See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325139469

Assessment of Quality Assurance and Quality Control for GNSS Surveying

Firms-A case study in Egypt.

Article · March 2017

CITATIONS READS

3 1,244

4 authors, including:

Samy Ayaad Mohamed Hamdy Elwany

Alexandria University Alexandria University
2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohamed Mahmoud Hosny Youssef

Alexandria University
2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Quality Assurance and Control in Surveying View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Hamdy Elwany on 15 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
Assessment of Quality Assurance and Quality Control for GNSS
Surveying Firms - A case study in Egypt
Samy Ayaad1, Mohamed H. Elwany2, Hassan G. El-Ghazouly3 and Mohamed M. Hosny4
1,3,4
Department of Transportation, Alexandria University, Alexandria, EGYPT
2
Department of Production, Alexandria University, Alexandria, EGYPT
Abstract
Among currently used Global Navigation Satellite
Systems (GNSS), the Global Positioning System
(GPS) from the USA and the Russian GLONASS
system are the best known, and currently fully
operational. Multiple factors can effect on the GNSS
technique in surveying such as level of required
accuracy, suitability of equipment, time, available
budget, type of measurement techniques and satellite
availability. Recently, static and Real-Time
Kinematic (RTK) surveying using GNSS are the
common method used for both cadastral and
engineering surveying in Egypt. Despite the benefit
of using GPS system, no standard specifications
and/or guidelines was performed in surveying firms
across Egypt. Thus, an effort was made in the present
study to estimate/establish such relationship by
applying Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality
Control (QC) on the GNSS surveying firms. A
closed questionnaire was designed and distributed to
different categories of surveying specialists. The
questionnaire was designed to cover the main points
under investigation in the GNSS surveying.
Keywords: Global Navigation Satellite Systems, Quality
control, Quality assurance, Real-Time Kinematic.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, Global Navigation Satellite Systems
(GNSS) becomes the dominant, fast, and accurate
tool specifically in land surveying projects. Among
currently used GNSS, the Global Positioning System
(GPS) from the USA and the Russian GLONASS
system are the best known, and currently fully
operational. Essentially, GNSS provides a three-
dimensional position x, y, and z. A GNSS survey
may be approached with post-processed positioning
for static observations related to a single point or
network, or involve real-time corrections to provide
positioning. Utilizing the GNSS techniques depends
on several factors such as the level of required
accuracy, suitability of equipment, time, available
budget, type of measurement techniques and satellite
availability.
Static and Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) surveying
using GNSS are the common method used for both
ISSN 2455-6378
cadastral and engineering surveying in Egypt.
Despite the fact of high demand in using GPS, no
standard and/or guidelines were found to be adopted
in surveying firms across Egypt. Actually, there is a
lack of information in most surveying firms about
site conditions, desired reference system, project
planning, practical considerations, project
configuration, survey procedures and post processing
steps. Therefore, the final produced accuracy even
for the same points within the same project may be
different. The most common sources of errors may
be related to instrument calibration, atmospheric
conditions, operative methods, human errors and
mistakes, and the unexpected behavior of the
reference frame (Maria et al. 2004; Mark et al. 2009;
Kumar et al. 2012). As the GNSS becomes a
mainstream in the land surveying profession, it is
essential to establish guidelines for land surveying
using measurements derived from GPS observations
positioning (Naudi 2005).
To meet the demands of a modern working
environment, commitment from management and
coworkers in an empowered organization are needed
(Naudi 2005). The concept of quality management is
to ensure efforts to achieve the desired quality of the
product that is well planned and organized. From the
perspective of the surveying company, quality
management in surveying projects should mean
maintaining the quality of surveying works at the
desired level in order to obtain customer satisfaction
that will bring long-term competitiveness and
survival to businesses (Tan & Abdul-Rahman, 2011).
Total quality management is critically required for
surveying firms to sustain in current surveying
market which is highly challenging and competitive.
Tan and Abdul-Rahman (2011) stated that the total
quality management has to provide the environment
within which related tools, techniques and
procedures can be deployed effectively leading to
operational success for a surveying firm. The activity
of the total quality management for a surveying
company is not an isolated activity, but intertwined
with all the operational and managerial processes of
the firms.
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
2. Research Significant
The aim of this paper is to apply a quality assurance
(QA) and quality control (QC) for GNSS surveying
firms in the Arab Republic of Egypt by applying
guidelines derived from previous studies in order to
address the major challenges of GNSS surveying and
set guidelines and recommendations for the optimum
field processes and work. Such work can help in
reaching high accuracy in GNSS surveying projects
which can be used as a guide in the upcoming work.
3. Methodology
A survey questionnaire has been designed in order to
collect all possible factors that may affect the GNSS
surveying. The survey questionnaire covered the
response on what are specialization/job description
in the GNSS field, the type of firm sector, the firm
location, the guidelines and specifications used in
projects firm, the type of receivers according to
signal and finally the appropriate observing times of
the day to achieve the required accuracy. Schematic
diagram for these parameters are shown in Fig. 1.
The questionnaire was distributed to three categories
of respondents. Category 1 represents the
professional staff (project managers with academic
background), while category 2 is composed of the
technical staff (field surveyors) in Egypt. Finally,
category 3 included the project managers and
technical staff outside Egypt. To verify the answers
of the questions, different specification has been
Fig. 1: Schematic diagram for the possible factors that may affect the GNSS surveying.
ISSN 2455-6378
used as a reference such as Canada, Alberta,
California, Colombia, Queensland, Connecticut,
New York, Washington, South Wales, United
Kingdom and National Oceanic specifications for the
QA and QC in GNSS surveying.
The questionnaire was divided for two main parts.
Part I includes all possible parameters that listed in
the previously mentioned specification. The second
part (II) includes other questions which may affect
the results but not included in the specification. The
first draft of the questionnaire was distributed to
three professional academics in Egypt and two
project managers outside Egypt in the area of GNSS
applications and integration for feedback.
Furthermore, to assess how the questionnaire stands
in international market standard, the questionnaire
and cover letter have been personally delivered to
this “pilot study” group and have been completed in
the presence of the researcher. This has allowed the
researcher the opportunity to answer any questions
and to receive feedback on the clarity of the
questions being asked.
The questionnaire along with a cover letter and
return envelope were mailed out to the 62 individuals
(sample of study) who were chosen according to the
three categories mentioned previously. The sample
of study was divided so that there were 16 persons
for category 1, 28 for category 2 and 18 for category
3 in land surveying firms. Each questionnaire
contains an identification number for mailing
purposes only. This identifier has been applied by the
researcher to keep a record of the firms which have
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378

