1

GPS error and its effects on movement analysis

arXiv:1504.04504v1 [physics.ins-det] 17 Apr 2015

Peter Ranacher

, Richard Brunauer2 , Stefan Christiaan Van der Spek3 , and Siegfried Reich

1 Department of Geoinformatics - Z GIS, University of Salzburg, Schillerstrae 30,

5020 Salzburg, Austria
2 Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Jakob Haringer Strae 5/3, 5020
Salzburg, Austria
3 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urbanism,
Julianalaan 134, 2628BL Delft, The Netherlands E-Mail: peter.ranacher@sbg.ac.at

Abstract
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), are
among the most important sensors in movement analysis. GPS data loggers are widely used to
record the movement trajectories of vehicles, animals or human beings. However, these trajectories are inevitably affected by GPS measurement error, which influences conclusion drawn about
the behavior of the moving objects. In this paper we investigate GPS measurement error and
discuss its influence on movement parameters such as speed, direction or distance. We identify
three characteristic properties of GPS measurement error: it follows temporal (1) and spatial (2)
autocorrelation and causes a systematic overestimation of distances (3). Based on our findings
we give recommendations on how to collect movement data in order to minimize the influence of
error. We claim that these recommendations are essential for designing an appropriate sampling
strategy for collecting movement data by means of a GPS.

Introduction
1

Introduction

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSs) such as the Global Positioning System (GPS)
have become essential sensors for collecting the movement of objects in geographical space. In
movement ecology, GPS tracking is used to unveil the migratory paths of birds [1], elephants [2]
or whales [3], in urban studies it helps detecting traffic flows [4] or human activity patterns in
cities [5], in transportation research GPS allows monitoring of intelligent vehicles [6] or mapping
of transportation networks [7], to name but a few examples of application.
Movement recorded by a GPS is commonly stored in form of a trajectory. A trajectory is an
ordered sequence of spatio-temporal positions: = < (P1 , t1 ), ..., (Pn , tn ) >, with t1 < ... < tn [8].
The expression (P , t) indicates that the moving object was at a position P at time t. In order to
represent the continuity of movement, consecutive positions (Pi , ti ) and (Pj , tj ) along the trajectory
are connected by an interpolation function [9].
However, although satellite navigation provides global positioning at an unprecedented accuracy, GPS trajectories remain affected by errors. There are two types of error inherent in any kind
of movement data, measurement error and interpolation error [10], and these errors inevitably also
affect trajectories recorded by a GPS.
Measurement error refers to the impossibility of determining the true position (P , t) of an
object due to the limitations of the measurement system. In the case of satellite navigation,
it reflects the spatial uncertainty associated with each position estimate.

2
Interpolation error refers to the limitations on interpolation representing the true motion
between consecutive positions (Pi , ti ) and (Pj , tj ). This error is influenced by the temporal
sampling rate at which a GPS unit records positions.
Measurement and interpolation errors cause the movement recorded by a GPS receiver to differ
from the true movement, which needs to be taken into account in order to achieve meaningful
results from GPS data. In this paper we focus on GPS measurement error. We show that it is
subject to both spatial as-well as temporal auto-correlation and we demonstrate how this affects
the calculation of movement parameters. Movement parameters are physical quantities of movement such as the distance travelled by an object, its speed, or direction [11]. Moreover, we identify
a systematic GPS error that results in GPS trajectories systematically overestimating distances.
We demonstrate this error using real-world data and provide a mathematical explanation. Based
on our results we give recommendations on how to record movement to minimize the influence of
GPS measurement error when calculating movement parameters.
Section 2 introduces relevant work from previously published literature. Section 3 discusses the
influence of measurement error on movement parameters. Section 4 describes the experiment and
presents our experimental results, Section 5 concludes the paper and gives recommendations on
how to collect movement data with a GPS in order to minimize the effects of error on movement
parameters.

