications. Their research focuses on a comparison of
these consumer-grade GNSS devices with high-quality geodetic GNSS devices, considering
the carrier-to-noise ratio (C/N0), multipath errors, and their overall positioning accuracy
in different environments. The results revealed that low-cost GNSS instruments exhibit a
promising performance, achieving a horizontal accuracy below 10 mm in urban areas for a
sizeable portion of the sessions. These findings are crucial for expanding the application of
GNSS technology in public GNSS services, offering a low-cost GNSS service option with
an impressive performance.
Swaminathan et al. [16] thoroughly examined the techniques utilized to augment the
GNSS position within the challenging urban scenario under three modes: differential GNSS,
Real-time Kinematic (RTK), and Real-time eXtended (RTX). Using the Applanix POS-LV 220
navigation system and high-definition maps for validation, they studied how the receiver
navigates through diverse scenarios, including uneven terrain, tall buildings, varying
road widths, and tunnels. They found that the RTX method overcame RTK, displaying
centimeter precision in urban environments. The study found that RTX is a reliable and
precise position augmentation technique for the urban environment and can be employed
to advance GNSS-based autonomous vehicle applications for the mass market.
Kim et al. [17] focuses on a pivotal element of the Centimeter-Level Augmentation
System (CLAS) in the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS): the formulation of a protection
level equation for PPP-RTK methods. Unlike other GNSS augmentation systems, the
proposed equation integrates considerations for correct integer ambiguity fixes in GNSS
carrier-phase measurements and CLAS correction quality messages. The research utilizes
GNSS Earth Observation Network (GEONET) stations in Japan and CLAS broadcast
messages to experimentally compare the computed protection levels with the position
errors. The results, which spanned a 7-day dataset, demonstrated that the protection levels
derived from the proposed equations consistently exceeded the position errors. The RMS
errors of the CLAS Virtual Reference Station-Real Time Kinematic (VRS-RTK) positions
were 4.6 cm and 14 cm in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. This study
significantly advances the development of integrity monitoring solutions, establishing a
foundation for reliability in GNSS positioning services for the mass market.
The applied tasks require further scientific developments in this field. We hope
that the articles published in this Special Issue will help to solve these scientific and
applied problems.
Sensors 2024, 24, 1200 5 of 6

Author Contributions: Writing—original draft preparation, Y.V.Y., B.Z. and V.R.D. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Y. Yasyukevich acknowledges the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian
Federation (II.16), B. Zhang acknowledges the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 42342004), V.R. Devanaboyina acknowledges All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
(Ref:8-99/FDC/RPS/Policy-1/2021-22).
Acknowledgments: We thank the anonymous referees for their help in the evaluation of the papers
and the authors who contributed to this Special Issue.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
List of Contributions:
1. He, L.; Guo, C.; Yue, Q.; Zhang, S.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, J. A Novel Ionospheric Disturbance Index
to Evaluate the Global Effect on BeiDou Navigation Satellite System Signal Caused by the
Moderate Geomagnetic Storm on May 12, 2021. Sensors 2023, 23, 1183. https://doi.org/10.339
0/s23031183.
2. Yasyukevich, Y.V.; Zatolokin, D.; Padokhin, A.; Wang, N.; Nava, B.; Li, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Yasyukevich,
A.; Chen, C.; Vesnin, A. Klobuchar, NeQuickG, BDGIM, GLONASS, IRI-2016, IRI-2012, IRI-Plas,
NeQuick2, and GEMTEC Ionospheric Models: A Comparison in Total Electron Content and
Positioning Domains. Sensors 2023, 23, 4773. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23104773.
3. Gulyaeva, T.; Hernández-Pajares, M.; Stanislawska, I. Ionospheric Weather at Two Starlink
Launches during Two-Phase Geomagnetic Storms. Sensors 2023, 23, 7005. https://doi.org/10.3
390/s23157005.
4. Aroca-Farrerons, J.M.; Hernández-Pajares, M.; Lyu, H.; Roma-Dollase, D.; Orus-Perez, R.;
García-Rigo, A.; Graffigna, V.; Olivares-Pulido, G.; Monte-Moreno, E.; Yang, H.; et al. The
Spectrum of Global Electron Content: A New Potential Indicator of Space Weather Activity.