returned their questionnaire. In addition, the
companies' names have never been attached to the
questionnaire in order to ensure complete
confidentiality. At this stage the researcher has
received much appreciated cooperation from all the
interviewees.
4. Questionnaire results
Each question's results and comments in each section
of the questionnaire for category 1, category 2 and
category 3 are as follows:
Part I:
Question 1: which system is used to determine the
positioning?
Fig. 2 shows that 56% and 61% from category 1 and
2 used the GPS, respectively, while category 3 used
GNSS only (100%).
Question 2: which receiver is used to collect the
signal?
Fig. 3 shows that category 1 used L1 signal, L1&L2
signal and L1&L2&L5 signal by 50%, 37% and 13%
respectively. Also, the same trend was observed for
category 2 by 53%, 36% and 11%. In contrast,
category 3 did not use L1 signal only to collect the
signal and apply L1&L2 signal and L1&L2&L5
signal by 89% and 11%, respectively.
Question 3: what is the appropriate observing
times of the day?Category 1
Question Description
3 was designed to identify the Description
No. of Responses
applying the appropriate observing
GPS only 9 times of the
GPSday
for category 1 and 2, respectively, as shown in Fig.
4. For category 3, the results showed that the
description of satellite geometry has the greatest
frequency, which accounts for 56 % of the responses.
Question 4: Do you have a ring antenna type in
your firm for mitigating the multipath?
Category 1 and 2 shows that 37 and 32%,
respectively, of respondents do a ring antenna in
their firm while the reset do not (Fig. 5). In contrast,
category 3 shows that 100% of respondents do a ring
antenna in their firms.
Question 5: Do you perform surveys in unstable
weather?
Category 1, 2, and 3 show that 69, 61, 50%
respectively (Fig. 6), may perform the survey in an
unstable weather, while the reset do not.
Question 6: What is the importance of measuring
and recording the antenna height before and after
each station occupation?
56 and 64% form category 1 and 2, respectively,
claimed that measuring and recording the antenna
height before and after each station occupation are
not important, while 94% from category 3 reported
the essentially for this step, as shown in Fig. 7.
Question 7: What is the importance of collimation
and leveling the antenna before and after each
station occupation?
Similar for the antenna height, 69 and 64% form
Category category
2 1 and 2, respectively,Category 3 claimed that
firms collimation and leveling the antenna No.
No. of Responses Description of Responses
before and after
only
each station occupation are not important,0while 83%
17 GPS only

to achieveGLONASS
a high accuracy in0 their projects. It GLONASS
can be 0
from category
GLONASS
3 reported the essentially for
0
this step
noticed thatGNSS
the times between 7 5:00 am to 10:00 GNSSam (Fig.
11
8).
GNSS 18
Other 0
has the greatest frequency, which was 50 and Other
64% 0 Other 0
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0% 0% 0%
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only 0
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
GPS only GPS only GPS only
44%
GNSS Category 1 7 GLONASS 39%
GNSS Category 2 11 GLONASS GNSS Category 3 18 GLONASS
Other
Description 0 GNSS
No. of Responses Other
Description 0 GNSS
No. of Responses Other
Description 0 GNSS
No. of Responses
56% 61%
L1 Signal only 8 Other
16 L1 Signal only 15Other
28 L1 Signal only 0 Other
18
100%
L1 & L2 Signal 6 L1 & L2 Signal 10 L1 & L2 Signal 2
0%
L1 & L2 &0% 0%
L5 Signal 2 0%
L1 & L2 & L5 Signal 3 0%Signal
L1 & L2 & L5 0% 16
Other 0 2: Response on theOther
Fig. 0
used system to determine Other
the positioning. 0
16 GPS only 28GPS only 18 GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
Category 1 GLONASS Category 2 Category 3
GNSS GNSS GNSS
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 56% Other 11% 0% 61% Other 0% 0% 11% Other
GPS only 9 only
L1 Signal GPS only 17only
L1 Signal GPS only 0 only
L1 Signal
13% L1 & L2 Signal
100%
GLONASS L1 & L20 Signal GLONASS 0 GLONASS L1 & L2
0 Signal
L1 & L2 & L3 Signal
0% L1 & L2 & L3 Signal
0%
GNSS
L1 & L2 & L3 Signal
Other 7 GNSS Other 11 GNSS
Other
18
Other
50% 0 36% Other 53% 0 Other 0
37%
16 28 89% 18

0% 0% 0% 0%
Fig. 3: Response on the used receiver to determine the positioning.
GPS only GPS only GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Other
100%
0%
0%
 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description International
No. of Responses Journal of Advanced
Description Scientific
No. Research and Management,
of Responses Vol. 2 Issue 3,No.
Description Mar 2017.
of Responses
From 5.00 am to 10 am 8 From 5.00www.ijasrm.com
am to 10 am 18 From 5.00 am to 10 am 0
From 11.00 am to 2.00 pm 0 From 11.00 am to 2.00 pm 0 From 11.00 am to 2.00 pm 0
ISSN 2455-6378
From 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm 0 From 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm 0 From 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm 0
According satellite geometry 5 According satellite geometry 5 According satellite geometry 10
Any time 3 Any time 5 Any time 8
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description
0% 0% 0% No. of Responses
From 5.00 am to 10
GPS only am 9 GPS only 17 am to 10 GPS only 0 am to 10
From 5.00 From 5.00
am am
19%
GLONASS From 11.00
0 am to 2.00 18%
GLONASS 0 am to
From 11.00 GLONASS 0 am to
From 11.00
pm
2.00 pm 2.00 pm
GNSS 7 GNSS 11
From 3.00 pm to 44% GNSS 18
From 3.00 pm to
From 3.00 pm to 5.00
Other 50% pm 0 18% Other
5.00 pm
0 Other
5.00 pm
0
According satellite 56% According satellite
31% According
16 satellite 64% geometry
28 geometry
18
Category 1 geometry Category 2 Any time Category 3 Any time