Related work

Since GPS data have become a common component of scientific analyses its quality parameters
have received considerable attention. These parameters include the accuracy of the signal, as well
as its availability, continuity, integrity, reliability, coverage, and update rate [12]. The accuracy
of GPS data (i.e. the expected conformance of a position provided by a GPS receiver to the true
position, or the anticipated measurement error) is clearly of utmost importance. Measurement
error and its causes, influencing factors, and scale have been extensively discussed in published
literature: measurement error has been shown to vary over time [13] and to be location-dependent.
Shadowing effects, for example due to canopy cover, have a significant influence on its magnitude
[14]. Measurement error is both random, i.e. caused by external influences, and systematic,
i.e. caused by the systems limitations [15]. As such it is a result of several influencing factors.
According to Langley [16], these include:
Propagation delay: atmospheric variations can affect the speed of the GPS signal and hence
the time that it takes to reach the receiver;
drift in the GPS clock: a drift in the on-board clocks of the different GPS satellites causes
them to run asynchronously with respect to each other and to a reference clock;
Ephemeris error: imprecise satellite data and incorrect physical models affect estimations of
the true orbital position of each GPS satellite [17];
Hardware error: the GPS receiver, being as fault-prone as any other measurement instrument,
produces an error when processing the GPS signal;
Multipath propagation: infrastructure close to the receiver can reflect the GPS signal and
thus prolong its travel time from the satellite to the receiver;

3
Satellite geometry: an unfavourable geometric constellation of the satellites reduces the accuracy of positioning results.
A detailed overview of current GPS accuracy is provided in the quarterly report of the Federal
Aviation Administration [18]. A good introduction to the GPS in general, and to its error sources
and quality parameters in particular, has been provided by Hofmann-Wellenhof et al. [12].
The above-mentioned research has mainly focused on describing and understanding GPS measurement error. In addition to this filtering and smoothing approaches have been proposed for
recording movement data, in order to reduce the influence of errors on movement trajectories. A
concise summary of these approaches can be found in Parent et al. [15]. Jun et al. [19] tested
smoothing methods that best preserve the true travelled distance, speed, and acceleration. The
authors found that Kalman filtering resulted in the least difference between the true movement
and its representation.
Our work is based on the published literature discussed above but differs in its objectives, which
were to explain the influence of GPS measurement error (regardless of its causes) on the calculation
of movement parameters from GPS trajectories and give recommendations for recording these.

Movement parameters and measurement error

A GPS measurement consists of a spatial component (i.e. latitude , longitude ) and a temporal
component (i.e. a time stamp t). The GPS uses the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) as
a spatial coordinate reference system (CRS). WGS84 is a global CRS and latitude and longitude
are angular measures that uniquely identify a position on the earths surface, approximated by
the WGS84 reference ellipsoid. For reasons of simplicity it is preferable to transform the GPS
measurements to a Cartesian CRS such as the Universal Transversal Mercator (UTM) CRS. A
transformation from a spheroid (WGS84) to a Cartesian plane (UTM) leads to a distortion of
the original trajectories [12]. For vehicle, pedestrian, or animal movements consecutive positions
along a trajectory are usually sampled in intervals ranging from seconds to minutes. Thus, these
positions are very close together in space so that the distortion is insignificant for most practical
applications. Hence, for all the following consideration we assume that the movement is recorded
and all movement parameters are calculated in a UTM CRS.

3.1

Movement parameters

In navigation, a moving objects behaviour at a particular instant in time is most commonly

described by a state vector. A state vector consists of the objects current position, its instantaneous
velocity and acceleration and the time [12]. Such detailed information on the nature of movement is
often not available for trajectories recorded using a GPS receiver. If distance, speed or acceleration
are to be retrieved from , they inevitably have to be derived from consecutive spatio-temporal
positions along the trajectory. Table 1 summarizes all movement parameters analysed in this
article and describes how they are calculated from consecutive spatio-temporal positions.
In Table 1 the true movement parameters (left) are calculated from spatio-temporal positions
(Pi , ti ), (Pj , tj ), (Pk , tk ). These are free of measurement error, i.e. they are calculated from
positions that the moving object has attained along its path. The movement parameters measured
by a GPS (right) are all affected by GPS measurement error. They are calculated from GPS
positions (Pim , ti ), (Pjm , tj ), (Pkm , tk ). In Table 1 and in the the remainder of this paper, a
variable followed by the superscript m indicates a movement parameter (or position) affected by