Sensors 2024, 24, 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24020393.
5. Bronk, K.; Lipka, A.; Niski, R. Preparations for Galileo PRS in Poland. Sensors 2023, 23, 1770.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041770.
6. Krietemeyer, A.; Van Der Marel, H.; Van De Giesen, N.; Ten Veldhuis, M.-C. A Field Calibra-
tion Solution to Achieve High-Grade-Level Performance for Low-Cost Dual-Frequency GNSS
Receiver and Antennas. Sensors 2022, 22, 2267. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22062267.
7. Islam, S.; Bhuiyan, M.Z.H.; Thombre, S.; Kaasalainen, S. Combating Single-Frequency Jamming
through a Multi-Frequency, Multi-Constellation Software Receiver: A Case Study for Maritime
Navigation in the Gulf of Finland. Sensors 2022, 22, 2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22062294.
8. Hamza, V.; Stopar, B.; Sterle, O.; Pavlovčič-Prešeren, P. Low-Cost Dual-Frequency GNSS
Receivers and Antennas for Surveying in Urban Areas. Sensors 2023, 23, 2861. https://doi.org/
10.3390/s23052861.
9. Swaminathan, H.B.; Sommer, A.; Becker, A.; Atzmueller, M. Performance Evaluation of GNSS
Position Augmentation Methods for Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Environments. Sensors 2022,
22, 8419. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218419.
10. Kim, E.; Song, J.; Shin, Y.; Kim, S.; Son, P.-W.; Park, S.; Park, S. Fault-Free Protection Level
Equation for CLAS PPP-RTK and Experimental Evaluations. Sensors 2022, 22, 3570. https:
//doi.org/10.3390/s22093570.

References
1. Kuutti, S.; Fallah, S.; Katsaros, K.; Dianati, M.; Mccullough, F.; Mouzakitis, A. A Survey of the State-of-the-Art Localization
Techniques and Their Potentials for Autonomous Vehicle Applications. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018, 5, 829–846. [CrossRef]
2. Odolinski, R.; Teunissen, P.J.G. Low-Cost, 4-System, Precise GNSS Positioning: A GPS, Galileo, BDS and QZSS Ionosphere-
Weighted RTK Analysis. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2017, 28, 125801. [CrossRef]
3. Paziewski, J.; Sieradzki, R.; Baryla, R. Signal Characterization and Assessment of Code GNSS Positioning with Low-Power
Consumption Smartphones. GPS Solut. 2019, 23, 98. [CrossRef]
4. Wanninger, L.; Heßelbarth, A. GNSS Code and Carrier Phase Observations of a Huawei P30 Smartphone: Quality Assessment
and Centimeter-Accurate Positioning. GPS Solut. 2020, 24, 64. [CrossRef]
5. Feng, S.; Ochieng, W.; Moore, T.; Hill, C.; Hide, C. Carrier Phase-Based Integrity Monitoring for High-Accuracy Positioning. GPS
Solut. 2009, 13, 13–22. [CrossRef]
6. Demyanov, V.; Yasyukevich, Y.; Sergeeva, M.A.; Vesnin, A. Space Weather Impact on GNSS Performance; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; ISBN 978-3-031-15873-5.
Sensors 2024, 24, 1200 6 of 6

7. Berz, G. GNSS Interference and Civil Aviation. UN-ICG, WG-S, IDM. 20 August 2023. Available online: https://rntfnd.org/wp-
content/uploads/Aviation-GNSS-interference-UN-ICG-WGS-IDM-ECTL-GNSS-RFI-SEP23.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2024).
8. He, L.; Guo, C.; Yue, Q.; Zhang, S.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, J. A Novel Ionospheric Disturbance Index to Evaluate the Global Effect on
BeiDou Navigation Satellite System Signal Caused by the Moderate Geomagnetic Storm on 12 May 2021. Sensors 2023, 23, 1183.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Yasyukevich, Y.V.; Zatolokin, D.; Padokhin, A.; Wang, N.; Nava, B.; Li, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Yasyukevich, A.; Chen, C.; Vesnin, A.