Description No.Any
of time
Responses
0% Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0%Yes 0%
0% 6 0% Yes 0% 9 Yes0% 0% 18
No Fig.104: Response on the appropriate
No observing
19 times of the day. No 0
GPS only GPS only
16 GPS only 39% 28 18
44% Category 1 GLONASS Category 2 GLONASS Category 3 GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
Description 56% No. of Responses Description 61% No. of Responses
Other
Description
0%
No. of Responses
Other
Other
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only
100% 0
GLONASS 0 0%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
0% 37% 32%
GNSS 7 Yes GNSS 11 Yes GNSS 18 Yes
Other 0 No Other 0 No Other 0 No
63% 68%
Category 1 16 Category 2 28 Category 3 18
100%
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
Yes 0% 11 Yes 0% 17 Yes0% 0% 9
No 5
Fig. 5: Response No
on if the firm containing 11
a ring antenna No multipath.
for mitigating the 9
16 GPS only 28GPS only 18 GPS only
44% Category 1 39% Category 2 GLONASS Category 3 GLONASS
GLONASS
Description GNSS
No. of Responses Description GNSS
No. of Responses Description GNSS
No. of Responses
56% 61%
GPS only 9 Other GPS only 17Other GPS only 0 Other
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0 GLONASS
100% 0
31% 0% 39%
0%
GNSS 7 (7) Yes
Question GNSS
Measure 11 and
and record antenna height before GNSS
after each station occupation
Yes 18 Yes
No
50% 50% No
Other Category 1 0 No Other Category 2 0 Other Category 3 0
69%No. of Responses 61%
Description 16 Description 28
No. of Responses Description 18
No. of Responses
Important 4 Important 6 Important 1
Not important0% 9 0%
Not important 18 0% 0%
Not important 0
Essential Fig. 6:
3 Response on if theEssential
surveys may be performed
4 in unstableEssential
weather. 17
GPS only GPS only
16 GPS only 39% 28 18
44% Category 1 GLONASS Category 2 GLONASS Category 3 GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
Description 56% No. of Responses Description 61% No. of Responses
Other
Description
0%
No. of Responses
Other
Other
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only
100%6% 0

19%
GLONASS 0 0%14%
GLONASS
22% 0 GLONASS 0
0% 25% Important Important Important
GNSS 7 GNSS 11 GNSS 18
Other Not
0 important Other Not0important Other Not
0 important
Category 1 Essential
Category 2 Essential
Category 3 Essential
16 28 18
56%
Description No. of Responses 64%
Description No. of Responses 94%
Description No. of Responses
Important 2 Important 6 Important 3
0% 0% 0% 0%
Not important 11 Not important 18 Not important 0
Issential
Fig. 7: 3
Response on the importance Issential
of measuring and recording the4GPS
antenna
only
Issentialand after each station.
height before 15 GPS only
GPS only
44% 16 GLONASS 39% 28GLONASS 18 GLONASS
Category 1 Category 2 GNSS
Category 3 GNSS
GNSS
Description
56% No. of Responses Description 61% No. of Responses
Other Description No. of Responses
Other
Other
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 100%
GPS only 0
0%
0% 12%
GLONASS
19% 0 14%
GLONASS
22% 0 GLONASS17% 0% 0
GNSS Important
7 GNSS Important
11 GNSS Important
18
Other Not
0 important Other Not0important Other Not
0 important
Issential Issential Issential
16 28 18
69% 64% 83%

0% 0% 0% 0%

Fig. 8: Response on the importance

GPS only of collimation and leveling the antenna before and after each station. GPS only
GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Other
Question 8: What is the importance of taking Question 9: What is the100% importance of using
photograph of 0%
every station mark in the site?
0% identical antennas in the site?
Fig. 9 shows that 50 and 71% form category 1 and 2, 62 and 67% form category 1 and 2, respectively,
respectively, claimed that taking photograph of every claimed that using identical antennas in the site are
station mark in the site are not important, while not important, while 89% from category 3 reported
category 3 reported the essentially for this step by the essentially of using identical antennas in the site,
100%. as shown in Fig. 10.
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
Category 1 www.ijasrm.com
Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
ISSN 2455-6378
Important 6 Important 5 Important 0
Not important 8 Not important 20 Not important 0
Issential 2 Issential 3 Issential 18
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
11% 0% 0%
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only 0
13%
GLONASS 0 18%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
GNSS 37% Important
7 GNSS Important
11 GNSS Important
18
Other Not
0 important Other Not0important Other 0Not important
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Issential Issential Issential
16 28 18
50%
Description No. of Responses Description
71% No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
100%
Important 3 Important 4 Important 2
0% 0% 0% 0%
Not important 10 Not important 14 Not important 0
Essential Fig. 9: Response ononly
3 GPS the importanceEssential
of taking photograph
3 GPSof every station Essential
only mark in the site. 16 GPS only
44% 39%
16 GLONASS 28GLONASS 18 GLONASS
Category 1 GNSS Category 2 GNSS Category 3 GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Description Other
No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
100%11% 0%
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only 0
0%
0%
GLONASS 0 14% 19%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
19% 19%
GNSS Important
7 GNSS Important
11 GNSS Important
18
Other Not
0 important Other Not0important Other Not0 important
Essential
16 Essential
28 Essential
18
67% 89%
62%
0% 0% 0% 0%