Table 1: Movement parameters and their definitions

true

Movement parameter
Distance
Speed

Direction

Turning angle
1

Variable

Definition

Variable

Definition

di,j = d(Pi , Pj )

dm

m
m
dm
i,j = d(Pi , Pj )

di,j
t
vj,k vi,j
t

vm

Acceleration

measured by a GPS

vi,j =

am

dm
i,j
t
m
m
vj,k
vi,j
t

m
vi,j
=

am
i,j,k =

ai,j,k =

i,j = (Pi , Pj )

m
i,j
= (Pim , Pjm )

i,j,k = j,k i,j

m
m
m
i,j,k
= j,k
i,j

d(A, B) is the Euclidean distance between A and B, 2 t = tj ti = constant, for all i, j

3 (A, B) is the angle between the UTM x-axis and the vector
AB

measurement error, whereas the same variable with no superscript denotes the true parameter (or
position).
The following Section describes the spatial component of GPS measurement error in more
detail. Strictly speaking, also the temporal component of a GPS measurement is affected by error,
in practice, however, this error can be neglected [20].

3.2

GPS measurement error

Very generally, a spatial position in UTM is a two-dimensional coordinate

x
,
P =
y

(1)

where x is the metric distance of the position from a reference point in eastern direction and
y in northern direction. If a moving object is recorded at position P by means of a GPS, the
position estimate P m = (xm , y m ) is affected by measurement error. The relationship between the
true position and its estimate is very trivially

Pm = P +
,

(2)

where = (x , y ) is the horizontal measurement error expressed as a vector in the horizontal

plane. We adopt the convention used by Codling et al. [21] to denote random variables with upper

case letters (e.g., E ) and their numerical values with lower case letters (e.g.,
).

Let pdfgps be the probability density function of horizontal GPS measurement error E at
position P . For reasons of generality, it is desirable to treat pdfgps as being location-independent
[22], however, in reality it varies considerably with the location of P [18]. Moreover, the pdfgps
is often assumed to have a bivariate normal distribution and to be independent in both the xand y-direction [23, 24]. However, Chin [25] puts forward convincing arguments that GPS error is
very likely not independent in both the x- and y-direction, but rather follows an elliptical error
distribution. The shape of this ellipse is different for different locations. Hence, and also for reasons
of generality, it preferable to assume pdfgps follows an arbitrary bivariate distribution.

There are several quality measures to describe the observed distribution of E , the most common
being the 95 % radius (R95), which is defined as the radius of the smallest circle that encompasses

5
95 % of all position estimates [25]. This circle is centred on the true position of the pdfgps . The
official GPS Performance Analysis Report for the Federal Aviation Administration [18] states that
the current set-up of the GPS allows receivers to measure a spatial position with an average R95 of
slightly over 3 meters. The values in the report were, however, obtained from reference stations that
were equipped with high quality receivers and had unobstructed views of the sky. It is reasonable
to assume that the accuracy would be reduced in other recording environments, as measurement
error depends to a considerable extent on the receiver, as well as on the geographic location [16,18].
This assumption is supported by published literature on GPS accuracy in forests [26] and on urban
road networks [27], as well as on the accuracies of different GPS receivers [28, 29].

3.3

The influence of time and space on GPS measurement error

According to Menditto et al. [30] the accuracy of a measurement system combines two quality
parameters: its trueness and precision. The trueness is the proximity of the mean of a set of
measurements to the true value, while the precision is the proximity of the measurements to one
another. In this section we discuss the influence of time and space on the trueness and precision
of GPS measurements and, consequently, on the calculation of movement parameters.
We have so far considered the distribution of horizontal GPS measurement error independent
of space and time. The pdfgps describes how a GPS position estimate P m deviates from its true
position P . The pdfgps has very high trueness (i.e. the expectation value of position estimates is
centred on the true position), but low precision (i.e. the measurements are widely spread). The
error appears to be random. These assumptions are supported by empirical GPS measurements
(see, Figure 1 a).
We will now consider the distribution of GPS measurement error with time. We would argue
that GPS measurements are not independent of time [24], but that measurements taken at the same
location and at similar times will have a similar error due to similar atmospheric conditions and a
similar satellite constellation: the error appears to be more systematic. We therefore define pdftemp

