Background: Determining the location, boundaries and areas of land properties accurately in the land cadastre is essential. The named data are provided using coordinates, acquired from field measurements. Since 2008, the Slovenian land cadastre claims positioning in the national realization of the ETRS89, so the GNSS use is practically indispensable. Objectives: Contrary to real-time, we can change parameters in GNSS post-processing. The aim of this paper is to simulate different measurement conditions for GNSS in order to determine how to acquire the best possible coordinates for further use in land area calculation. Methods/Approach: Simulations of obstacles near points followed the increasing of the cut-off angle. Furthermore, shortening the observation interval resulted in different occupation duration. The final condition evaluation for coordinate quality acquisition followed from fuzzy logic. Results: The results show that for short baselines, occupation duration is the most important factor in acquiring high quality coordinates and avoiding the multipath. Differences in coordinates from specific strategies can sometimes exceed the tolerance and evidently affect the area calculation. Conclusions: The findings confirm that only good measurement conditions lead to high quality coordinates and well-defined areas of land properties, which are the fundamental factor in relation to the issues of property valuation and assessing land taxes or rents
1. Bakula, M. (2013), “Study of Reliable Rapid and Ultra Rapid Static GNSS Surveying for Determination of the Coordinates of Control Points in obstructed Conditions“, Journal of Surveying Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 4, pp. 188-193.
2. Bird, R. M., Slack, E. (2004), “Land and Property Taxation in 25 countries: a Comparative Review“, in International Handbook on Land and Property Taxation, Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 1-48.
3. The Connecticut Association of Land Surveyors (2008), “Guidelines and Specifications for Global Navigation Satellite System Land Surveys in Connecticut“, The Connecticut Association of Land Surveyors.
4. Chrisman, N. R., Yandell, B. S. (1988), “Effects in Point Error on Area Calculations: a Statistical Model“, Surveying and Mapping, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 241-246.
5. Dawidowicz, K. (2012), “GNSS Satellite Levelling using the ASG-EUPOS System Services“, Technical Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 35-48.
6. Dawidowicz, K., Krzan, G. (2014), “Coordinate Estimation Accuracy of Static Precise Point Positioning using On-line PPP Service, a Case Study“, Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 37-55.
7. Drobne, S., Lakner, M. (2016), “Use of Constraints in the Hierarchical Aggregation Procedure Intramax“, Business Systems Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 5-22.
8. El-Mowafy, A. (2011), “Analysis of wWb-based GNSS Post-processing Services for Static and Kinematic Positioning using Short Data Dans”, Survey Review, Vol. 43, No. 323, pp. 535-549.
9. Gao, Y. (2006), “Precise Point Positioning and Its Challenges”, Aided-GNSS and Signal Tracking, Inside GNSS, Vol. 1, No. 8, pp.16-18.
10. Gandolfi, S., La Via L. (2011), “Skyplot_DEM: a Tool for Planning and Simulations”, Applied Geomatics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 35-48.
11. Ghilani, C. D. (2000), “Demystifying Area Uncertainty: More or Less”, Surveying and Land Information Systems, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 183-189.
12. Groves, P. D. (2011), “Shadow matching: a New GNSS Positioning Technique for Urban Canyons”, Journal of Navigation, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 417-430.
13. GNSS online planning (2017), “Trimble”, available at: http://www.trimble.com/GNSSPlanningOnline (19 December 2017).
14. Hájek, P. (1998), “Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic”, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
15. Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., Lichtenegger, H., Collins, J. (2002), “GPS Theory and practice”, Springer-Verlag, Wien.
16. Leica GeoSystems (2017), “Leica GeoSystems”, available at: https://leica-geosystems.com (16 December 2017).
17. Kostov, G. (2012), “Study on the Overall Quality of the Planned fast Static GNSS Measurements, if Certain Values of the Parameters are Applied in the System, Using Fuzzy Logic”, available at: https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2012/papers/ts03d/TS03D_kostov_5678.pdf (19 December 2017).
18. Montenbruck, O., Steigenberger, P., Hauschild, A. (2015),”Broadcast versus Precise Ephemerides: a Multi-GNSS Perspective”, GPS Solutions, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 321-333.
19. Navratil, G. (2003), “Precision of Area Calculation”, in Proceedings of ESRI 2003 - 8th European User Conference, Innsbruck, Austria.
20. Okorocha, C. V., Olajugba, O. (2014), “Comparative Analysis of Short, Medium and Long Baseline Processing in the Precision of GNSS Positioning”, available at: http://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2014/papers/ts09b/TS09B_okorocha_olajugba_7005.pdf (19 December 2017).
21. Pavlovčič Prešeren, P, Mencin, A., Stopar, B. (2010), “Analiza preizkusa instrumentarija GNSS-RTK po navodilih standard ISO 17123-8” (“Analysis of GNSS-RTK Instruments Testing on the ISO 17123-8 Instructions”), Geodetski vestnik, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 607-626.
22. Petovello, M. (2013), “How does non-of-line-of-sight reception differ from multipath interference?”, Inside GNSS: November - December 2013, pp. 40-44.