Klobuchar, NeQuickG, BDGIM, GLONASS, IRI-2016, IRI-2012, IRI-Plas, NeQuick2, and GEMTEC Ionospheric Models: A
Comparison in Total Electron Content and Positioning Domains. Sensors 2023, 23, 4773. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Gulyaeva, T.; Hernández-Pajares, M.; Stanislawska, I. Ionospheric Weather at Two Starlink Launches during Two-Phase Geomag-
netic Storms. Sensors 2023, 23, 7005. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Aroca-Farrerons, J.M.; Hernández-Pajares, M.; Lyu, H.; Roma-Dollase, D.; Orus-Perez, R.; García-Rigo, A.; Graffigna, V.; Olivares-
Pulido, G.; Monte-Moreno, E.; Yang, H.; et al. The Spectrum of Global Electron Content: A New Potential Indicator of Space
Weather Activity. Sensors 2024, 24, 393. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Bronk, K.; Lipka, A.; Niski, R. Preparations for Galileo PRS in Poland. Sensors 2023, 23, 1770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Krietemeyer, A.; Van Der Marel, H.; Van De Giesen, N.; Ten Veldhuis, M.-C. A Field Calibration Solution to Achieve High-
Grade-Level Performance for Low-Cost Dual-Frequency GNSS Receiver and Antennas. Sensors 2022, 22, 2267. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
14. Islam, S.; Bhuiyan, M.Z.H.; Thombre, S.; Kaasalainen, S. Combating Single-Frequency Jamming through a Multi-Frequency,
Multi-Constellation Software Receiver: A Case Study for Maritime Navigation in the Gulf of Finland. Sensors 2022, 22, 2294.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Hamza, V.; Stopar, B.; Sterle, O.; Pavlovčič-Prešeren, P. Low-Cost Dual-Frequency GNSS Receivers and Antennas for Surveying in
Urban Areas. Sensors 2023, 23, 2861. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Swaminathan, H.B.; Sommer, A.; Becker, A.; Atzmueller, M. Performance Evaluation of GNSS Position Augmentation Methods
for Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Environments. Sensors 2022, 22, 8419. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Kim, E.; Song, J.; Shin, Y.; Kim, S.; Son, P.-W.; Park, S.; Park, S. Fault-Free Protection Level Equation for CLAS PPP-RTK and
Experimental Evaluations. Sensors 2022, 22, 3570. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Astafyeva, E.; Yasyukevich, Y.; Maksikov, A.; Zhivetiev, I. Geomagnetic Storms, Super-storms, and Their Impacts on GPS-based
Navigation Systems. Space Weather. 2014, 12, 508–525. [CrossRef]
19. Afraimovich, E.L.; Demyanov, V.V.; Kondakova, T.N. Degradation of GPS Performance in Geomagnetically Disturbed Conditions.
GPS Solut. 2003, 7, 109–119. [CrossRef]
20. European Union Agency for the Space Programme. EUSPA EO and GNSS Market Report; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2022.
21. Rovira-Garcia, A.; Ibáñez-Segura, D.; Orús-Perez, R.; Juan, J.M.; Sanz, J.; González-Casado, G. Assessing the Quality of Ionospheric
Models through GNSS Positioning Error: Methodology and Results. GPS Solut. 2020, 24, 4. [CrossRef]
22. Afraimovich, E.L.; Astafyeva, E.I.; Oinats, A.V.; Yasukevich, Y.V.; Zhivetiev, I.V. Global Electron Content: A New Conception to
Track Solar Activity. Ann. Geophys. 2008, 26, 335–344. [CrossRef]
23. Yasyukevich, Y.; Padokhin, A.; Vesnin, A.; Bykov, A.; Kiselev, A.; Ivanov, A.; Yasyukevich, A. Ionospheric Global and Regional
Electron Contents in Solar Cycles 23–25. Symmetry 2023, 15, 1940. [CrossRef]
24. Gurtner, W.; Estey, L. RINEX: The Receiver Independent Exchange Format, Version 2.11; UNAVCO Boulder: Boulder, CO, USA, 2007.
25. Gurtner, W.; Estey, L. RINEX: The Receiver Independent Exchange Format, Version 3.01; UNAVCO Boulder: Boulder, CO, USA, 2009.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.