as the distribution of E at position P during the time interval t = tj ti ; t is assumed to be

short (around several minutes). The pdftemp therefore describes how any two position estimates,
P m at ti and P m at tj , will deviate from their (identical) true position P given that both are
recorded during a short time interval t. If t is short, the influence of the satellite constellation
and the atmosphere should be very similar and we can therefore expect the error to be less dispersed,
yielding a high precision. However, in contrast to the pdfgps position estimates will most likely not
by distributed around P and hence the trueness of pdftemp is expected to be low.
We carried out a simple experiment to visualize the difference between pdfgps and pdftemp .
This involved placing a GPS receiver at a known position P and recording the deviation in each
position estimate P m . For the experiment we used a QSTARZ:BT-Q1000X GPS unit 1 unit with
Assisted GPS activated to record about 720 positions over a period of about six hours, at a
sampling rate of 1/30 Hz. The resulting point cloud generated an R95 of about 3 m (Figure 1
a). The distribution was centred on the true position (high trueness) but was widely spread (low
precision). If only those measurements are displayed that were recorded within a certain time
interval the resulting point cloud appears less dispersed, but is not equally spread around the true
position. The positional measurements are therefore very precise but not very true. Figure 1 b
shows only those measurements that were taken within periods covering 5 minutes before and after
t1 , t2 , t3 .
When tracking a moving object, the time interval between any two consecutive position estimates is generally short. However, these measurements do not relate to a static true position but
to one that dynamically changes over a short time interval and within a small distance. We would
1 for

specifications, please refer to: http://www.qstarz.com/Products/GPS/20Products/BT-Q1000.html

Pm around t1

Pm

Pm
P
Pm around t2

Qm

P
R95 3m

P around t3

R95 3m

s-neighbourhood of P

R95 3m

Figure 1: pdfgps (a), pdftemp (b) and pdfmove (c)

argue that consecutive GPS measurements are not independent of space and time: measurements
taken at similar times and in a similar location will have similar error vectors. We therefore in

troduce pdfmove to be the distribution of E in the s-neighbourhood of P during the short time
interval t = tj ti . Here, the s-neighbourhood of P comprises all points whose distance to P
is less than s, where s is assumed to be small (usually only a few meters). The pdfmove describes
how any two position estimates, P m at ti and Qm at tj , will deviate from their respective true
positions, P and Q, assuming that both measurements are taken during a short time interval t
and that Q is within the s-neighbourhood of P . Figure 1 c shows a (theoretical) example of two
position estimates at P and Q, where Q is in the s-neighbourhood of P .

Pm

R95

Pm

d
Q
d

Qm

R95

Qm

Figure 2: pdfmove and its effects on calculating dm

The pdfmove is relevant for calculating movement parameters from GPS position estimates.
This is illustrated in Figure 2, where an object moves the true distance d between P and Q (black

m
line). If the measurement error

(red dashed
P at P is similar to Q at Q (red solid lines), d
m
line) is similar to d; if the measurement errors are not similar (blue solid lines), d (blue dashed

lines) and d are different. Both

P and Q are drawn from pdfmove . Hence, the difference between

m
d and d depends solely on pdfmove at the time and the vicinity of recording. A similar point can

