GPS HORIZONTAL POSITION ACCURACY
To
some, errors from GPS measurements seem like a mystery. With a little mathematics and simple
modeling, the errors behave in a definable way. When the intentional degradation of non-military GPS accuracy (SA
or Selective Availability) was turned off, GPS horizontal position errors of
consumer-grade GPS receivers were reduced to 1/6 to 1/12 or so of their former
values. The section that follows is
concerned with SPS (Standard Positioning Service) non-differential horizontal
(latitude/longitude) positioning accuracy with SA off. This analysis is thought to be somewhat
typical of that obtainable with modern consumer-grade receivers. The analysis uses a precision surveyed point
whose coordinates were determined by a licensed surveyor and independently
repeatedly confirmed using carrier-phase post-processing with a Motorola Oncore
VP GPS receiver and Waypoint GrafNav-Lite software. Many of the tests for acquiring modeling data were done with
Garmin receivers as these are commonly used.
The
starting point is the equation for experimentally measuring RMS
(Root-Mean-Squared) error:

In
simple words, one averages the squared errors of the fixes and then takes the
square root. The RMS error can also be
from an alternative formula, which may be easier with some software:
![]()
If
the actual position is not known, the average position is often used as an
approximation to the actual position.
Several days are needed to obtain a reasonable good approximation of the
RMS error for the studied GPS receiver/antenna/location/GPS constellation
status; but there will still be a tendency to underestimate error using this
approximation. Note that GPS receiver
NMEA strings output horizontal position in the WGS84 datum and comparisons
should be made accordingly.
The
distribution of GPS fixes of a position may be approximated by a bivariate
normal distribution with no correlation between the two variables. Sometimes this distribution has been
inaccurately called "Gaussian"; but only a "slice" in any
direction will indeed be a normal (Gaussian) distribution. For simplicity, one might assume the same
variance in each direction (measurements show this is not quite actually true). With those approximating assumptions, the error
distribution can be described by a very simple equation, which is known as
a Weibull distribution with shape factor b = 2 or Rayleigh
distribution:
![]()
It
is interesting to place the horizontal errors in 1-meter bins. This yields the histogram below. Some will be surprised by the implications
of this graph. For example, the true
position is much more likely to be 2 to 3 meters or 3 to 4 meters away than is
to be 0 to 1 meter away. The reason for
this is that although the probability of a fix being within any unit area falls
off with range from the true position, the circumference at that range gets
larger (meaning there is more area at that range) which tends to increase the
probability of the true position being at that range. These opposite effects on the probability play against each other
in such a way to yield the observed effect.
Even though certain size errors are more likely, since the direction of
the error is not known, this cannot be used to improve the accuracy of the
position.

The
plot below is useful in relating the RMS error, the median (50% error bound or
CEP error), and the 95% error bound (DHPRE95) to the
Rayleigh distribution used for modeling GPS error.

Based
on the Rayleigh distribution, the table below can be used to estimate one error
statistic from another. To estimate an
error statistic on the top from an error statistic on the left, multiply by the
corresponding number in the table. In
the table, "E-N" indicates easting or northing error (the error in
longitude or latitude in length units) and "Horizontal" indicates
horizontal position error.
|
|
E-N Mean/58% |
E-N RMS/68% |
E-N 95% |
Horizontal CEP/50% |
Horizontal Mean/54% |
Horizontal RMS/63% |
Horizontal 95% |
|
E-N Mean/58% |
1.00 |
1.25 |
2.46 |
1.48 |
1.57 |
1.77 |
3.06 |
|
E-N RMS/68% |
0.80 |
1.00 |
1.96 |
1.18 |
1.25 |
1.41 |
2.44 |
|
E-N 95% |
0.41 |
0.51 |
1.00 |
0.60 |
0.64 |
0.72 |
1.24 |
|
Horizontal CEP/50% |
0.68 |
0.85 |
1.67 |
1.00 |
1.06 |
1.20 |
2.08 |
|
Horizontal Mean/54% |
0.64 |
0.80 |
1.56 |
0.94 |
1.00 |
1.13 |
2.01 |
|
Horizontal RMS/63% |
0.57 |
0.71 |
1.39 |
0.83 |
0.89 |
1.00 |
1.73 |
|
Horizontal 95% |
0.33 |
0.41 |
0.81 |
0.48 |
0.50 |
0.58 |
1.00 |
One
should note that there is some variation in terminology. In these writings, "RMS error"
indicates the traditional mathematical RMS error as defined above. Some manufacturers use "RMS error"
to indicated the 63% error distance; they do this believing that it may be more
useful for some comparisons. These two
definitions of "RMS error" exactly agree only if the Rayleigh error
model is exact - which it is not.
"CEP" (Circular Error Probable) in these writings indicates
the median or 50% error distance.
Although this is the common civilian definition, some recent military
receiver specifications use "CEP" to indicate the 95% error distance. In the writings here, the 95% error distance
will always be referred to as the 95% error distance, rather than as CEP or
some other term. Additionally, there is
some confusion over the term "2dRMS". Technically, "2dRMS" is defined as "two times the
distance RMS" error. Sometimes
"2dRMS" error is used interchanged with 95% error bound. Generally twice the RMS error is a
pessimistic estimate of the 95% error bound.
The
plot below shows the measured error distribution of a test configuration at the
author’s test point collected over 20 days after selective availability was
turned off. The test configuration was
an early Garmin 12XL with a 26 dB gain external Micropulse antenna. Note that later manufactured Garmin 12XL
receivers may perform differently. The
test location does show perhaps brief multipath; this may not be uncommon with
continuous observations at most locations.
The "jaggedness" is due to the fact that the receiver NMEA
data, like that of some other models, outputs latitude and longitude in steps
of 0.001 minutes. This gives rise to a
lattice of possible fix locations with N/S spacing of about 1.8 meters and E/W
spacing of about 1.5 meters at the test location. However, this effect has a contribution at only the centimeters
level in the RMS error and other error statistics. Also shown in the plot is the predicted Rayleigh distribution
based on the measured RMS error.