Fig. 10: Response

GPS only
on the importance of using identical
GPS only antennas in the site. GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
Question 10: How56%many times GNSS do you calibrate and 2, GNSS respectively, have the expected GNSS field
61%
the antennas? Other procedures Other
before starting the work, while category Other
3
100%
The main part from form category 1 and 2 0% (56 and has the expected field procedures before starting the
0%
68%, respectively, Fig. 11) calibrates the antennas work (100%).
yearly. Also, the calibration every six months
accounts for the second highest observation in these Question 12: Do you have the satellite geometry
categories (31 and 18%, respectively, Fig. 11). In and field conditions, before starting work?
contrast, the main part in category 3 calibrates the Fig. 13 illustrates that 69%, 82%, and 100% from
antennas at any stage before the work; in addition, category 1, 2, and 3, respectively, have the expected
the second main observation in this category did the field procedures for satellite geometry before starting
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
calibration monthly. the work, while category 3 has the expected field
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
procedures before starting the work (100%).
Weekly 0 Weekly 0 Weekly 1
Question Monthly11: Do you 1have the multipath Monthly 3 Monthly 5
conditions and obstructions,
Per six months 5
before starting the
Per six months
Question 5
13: WhatPerissix the
months
minimum number 2
of
work? Per year 9 Per year reference 19 station for the projects?
Per year 4
Fig. 12 shows Other that 75% and 1 82% from category Other 1 Category 1 1 and 2 showsOther
that two points are 6 the main
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
6% 0% 7% 3% 0% 11% 6%
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only 0
GLONASS 0
Weekly GLONASS 0
Weekly GLONASS 0
Weekly
GNSS Monthly
7 GNSS 11
Monthly 33%
GNSS Monthly
18
31% 18% 28%
Other Per
0 six months Other Per0six months Other Per0 six months
Per
16year Per28
year Per
18year
56% 68%
Other Other 11% Other
Category 1 Category 2 22% 3
Category
Description0% No. of Responses 0%
Description No. of Responses 0% 0%
Description No. of Responses
Yes 4 Yes 5 Yes 18
No Fig.1211: Response on howNo
GPS only many times the antennas
23GPS only were calibrated.
No 0 GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
16 28 18
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 1
Category Category
61% 2 Other
Category 3
Other
Other
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
100%
0%
GPS only Yes 9 0%GPS only Yes 17 GPS only Yes 0
0%
GLONASS No 0 GLONASS No 0 GLONASS No 0
18%
GNSS 25% 7 GNSS 11 GNSS 18
Other 0 Other 0 Other 0
16 28 18
75% 82%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0%

Fig. 12: Response on the expected field procedures in multipath conditions

GPS only GPS only and obstructions, before starting the work.
GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Other
100%
0%
0%
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378

used trend as a reference station by 56 and 40%, the main trend by 55%.
respectively (Fig. 14). In contrast, category 3 shows
that more than four points are usually used as a Question 15: What is the maximum epoch
reference station by 44%. interval for data sampling in the projects?
Fig. 16 shows that 15 second was the main trend by
Question 14: What is the minimum number of 62, 64, and 83% for categories 1, 2, and 3,
independent baselines in each loop for the project respectively.
control network stations?
No main trend was observed for category 1 and 2, as Question 16: What is the minimum time between
shown in Fig. 15.Category
For 1example, in category 1, the Categoryrepeat
2
station observations? Category 3
weight of Description
the observationNo.ranged between 31 toDescription
of Responses 38% Fig. 17Responses
No. of illustrates that Description
60 second wasNo.the main trend
of Responses
for 2, 3, andYes4 independent 5baselines. In contrast, Yes by 56, 5 67, and 100% for Yes categories 1, 112, and 3,