be made for the relationship between true and measured direction. If

P and Q are similar the

m
true direction is similar to the measured direction .
The characteristics of pdfmove are largely unknown and, moreover, not empirically determinable.
They depend on a plethora of factors including the type and quality of the GPS receiver used, the
satellite constellation, the atmospheric conditions, the location and time of recording the position
estimates and the temporal and spatial proximity of the true positions. Despite these sources of
uncertainty, we propose that the pdfmove has three characteristic properties:
Property 1 : GPS measurment error is affected by temporal autocorrelation. As the time interval
t between two consecutive position estimates increases, we would expect the pdfmove to
become more widely dispersed and the precision of the measurements to decrease on average.
Note that high precision does not imply high accuracy and highly precise measurements can
be very inaccurate due to low trueness.
Property 2 : GPS measurment error is affected by spatial autocorrelation. As the true distance
d between two position estimates increases we would expect the pdfmove to become more
widely dispersed and the precision of the measurements to decrease on average .
Property 3 : The pdfmove causes a systematic error in movement parameters. Distances recorded
by a GPS receiver are, on average, larger than the true distances travelled by the moving
object.
Properties 1 and 2 are evident from the observations described above, Property 3 is discussed
in detail in section 3.4. In section 4 all three properties are supported by experimental results with
real-world GPS data.

3.4

Overestimation of distance through the GPS

In this section we discuss the reason why measurement error causes the distance recorded by a
GPS receiver to be on average greater than the true distance travelled by a moving object.
In subsection 3.4.1 we provide a mathematical explanation for measurement error resulting in
an overestimation of distance, in subsection 3.4.2 we calculate the overestimation for different
magnitudes of measurement error. In Section 4 we illustrate this property, together with the other
characteristics of pdfmove , in an experiment.
3.4.1

Geometric explanation

Consider two true positions, P and Q, these being positions the moving object passes through on
its path. The distance d = d(P , Q) is the true distance that the moving object travels between P
and Q. Consider now that a GPS receiver measures the position of the moving object at P and a

short t later at Q. These position estimates P m and Qm are affected by measurement error E .
This error propagates to measured distance dm = d(P m , Qm ). As a consequence of measurement
error we conjecture that
E(dm ) > d,
where E(dm ) is the expected value of measured distance.

8
Theorem 1 For two arbitrary consecutive GPS positions and if interpolation error can be ignored,
the expected measured distance E(dm ) along a GPS trajectory is always larger than the true distance
d travelled by the moving object, due to the influence of measurement error.
This inevitable overestimation of distance OD = E(dm ) d referred to in Theorem 1 is bound
to occur in GPS data and can be explained geometrically.

Let us assume that measurement error E for both P m and Qm is drawn from pdfmove . Again,
for reasons of generality, we assume that pdfmove does not necessarily follow a bivariate normal
distribution, and that its components are not necessarily independent of each other. The first and
second moments of the pdfmove are very generally defined by the expected error and the
covariance matrix :

E(Ex )
x2
x y

.
=
and
=
E(Ey )
y x
y2
This implies that the expected error for pdfmove is the same at P as it is at Q, which is
reasonable as both points are close together in both space and time. The variance associated with
the difference vector P m Qm is now simply V = 2 . The situation is, however, complicated

by the fact that this relationship is only valid if E at Qm is independent of P m . It is important

to note that, at a certain time and location both measurements, P m and Qm , will be similar, but
this is due to the constellation of the GPS satellites and the characteristics of the environment and
does not imply that one measurement affects the other. Hence, the relationship V = 2 holds.
Now d2 = (P Q)2 = (P Q)T I2 (P Q) is the square of the true distance and
2
dm = (P m Qm )2 = (P m Qm )T I2 (P m Qm ) is the square of the measured distance,
where I2 is the identity matrix with dimensions of 2 2:

1 0
.
I2 =
0 1
According to Johnson et al. [31] the expected value of the quadratic form for dm is:
2

E(dm ) = Trace(I V ) + E(P m Qm )T I E(P m Qm ).

In this equation, Trace(I V ) = 2x2 + 2y2 , and therefore is always positive. If E(P m ) = P and
E(Qm ) = Q, i.e. if the expected positions are the true positions, then
2

E(dm ) = 2x2 + 2y2 + (P Q)T I (P Q)

= 2x2 + 2y2 + d2 .

(3)

It therefore follows that E(dm ) > d. However, this is only the case if we consider the measurement
error to be equally distributed around the true position (i.e. the measurements are expected to
have a high trueness) and this cannot be guaranteed for pdfmove . If the expected positions differ
from the true positions, E(P m ) 6= P and E(Qm ) 6= Q, then
2
E(dm ) = 2x2 + 2y2 + d2 ,

where d2 is the square of the distance between E(P m ) and E(Qm ). An overestimation of distance
can now still be expected if
P E(P m ) = Q E(Qm ) = .