The
plot below shows the similar plot obtained from 30 days of data using a Garmin
eMap.

Note
in the above two plots that the agreement between measured and predicted error
statistics is only approximate due primarily to the Rayleigh distribution
approximation (assuming the error distribution is the same in all horizontal
directions); unfortunately, to do better than this is an intractable
mathematical problem.
In
the table below, the predicted (from the Rayleigh distribution and measured RMS
error) and measured errors from the Garmin 12XL test configuration 20-day data
are compared. The numbers in
parenthesis "( )" are the percentage of fixes closer than the stated
error distance. The numbers within
brackets "[ ]" are the ratios of that error distance to the RMS error
distance. All distances are in meters.
Entries in bold have their values
defined by the type of error so they will always be exact in any set of data.
|
Error |
Measured |
Predicted |
|
RMS
|
5.0 m (70%) [1.00] |
5.0 m (63%) [1.00] |
|
Mean
|
4.1 m (58%) [0.83] |
4.4 m (54%) [0.89] |
|
CEP
(50%) |
3.6 m (50%) [0.73] |
4.2 m (50%) [0.83] |
|
95%
|
9.0 m (95%) [1.81] |
8.6 m (95%) [1.73] |
The
table below is the corresponding table for the 30-day Garmin eMap data. Note the close agreement of the measured
ratios to RMS errors in the two tables.
|
Error |
Measured |
Predicted |
|
RMS
|
4.0 m (71%) [1.00] |
4.0 m (63%) [1.00] |
|
Mean
|
3.3 m (58%) [0.82] |
3.6 m (54%) [0.89] |
|
CEP
(50%) |
2.9 m (50%) [0.72] |
3.3 m (50%) [0.83] |
|
95%
|
6.9 m (95%) [1.72] |
7.0 m (95%) [1.73] |
The
percentages are those within the stated error.
The differences between predictions and measurements are probably a
combination of the assumptions made, biases in the receiver measurement and the
NMEA latitude/longitude resolution.
Note that the measured distances, although perhaps somewhat typical, are
for a particular receiver/antenna, surroundings, ionosphere conditions and
constellation status. Maximum errors
generally cannot be modeled as they represent rare events (such as multipath
due to surrounding a particular satellite geometry); thus reporting of maximum
errors is of little value.
The
tables below show error measurements six sets of simultaneous tests using two
GPS receiver antennas separated by 1.23 meters to avoid interference between the
receivers but close enough together to attempt similar receiving
conditions. The earlier Garmin 12XL
test gave smaller horizontal errors with an external antenna than the above
tests with the same Garmin 12XL using the internal antenna. As might be expected, the Eagle Explorer,
Garmin eMap and Garmin III+ gave smaller errors than the early production
Garmin 12XL that was tested. The tests
suggest that the Garmin III+ does perhaps better with its supplied helix
antenna than with the Micropulse external antenna; however, more tests would be
suggested to confirm this. (Text
continues after the tables.)
|
|
Garmin 12XL |
Eagle Explorer |
Garmin 12XL |
Garmin III+ |
Garmin 12XL |
Garmin III+/ext. ant. |
|
|
RMS
error |
5.5 m 5.5 m |
3.6
m 4.0
m |
5.6
m |
4.2
m |
5.6 m |
4.9
m |
|
|
Mean
error |
4.6 m 4.6 m |
3.0
m 3.5
m |
4.8
m |
3.6
m |
4.7 m |
4.2
m |
|
|
CEP
(50%) |
4.1 m 4.3 m |
2.9
m 2.9
m |
4.4
m |
3.4
m |
4.3 m |
3.8
m |
|
|
95% |
9.8 m 10.1
m |
7.2
m 7.1
m |
9.9
m |
7.5
m |
10.1
m |
8.7
m |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Mean
no. sat. |
6.92 6.67 |
6.60 6.60 |
6.75 |
6.80 |
6.79 |
7.14 |
|
|
Mean
HDOP |
1.36 1.42 |
1.15 1.16 |
1.44 |
1.41 |
1.43 |
1.34 |
|
|
RMS
HDOP |
1.39 1.46 |
1.16 1.18 |
1.49 |
1.46 |
1.48 |
1.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Notes |
Two
simultaneous 48
hour sessions (interchanging
receiver positions) |
One
simultaneous 48
hour sessions |
Internal antenna |
26
dB Micropulse antenna |
|||
|
One
simultaneous 48
hour session |
|||||||
|
|
Garmin 12XL |
Garmin eMap/GA-27C |
Lowrance GlobalNav 2 |
Garmin eMap/GA-27C |
|
|
RMS
error |
5.1 m |
3.9
m |
7.1
m |
3.6
m |
|
|
Mean
error |
4.4 m |
3.4
m |
5.9
m |
3.1
m |
|
|
CEP
(50%) |
4.0 m |
3.1
m |
4.9
m |
2.9
m |
|
|
95% |
9.0 m |
7.0
m |
14.2
m |
6.4
m |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Mean
no. sat. |
6.87 |
6.58 |
6.84 |
6.73 |
|
|
Mean
HDOP |
1.40 |
1.46 |
1.16 |
1.42 |
|
|
RMS
HDOP |
1.44 |
1.54 |
1.18 |
1.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Notes |
Internal antenna |
Garmin
GA-27C External
antenna |
Internal
antenna |
Garmin
GA-27C External
antenna |
|
|
One
simultaneous 48
hour session |
One
simultaneous 96
hour session |
||||
|
|