category 3 shows
No
that two independent
11
baselines No
are respectively.
23 No 7
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
GPS only Yes 9 GPS only Yes 17 GPS only Yes 0
No No Category 3No
Category 1
GLONASS 0 18%
Category 2
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
Description
31%No. of Responses Description No. of Responses 39%
Description No. of Responses
GNSS 7 GNSS 11 GNSS 18
1
Other 0 0 1Other 50 1
Other 00
69% 61%
2 9 16 2
82% 1028 2 318
3 5 3 7 3 7
4 2 4 3 4 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
other Fig. 13: Response
0 on the satellite geometry and field0 conditions, before starting
other other work. 8
16 28 GPS only 18 GPS only
GPS only
Category 1 39% Category 2 Category 3
44% GLONASS GLONASS GLONASS
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0%
56%
GNSS 0% GNSS 0% GNSS
GPS only 9 Other GPS only 61% 17Other GPS only 0 Other
13% 12% 17% 3
100%Category
GLONASS
Category 1 01 GLONASS 20% 2
Category 0 1
GLONASS 0 1
GNSS 7
2 0% GNSS 11
2
44%
GNSS 18 2
0%
Description No. of Responses
3
Description No. of Responses
3
Description No. of Responses
3
31% 28%
1Other 56% 0 04 1 Other 40 4 1
Other 00 4
2 6 2 40% 728 2 39% 10 other
16other other 18
3 5 3 7 3 5
4 5 4 7 0%
4 3
0% 0% 0% 0%
other 0 other 0
Fig. 14: Response on the minimum number of reference station for theother
projects. 0
16 28 18
Category 1 GPS only Category 2 GPS only Category 3 GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
Description GLONASS
No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0% GNSS
0% GNSS 0% 0% GNSS
GPS only 56% 9 GPS only 61% 17
Other
GPS only 0
Other
Other 16%
GLONASS 0 1
GLONASS 0
1 17%
GLONASS 0
31% 28% 100% 1
38% 2 2
2
GNSS 7
3 0%GNSS 11 3 GNSS 18
3
0%
Other Category 1 0 28%
Other Category 0 4 28%
Other 55% 0 4
4 2 Category 3
other
Description 16 other
No. of Responses 28%
Description 28
No. of Responses
other
Description 18
No. of Responses
31%
5 sec. 0 5 sec. 0 5 sec. 1
10 sec. 4 10 sec. 0% 5 10 sec.
0% 0% 2
0%
Fig. 15:15Response
sec. on the minimum
10 number of independent
15 sec. baselines16in each loop for the project
15 sec. control network
15 stations.
>15 sec. 2 >15 sec. 4 >15 sec. 0
GPS only GPS only GPS only
44% 16 39% 28
GLONASS
18
GLONASS
GLONASS
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
GNSS GNSS GNSS
Description
0% 56% No. of Responses Description
0% 61% No. of Responses
Other
Description
0% 6% No. of Responses
Other
Other
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only 11% 0
13% 5 sec. 100%
GLONASS Category 16% 20%
25% 1 05 sec. GLONASS
0% Category 2 0
10 sec.
GLONASS Category 3 0 5 sec.
0%
Description
GNSS No. of Responses
710 sec. Description
GNSS No. of Responses
11 Description
GNSS No. of Responses
18 10 sec.
15 sec.
15 sec. 15 sec.
20 min.
Other 0 0 20Other
min. 0>15 sec.
0 20 min.
Other 0
>15 sec. >15 sec.
62%
30 min. 0 16 3064%
min. 0
28 83%
30 min. 0
18
40 min. 3 40 min. 4 40 min. 0
60 min. 0% 9 60 min. 0% 14 60 0%
min.0% 18
> 60 min. Fig. 16: 4Response on the minimum
> 60 min. number of reference
3 station for the>projects.
60 min. 0
16 GPS only 28GPS only 18 GPS only
44% Category 1 39% Category 2 GLONASS Category 3 GLONASS
GLONASS
Description No. of Responses
GNSS Description GNSS
No. of Responses Description GNSS
No. of Responses
0% 0%56% 0% 61%
0% Other 0%0% 0%0%
GPS only 9 Other GPS only 17 GPS only 0 Other
GLONASS 0 min. 14% 19%
GLONASS 020 min. 100%
GLONASS 020 min.
19% 20
25% 0%
0%
GNSS 30
7 min. GNSS 1130 min. GNSS 30 min.
18
Other 40
0 min. Other 040 min. Other 040 min.
60
16min. 2860 min. 60 min.
18
56% > 60 min. 67% > 60 min. 100% > 60 min.

0% 0% 0% 0%
0%

Fig. 17: Response

GPS only on the minimum
39%
time between repeat
GPS only station observations. GPS only
44% GLONASS GLONASS GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Other
100%
0%
0%
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378

Question 17: What is the solution type used in the values for the PDOP were between 1 to 3 by 44%,
projects? 39%, and 11% for categories 1, 2, and 3,
The fixed solution was the main used type in respectively.
category 1 and 3 (100%, Fig. 18). Also, 93% from
category 2 applied the same solution and the rest (7% Question 20: What is the elevation mask angle in
only) used float solution. rover receiver by RTK survey?
Fig. 21 shows that the elevation mask angles
Question 18: Is the antenna height during the between 10 to 15 degree were the main angels in
surveying fixed or changeable? categories 1, 2, and 3 by 73, 72, and 100%,
Fig. 19 shows that 56%, 46%, and 94% from respectively.
category 1, 2, and 3 used fixed height during the
surveying, while the rest used changeable height. Question 21: What is RTK ambiguity solution
Category 1 Category type
2 in the projects? Category 3
Question 19:
DescriptionWhat is the maximum
No. of Responses PDOP value
Description Fig. 22 shows that 81%
No. of Responses and 75%No.from
Description category 1
of Responses
used inFixed
rover receiver by16RTK survey? Fixed solution
solution and 2,26 respectively, Fixed
usedsolution
fixed solution, 18 while the
Fig. 20Float
shows that the PDOP
solution 0 values between
Float 4 to 6
solution rest used
0 DGPS. In contrast,
Float solutioncategory 30 applied the
were the main
DGPS values in categories
solution 0 1, 2, and 3 by
DGPS 56,
solution fixed 2solution by 100%.
DGPS solution 0