In this case the expected values of the position estimates deviate by the same vector from
their true positions. This is assumed by the definition of pdfmove . It therefore follows that
d(E(P m ), E(Qm )) = d(P , Q) and d2 = d2 , and Equation 3 therefore holds true.

9
3.4.2

The characteristics of overestimation

From Equation 3 it follows that the difference between E(dm ) and d is related to the variance of
measurement error of each position estimate:
2

2(x2 + y2 ) = E(dm ) d2 .

If we assume that 2 = x2 = y2 , i.e. that the error is the same in x- and y- directions, then
q
E(dm 2 ) d2
(4)
=
2
yields a quality measure for pdfmove since describes the dispersal of the measurements and
therefore allows conclusions to be drawn on their precision. Note that 2 is assumed to be the
same in both x and y purely for convenience, since the precision would otherwise be the square
root of the variance in x and y and Equation 4 would change slightly.
b

overestimation of distance OD [m]

overestimation of distance OD [m]

Figure 3: Overestimation of distance for different values of d (a) and (b)

The expected overestimation of distance OD = E(dm ) d generally increases as the precision
of measurements decreases (Note: when the precision of the measurements decreases increases!).
Figure 3 a shows the value of OD as increases, with d assumed to be constant. For a true
distance d = 5m (yellow line) a precision of = 1m yields an overestimation of 1m, a precision
of = 5m an overestimation of 2m. In contrast, the overestimation of distance decreases as the
separation between the true positions d increases. Figure 3 b shows the value of OD as the true
distance d increases, with assumed to be constant. For a precision of = 2m (blue line) a true
distance d = 5m yields an overestimation of 2m, a true distance d = 10m an overestimation of
1m.
In the following section we show the overestimation of distance in real-world GPS trajectories
and use it to discuss the precision of the measurements.

4
4.1

Experimental evaluation of measurement error

Experimental setup

In the following experiment we attempt to show that the characteristics concerning pdfmove discussed in Section 3.3 agree with observations obtained from real-world GPS data. In the experiment

10
we performed distance measurements using a GPS data logger along a course with well-established
reference distances. In this way we were assured of obtaining a true distance d not affected by
= dm d and
noise. We calculated the average measured distance dm and from this derive OD
m2
2
d
d
and

=
. OD
are estimators for OD and .
2
The reference course was located in an empty parking lot to avoid shadowing and multi-path
effects. We staked out a square with sides that were 10 m long and had markers at one metre
intervals. A square was used in order to allow distance measurements to be collected in all four
cardinal directions (approximately). The distance between the markers was used as a reference
distance, henceforth simply referred to as the true distance d. All positions were recorded using
a QSTARZ:BT-Q1000X GPS unit 2 with Assisted GPS activated. We considered that it was
sufficient to use only a single GPS unit as the aim of the experiment was not to investigate the
quality of the particular GPS unit, but the suggestion that measurement error follows a certain
logic and yields results that are independent of the device used. The GPS unit was treated as a
black box, i.e. the algorithm to calculate the position estimates from the raw GPS signal was
not known.
The GPS measurements were obtained by placing the GPS receiver on each reference marker
in turn and recording the position, moving around the square until the position of all markers
had been recorded. Positions were only recorded at the reference markers, and only when the
recording button was pushed manually. Two consecutive position estimates were taken promptly
(within 3 5 seconds) in order to ensure similar satellite and atmospheric conditions. A full circuit
around the square took between 2 and 3 minutes (approximately) and resulted in 40 positions
being recorded. A total of 25 circuits around the square were completed, without any breaks. This
resulted in 1000 GPS positions being collected in approximately one hour.
In pre-processing the recorded positions were connected to form trajectories and the distances
dm along these trajectories were compared to the true distances d between the markers. Distance
was calculated according to Table 1.

