OPUS - Resubmit after 6 months - Case closed
> Yes redundancy is the best way to sure up the measurements.
Here is something you could do that would take very little extra effort while achieving a measure of redundancy.
First, send your data in as you usually do, letting OPUS choose the stations. Then send it in a second time, but this time EXCLUDE at least one of the stations that was used the first time (perhaps exclude all of them) thereby forcing OPUS to choose another. The two solutions would be independent.
OPUS - Resubmit after 6 months - Case closed
Independent except for centering error.
Independant...???
Not to be overly critical here...
BUT:
I don't believe that such a methodology imparts much (if any) REAL redundancy.
You are still dealing with a singular set of OBSERVATIONS at your remote Station (Section Corner, whatever). So satellite geometry, multi-path conditions, tropospheric conditions, Space Weather, etc. etc. are going to influence your baseline solutions regardless of the CORS selected.
The conditions unique to each CORS during your observation can also effect your results. So multiple OPUS submissions of the same data CAN be useful for sure.
Like Leon mentions above, there is also whatever “setup error” to be considered.
In Leon's scenario, I would be inclined to split the LONG observation into TWO shorter observations. Do a double OPUS submission (selecting 3 DIFFERENT CORS) on each SHORT observation, and compare that to the (double) LONG Observation solution.
If you extract ALL of the G-File vectors (with a covariance matrix) out of the extended OPUS report, you can easily combine all SIX solutions (18 vectors) into a Least Squares solution, and any outliers should stand out like a sheep turd in a bowl of milk.
This still does NOT (IMO) constitute “true redundancy,” but I think it does about as much as you can do with OPUS and a single observation set.
Flame on!
Loyal
Independant...???
> I don't believe that such a methodology imparts much (if any) REAL redundancy.
Calling the solution my suggestion would yield "independent" was, perhaps, overstated. But the idea was to get something different into the solution, to force OPUS to adopt different a-priori conditions, with a bare minimum of effort.
> In Leon's scenario, I would be inclined to split the LONG observation into TWO shorter observations. Do a double OPUS submission (selecting 3 DIFFERENT CORS) on each SHORT observation, and compare that to the (double) LONG Observation solution.
I had previously suggested something like this. I got no response, so I assumed there was no interest in making the effort. But I think that yours is a very good idea.
Sorry Mark
I meant no offense whatsoever.
I'm pretty old school about static GPS/GNSS, and firmly believe that “redundancy” STARTS @ 2 observations on different days at a MINIMUM, and I prefer 3 or more.
Loyal