47, and 89%, respectively. Also, the second main

Other 0 Other 0 Other 0
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 7% 0% 0% 0%
GPS0%
0% only Fixed 9
solution GPS only 17 GPS only 0
GLONASS 0 0%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
Fixed solution Fixed solution
GNSS Float solution
7 GNSS 11 GNSS 18
Float solution Float solution
Other 0 Other 0 Other 0
Category 1 DGPS Category 2 DGPS solution Category 3 DGPS solution
solution
16 Other28 Other 18
100%
Description No. of Responses Description 93% No. of Responses Description
100% No. of Responses
Other
Constant 9 Constant 13 Constant 17
0% 0% 0% 0%
Variable 7 Variable 15 Variable 1
Other 0 Fig. 18:
GPS only Response onOther
the solution type used in the projects. Other
0 GPS only 0 GPS only
44% 39%
16 GLONASS 28 GLONASS 18 GLONASS
Category 1 GNSS Category 2 GNSS Category 3 GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Description Other
No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0% 0% only 100%
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS 6% 0
0%
0%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
GNSS
44% 7 Constant GNSS 11 Constant GNSS 18 Constant
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Other 0 Variable Other
46% 0 Variable Other 0 Variable
Description No. of Responses
56% Description
54% No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
16 Other 28 Other 18 Other
1.0 to 3.0 7 1.0 to 3.0 11 1.0 to 3.0 94% 2
4.0 to 6.0 9 4.0 to 6.0 13 4.0 to 6.0 16
0% 0% 0% 0%
7.0 to 10.0 0 7.0 to 10.0 4 7.0 to 10.0 0
>10.0 Fig.0 19: Response
GPS only on the>10.0
type of the antenna0 height during the surveying.
GPS only >10.0 0 GPS only
44% 16
39% 28 GLONASS 18 GLONASS
GLONASS
Category 1 GNSS Category 2 GNSS Category 3 GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Description No. of Responses
Other Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 11%
GPS only 9 GPS0%
only 17 GPS only 0
0%
0%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS
14% 0 GLONASS 0
1.0 to 3.0 1.0 to 3.0 1.0 to 3.0
GNSS Category 1 7 GNSS Category
39% 2 11 GNSS Category 3 18
44% 4.0 to 6.0 4.0 to 6.0 4.0 to 6.0
Other
Description 0
No. of Responses Other
Description 0
No. of Responses Other
Description 0
No. of Responses
7.0 to 10.0 7.0 to 10.0 7.0 to 10.0
56% 16 28
0.0 to 5.0 0 >10.0 47%
0.0 to 5.0 0>10.0 0.0 to 5.0 018
>10.0
89%
6.0 to 9.0 1 6.0 to 9.0 2 6.0 to 9.0 0
10.0 to 15.0 0% 11 10.0 to 15.0 0% 20 10.0 to 0%
15.00% 18
>15.0 3 >15.0 6
Fig. 20: Response on the maximum
GPS only PDOP value used inGPSrover
only receiver by>15.0
RTK survey. 0
GPS only
44% 16 39% 28 GLONASS
18 GLONASS
GLONASS
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
GNSS GNSS GNSS
Description 56% No. of Responses Description 61% No. of Responses
Other Description No. of Responses
Other
Other 0% 0%
0%
GPS only 7%
0%
GPS only 7%
9 17 100%
GPS only 0
GLONASS 0 0%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
20%0% 0.0 to 5.0 21% 0.0 to 5.0 0.0 to 5.0
GNSS 7 GNSS 11 GNSS 18
6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
Other 0
10.0 to 15.0
Other 0
10.0 to 15.0
Other 0
10.0 to 15.0
73% 16
>15.0 72% >15.028 18
>15.0
100%
0% 0% 0% 0%

Fig. 21: ResponseGPSononlythe elevation mask angle limit usedGPS

inonly
rover receiver by RTK survey. GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Other
100%
0%
0%
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378

Question 22: What is the most effective error that time in obstruction from one side?
affects the GNSS surveying? The results show that the observation time between
Multipath error was the main error recorded by all 31 to 60 min. was the main used time in the
categories (93%, 100%, and 100%, for categories 1, surveying if there is an obstruction from one side by
2, and 3, respectively), as shown in Fig. 23. 69%, 61%, and 83% for categories 1, 2, and 3,
respectively (Fig. 25), while the rest used
Part II: observation time ranged between 5 to 30 min.
Question 23:Category What1 is the range of observation Category 2 Category 3
time Description
in open sky case? No. of Responses Description No. ofQuestion
Responses 25: WhatDescription
is the rangeNo.of observation
of Responses
Fig. Fixed
24 shows
solution that the observation
13 time between 5 to
Fixed solution time
21 in obstruction Fixed
from two sides? 18
solution
30 min.
Float was used by all categories
solution 0 (1, 2, and
Float3).
solution Unlike
0 the one side Float
case,solution
the results show 0 that 61 to
DGPS 3 DGPS 907 min. was the main DGPSobservation if an 0obstruction
Question Other24: What is 0 the range of observation Other from
0 two sides was existedOther for categories0 1 and 2 by
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0%
GPS0%
only 9 0%
GPS only Fixed 17 GPS only 0
GLONASS Category 1 0 GLONASSCategory 2 solution
0 GLONASS 0
19% Fixed solution Category 3 Fixed solution
25%GNSS Float solution
GNSS 7 11 GNSS 18
0% Description No. ofFloat solution
Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. ofFloat solution
Responses
Other DGPS0 Other DGPS 0 Other 0
DGPS
Tropospheric error 0 0%
Tropospheric error
75% 0 Tropospheric error 0
81% Other16 28 Other
18
Ionosphere error 0 Ionosphere error 0
Other 100%
Ionosphere error 0
Multipath error 15 Multipath error 28 Multipath error 18
0% 0% 0% 0%
Antenna phase center 0 Antenna phase center 0 Antenna phase center 0
Other Fig.
1 22: Response on the
GPS only
RTK ambiguity solution
Other 0 GPS onlytype in the projects.
Other 0 GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS
16 GLONASS 28 18 GLONASS
Category 1 GNSS Category 2 GNSS Category 3 GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Description Other
No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
6% 0% 0%
0% Tropospheric error 0%
0%
100%
Tropospheric
9 error
0% GPS only 0%
GPS only 17 GPS only 0 error
Tropospheric
0%
GLONASS 0 error
Ionosphere GLONASS 0
Ionosphere error GLONASS 0
Ionosphere error
GNSS Category 1 7 GNSSCategory 2 11 GNSS Category 3 18
Multipath error Multipath error
Description
Other No. of Responses
0 Description
Other No. of Responses
0 Description
Other No. Multipath
0 error
of Responses
5 to 30 16 16
Antenna phase 5 to 30 Antenna
28 phase
28 5 to 30 1818
Antenna phase center
center center
31 to 60 94% 0 31 to100%
60 0 100%
31 to 60 0
Other Other
Other
61 to90 0% 0 61 to90 0% 0 61 to90 0% 0% 0
91 to 120 0 91 to 120 0 91 to 120 0
Fig. 23: Response
GPS only
on the most effective error that affects
GPS only the GNSS surveying. GPS only
>120 0 >120
39% 0 >120 0
44% GLONASS GLONASS GLONASS
16 28 18
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56%1
Category Category
61%2 Other
Category 3
Other
Other
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%100%
0%
0%
GPS only 9 0%
GPS only 17 GPS only 0
0%
GLONASS 50to 30 GLONASS 5 to0 30 GLONASS 0 5 to 30
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
GNSS 31
7 to 60 GNSS 3111to 60 GNSS 18 31 to 60
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
Other 61
0 to90 Other 61 0to90 Other 0 61 to90
5 to 30 5 91 to 120 5 to 30 11 91 to 120 5 to 30 3 91 to 120
16 28 18
31 to 60 11 >120 31 to 60 17 >120 31 to 60 15 >120
100% 100%
61 to90 61 to90100% 61 to90
0% 0% 0% 0%
91 to 120 91 to 120 91 to 120
>120 Fig. 24: Response on >120 range
the of observationGPS
time >120
GPS only only in open sky case. GPS only
44% 16 39% 28 GLONASS 18 GLONASS
GLONASS
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
GNSS GNSS GNSS
Description 56% No. of Responses Description 61% No. of Responses
Other Description No. of Responses
Other
Other
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 100%
GPS only 0
GLONASS 50 to 30 0%
GLONASS 5 0to 30 GLONASS 17% 0 5 to 30
0% 31%
GNSS 7 to 60
31 GNSS 39% 11to 60
31 GNSS 18 31 to 60
Other 61
0 to90 Other 610 to90 Other 0 61 to90