4.2

Results

The results support all three properties raised in Section 3.3, namely that GPS measurement error
is affected by (1) temporal and (2) spatial autocorrelation and causes a (3) systematical overestimation of distances. In this Section we explain our results in detail.
(black dots) for different true distances d. The data therefore support the
Figure 4 shows OD
proposition in Property 3 , that the pdfmove causes distance measurements by GPS to overestimate
the true distance.
In contrast to the theoretical findings, overestimation of distance tended to increase as the
true distance d increased. We argue that this was due to a decrease in the precision of the GPS
measurements induced by their increasing difference in location. The position estimates became
more dispersed, and the
of the GPS measurement error increased (black crosses in Figure 4);
These results therefore support the proposition in Property 2 that pdfmove becomes more dispersed
as d between two position estimates increases.
Figure 5 shows the histograms of distance difference dm d for d = 1 m (a), and for d = 5 m
(b), and their fit to a Gaussian distribution. There is no indication in either histogram that the
overestimation of distance is due to positive outliers. On the contrary, both follow a Gaussian
distribution N (d , d2 ) rather well and outliers are almost non-existent. Note that d and d2 in
Figure 5 refer to the values of the fitted Gaussian distribution and not to the empirically derived
2 for

specifications, please refer to: http://www.qstarz.com/Products/GPS/20Products/BT-Q1000.html

11

precision ^ [m]

^ [m]
overestimation of distance OD

^
OD
^

Figure 4: Overestimation of distance measured with a GPS with increasing true distance between
two position estimates
frequency.
a

Figure 5: Difference between measured and true distance for d = 1 m (a), d = 5 m (b)
In order to illustrate the suggested influence of time on the pdfmove we also calculated the distance between non-consecutive position estimates around the square. One example is the distance
between two position estimates taken at two consecutive markers, where the latter measurement
was collected one circuit later. The true distance between the markers remains the same, i.e. 1 m,
but the measurements are taken within a longer time interval. Figure 6 shows the relationship be (black dots) as well as
tween the time interval between consecutive measurements and OD
(black

crosses) for a true distance d = 1 m. Both OD and

increase with longer time intervals. The
sharpest increase occurs between measurements that were taken promptly and those taken after
about 2 12 minutes. After 40 minutes the curve levels out, the dispersal of the position estimates

12
no longer increases. Up until that time, the data support the proposition in Property 1 that the
pdfmove becomes increasingly dispersed as the t between two position estimates increases.

precision ^ [m]

^ [m]
overestimation of distance OD

^
OD
^

Figure 6: Overestimation of distance measured with a GPS with increasing time interval between
two position estimates (d = 1 m)

Conclusion and Discussion

In this paper we have evaluated the effects of measurement error on GPS trajectories. First,
we showed how movement parameters are calculated from GPS measurements. Then, we took a
closer look at GPS measurement error and the influence of space and time. We suggested that
the pdfmove has three characteristic properties and demonstrated these using real-world GPS data.
Property 1 is that, in general, the closer two GPS position estimates are in time the more similar
are their measurement error vectors; Property 2 is that, in general, the closer two GPS position
estimates are in space along a trajectory, the more similar are their measurement error vectors;
and Property 3 is that measurement error causes a systematic overestimation of distance (i.e. if
interpolation error is ignored then the distances recorded by a GPS receiver are on average larger
than the true distances travelled by the moving object). In addition to an empirical experiment,
we also provided a mathematical explanation for the third property.
In our analysis we treated the GPS unit as a black box. This raises the legitimate question,
whether our results were produced by a smoothing algorithm rather than the behaviour of the
GPS. Let us assume that a smoothing algorithm was used in the GPS unit. In simplified form,
the current position estimate is then calculated from the last position estimate, the current GPS
measurement and a movement model. For movement with constant speed and direction, smoothing
yields trajectories that represent the true movement very accurately. However, sudden changes in
movement, i.e. a sharp turn, are not followed by the trajectory. The current measurement implies a
sharp turn, however, the movement model does not. Thus, the sharp turn becomes more elongated,
the overestimation of distance increases. This should be visible in our data. However, we did not
find any support for an increase in the overestimation of distance after a sharp turn. It was the
same for all parts along the square, no matter if the movement was recorded immediately after
turning the corner or not.