69%
91 to 120
16 61% 91
28to 120 18 91 to 120
>120 >120 83% >120

0% 0% 0% 0%

Fig. 25: Response

GPS only on the range of observation time inGPS
obstruction
only from one side case. GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Other
100%
0%
0%
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378

69% and 61%, respectively, while the rest used
observation time ranged between 5 to 30 min. In
contrast, category 3 applied 91 to 120 min. as the
main observation time by 78%, as shown in Fig. 26.
Question 26: what is the percentage of the re-
work in the project?
The results show that the possibility for redoing the
work in category 1 and 2 was significantly higher
than category 3 as more than 10% was the main
response for categories 1 and 2 by 44% and 46%,
while 3% to 5% was the main percentage of the re-
work in category 3 by 78% (Fig. 27).
5. Discussion
Aforementioned, GNSS surveying depends on
several factors such as the number of measurements
(single or dual frequency), GNSS errors (multipath,
ionosphere, tropospheric, satellite clock and orbit
error) and the equipment (receiver and antenna).
Furthermore, the GNSS surveying affected by
satellite geometry, field procedure, network design
and office procedure. These factors should be
followed to achieve the required accuracy, as
previously shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the
questionnaire's questions were designed based on
Category 1
these procedures.
Description No. of Responses Description
5 to 30 5 to 30each
To verify the results of the questionnaire for
31 to 60 5
category (1 and 2), different specification (e.g. 31 to 60
Canada,61Alberta,
to90 California, 11 Colombia, Connecticut,
61 to90
1 shows the allowable limits in these specifications
and the main observation from the questionnaire.
Also, for better comparison, the highest frequency
answer for these questions in all the specifications
were used as a reference and compared with the
response of all the categories, as shown in Fig. 28.
Generally, it can be noticed that the response from
category 1 and 2 are close but far from the datum
(the highest response according to the specifications)
with average ratio 33% for category 1 (project
managers staff in Egypt) and 29% for category 2
(technical staff in Egypt). In contrast, category 3 (the
project managers and technical staff outside Egypt)
matches the highest response according to the
specifications with an average ratio 75%.
Part II from the survey was design to cover other
aspect which may directly affect the outcomes from
the GNSS surveying. The results from this part show
that there are similarities between the main trends
observed in all categories regarding the observation
time and direction. It should be mentioned that a
network of GNSS continuously operating reference
stations (CORS), which can correct satellite
navigation signals in order to provide international
standard and high-accuracy positioning, should
provide fundamental positioning infrastructure for
Category 2 these countries. These data is streamed
Category 3 to users via a
wireless internet connection whichNo. apply to all
No. of Responses Description of Responses
GNSS measurements using
5 to 30
CORS. Unlike category
3, these references points are not established/known
11 31 to 60
in Egypt, which may be the main reason behind the
17 61 to90
inaccurate results for the GNSS surveying (Fig. 29).
4

New York,91 to 120 Washington, United Kingdom 91 to 120and 91 to 120 14

National >120
Oceanic specifications) were applied. >120Table >120
16 28 18
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
GPS only 9 GPS only 17 GPS only 0
GLONASS 50to 30 GLONASS 5 0to 30 GLONASS 0 5 to 30
22%
GNSS 31% 31
7 to 60 GNSS 39% 31
11to 60 GNSS 18 31 to 60
Other 61
0 to90 Other 610to90 Other 0 61 to90

69%
91 to 120
16 61% 91 to 120
28 18 91 to 120
>120 >120 78% >120
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
From 0.0 to 2.0% 0% 0 From 0.0 to 2.0% 0% 0 From 0.0 to 0%
2.0%0% 0
From 3.0 to 5.0% 2 From 3.0 to 5.0% 3 From 3.0 to 5.0% 13
From 6.0 to 10.0%
Fig. 26:
7
Response
GPS only
on the range of observation12timeGPS
From 6.0 to 10.0%
inonly
obstruction from two sides.
From 6.0 to 10.0% 5 GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
>10 % 7 >10 % 13 >10 % 0
GNSS GNSS GNSS
Category
56%1 Category 2 Category 3
Other
61% Other Other
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
0% 0% 0% 100%
0%
GPS only 9 0%GPS11%
only 17 GPS only 0
0%12% From 0.0 to 2.0% From 0.0 to 2.0% From 0.0 to 2.0%
GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0 GLONASS 0
28%
44%GNSS From 3.0 to
7 5.0% 46% GNSS From 3.011
to 5.0% GNSS From183.0 to 5.0%
Other 0 Other 0 Other 0
From 6.0 to 10.0% From 6.0 to 10.0% From 6.0 to 10.0%
44% 16 43% 28 72% 18
>10 % >10 % >10 %

0% 0% 0% 0%

Fig. GPS
27:only
Response on the percentage of the re-work
GPS only in each project. GPS only
44% 39% GLONASS GLONASS
GLONASS
GNSS GNSS GNSS
56% 61% Other Other
Other
100%
0%
0%
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378
Table 1: The allowable limits in the specifications and the main observation from the questionnaire.
The The main trend in
National
Canada Alberta California Australia Connecticut New York UK Washington reference each category
Oceanic
response* 1 2 3
Q.1 GNSS GNSS GNSS -- GNSS ………. GNSS GNSS GNSS GNSS 0.44 0.39 1
L1, L2, L5 L1, L2, L5 L1, L2, L5 L1, L2, L5 L1, L2, L5 L1, L2, L1, L2, L5 L1, L2, L5 L1, L2, L5
Q.2 ………. 0.13 0.11 0.89
Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal L5 Signal Signal Signal Signal
Q.3 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 0.31 0.18 0.56
Q.4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.37 0.32 1
Q.5 No No No No No ………. No No ………. No 0.31 0.39 0.5
Q.6 Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential 0.19 0.14 0.94
Q.7 Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential ………. Essential 0.19 0.14 0.83
Q.8 Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential ………. ………. Essential 0.13 0.11 1
Q.9 Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential 0.19 0.14 0.89
Q.10 Weekly Weekly monthly ………. ………. ………. ………. Weekly ………. Weekly 0.31 0.18 0.33
Q.11 Yes Yes Yes ………. Yes Yes Yes Yes ………. Yes 0.25 0.18 1
Q.12 Yes Yes Yes ………. Yes Yes Yes Yes ………. Yes 0.31 0.18 0.61
Q.13 3 3 3 ………. 3 ………. ………. 3 ………. 3 0.31 0.28 0.39
Q.14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.38 0.28 0.55
Q.15 ………. 15 sec 15 sec 15 sec ………. 15 sec 15 sec 15 sec 15 sec 15 sec. 0.62 0.64 0.83
Q.16 ………. 60 min. 60 min. 30 min. ………. 60 min. 60 min. 30 min. 60 min. 60 min. 0.56 0.67 1
Q.17 FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS 0.81 0.75 1
Q.18 Constant ………. Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant ………. Constant 0.56 0.46 0.94
Q.19 1 to 3 3 5 3 3 7 3 4 1 to 3 4 to 6 0.56 0.47 0.89
Q.20 10 to 15 10 15 10 10 10 15 15 10 to 15 10 to 15 0.73 0.72 1
Q.21 FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS 1 0.93 1
*The highest frequency response according to the specifications, ST: Satellite geometry, FS: Fixed solution.
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378

Category 1 Category 2
Description No. of Responses Description No. of Responses
Yes 7 Yes 10
Fig. 28: The main observation
No from the questionnaire
9 for each category
No and the highest
18 response according to
16 the specifications. 28

44% 36%
Yes Yes
No No
56% 64%

Fig. 29: Response on the existing continuously operating reference stations (CORS)

inaccurate results in GNSS surveying in

5. Conclusions Egypt, which needs to further attention.

Based on the questionnaire results presented in this  The results show that the possibility for
paper, the following conclusions can be drawn: redoing the work in Egypt was significantly
higher than other countries because a lack
of specification and guidelines in Egypt.
 The general system used to determine the
positioning in Egypt is GPS, whereas the
GNSS is the main system used worldwide, 5. References
which might lead to a lack of accuracy
1- Antonello Rizzo Naudi "A Quality
quality in the survey works in Egypt.
Assurance System at the Land Survey and
Mapping Unit (Malta) ", 2005.
 The responses on the GNSS surveying from
the professional staff and field surveyors in
2- Brian Donahue, Jan Wentzel and Ron Berg,
Egypt show some similarity; however, such
“Guidelines for RTK/RTN GNSS
responses did not follow most of the current
Surveying in Canada”, 2013.
specifications.
3- Crown Registry and Geographic Base
 The lack of the network of GNSS
Branch, “Province of British Columbia
continuously operating reference stations
Standards, Specifications and Guidelines for
(CORS) seems to have a direct effect on the
Resource Surveys Using (GPS)
Technology”, 2008.
 International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 2 Issue 3, Mar 2017.
www.ijasrm.com
ISSN 2455-6378

4- Government of Alberta, “Standard, 17- William Henning, “User Guidelines for

specifications and Guidelines for GPS Single Base Real Time GNSS Positioning”,
surveys of Alberta survey control”, 2010. 2011.

5- Government of Ontario, “Ontario

Specification for GPS Control Surveys”,
2005.

6- Maria João HENRIQUES and João

CASACA "Quality Control of a Dam
Geodetic Surveying System", 2004.

7- Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis, Adrian

Thornhill “Research Method for business
students”, 2009.

8- New York State Department of

Transportation "Land surveying standards
and procedures manual", 2009.

9- RICS Practice Standards, UK, “Guidelines

for the use of GNSS in land surveying and
mapping”, 2010.

10- S.Senthil Kumar, Arun Kumar Chauhan

"Automated Quality Control of Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Data ",
2012.

11- State of Washington Department of Natural

Resources, “Standards and Guidelines for
Land Surveying Using Global Positioning
System Methods”, 2004.

12- Tan Chin-Keng, Abdul-Rahman and

Hamzah "Study of Quality Management in
Construction Projects", 2011.

13- The California Land Surveyors Association,

“GNSS Surveying Standards and
Specifications”, 2014.

14- The Connecticut Association of Land

Surveyors,” Guidelines and Specifications
for Global Navigation Satellite System
Land Surveys in Connecticut”, 2008.

15- Transport and Main Roads, “GNSS Control

Surveys Guideline”, 2016.

16- Wafeek Ismail “Evaluating the Differences

and Accuracies Between GNSS
Applications Using PPP ", 2015.

View publication stats