13
Our findings in Section 4 have implications for the way movement is collected when using a
GPS. We now synthesize our results and give recommendations for recording the movement parameters distance, speed, acceleration, direction and turning angle. Our recommendations focus
on the temporal sampling rate of recording, filtering or smoothing are not addressed. An appropriate temporal sampling strategy for GPS trajectories is always tailored to the characteristics
of the moving object and must take interpolation error into consideration. Hence, before giving
recommendations, we briefly discuss the role of interpolation error when recording movement.

5.1

The role of interpolation error when recording movement

Interpolation error refers to the limitations on interpolation representing a moving objects true
behaviour, i.e., it is the difference between the objects true and interpolated movement. Interpolation error strongly affects the calculation of movement parameters, which is briefly discussed in
this paragraph. All considerations relate to linear interpolation, as it is the easiest and most common type of interpolation [9]. Linear interpolation assumes that between two recordings an object
moves in a straight line and at a uniform speed; any change of speed and direction is assumed to
occur abruptly and only at one of the position recordings.
Firstly, interpolation error causes the interpolated spatial path to differ from the true path
with respect to its direction and distance. Interpolation always follows a straight line between two
positions, hence interpolated distances are always less than or equal to the true distance. This systematic under estimation of distances also affects speed. Interpolation error tends to underestimate
speed.
Secondly, interpolation error concerns the objects spatio-temporal progression along its path.
The interpolated speed and direction are average values over the time period between two recordings. They do not provide any information on instantaneous speed and direction. An object
moving at a variable speed and another moving at a uniform speed can have the same average
speed between two recordings, but only the latter of the two will be captured appropriately by a
GPS trajectory.
Interpolation error can be controlled by the temporal sampling rate at which movement is
recorded: the shorter the time interval between two recordings, the smaller the interpolation error.
The choice of an appropriately short temporal sampling rate depends to a large degree on the
moving object, its speed and turning angle and the tendency to change these. In general, an
object that tends to move uniformly with infrequent changes in direction requires less frequent
sampling compared to an object that moves non-uniformly and frequently changes its direction.
For each movement parameter we now give sampling recommendations. We consider both
the theoretical and experimental findings about measurement error as well as interpolation error.
It is, however, beyond the scope of this paper to fully reveal the complex interaction between
measurement and interpolation error when recording GPS trajectories.

5.2

Sampling recommendations to reduce the influence of measurement

error

(Cumulative) distance:
Distance is calculated from two consecutive position estimates. For high sampling rates these
are close together in both space and time and are therefore likely to have similar error vectors
(see Figure 6). In general, this spatio-temporal autocorrelation yields a measured distance dm
that is similar to the true distance d (see Section 4). However, measurement error also causes a
systematic overestimation of d (see Section 3.4). This effect has been explained mathematically in
subsection 3.4.1, and demonstrated using real-world trajectory data in subsections 4.

14
In our experiment the moving object travels along a straight line between successive measurement points. For such a scenario interpolation error can be ignored. For other scenarios, such
as a car moving in a street network or a pedestrian walking along a winding road, the effect of
interpolation error can counterbalance or even outweigh the effect of measurement error. This has
previously been noted in the trajectories of fishing vessels [32]: for high sampling rates the distance
travelled by the vessel was overestimated due to measurement error, while for lower sampling rates
it was underestimated due to the increasing influence of interpolation error.
Hence, a temporal sampling rate must balance out these opposing effects of measurement and
interpolation error to properly represent the distances a moving object has travelled.
Speed and acceleration:
In order to ensure that the measured speed v m and acceleration am are similar to the true speed v
and the true acceleration a we require reliable distance measurements dm . Due to spatio-temporal
autocorrelation of measurement error we can achieve a reliable dm with very high sampling rates,
i.e. position estimates that are close together in space and time (see, Figure 6). However, high
sampling rates result in a systematic overestimation of speed. In contrast to distance, speed is not
cumulative and therefore these slight systematic errors are also not cumulative.
In conclusion, high sampling rates are advisable for reducing both measurement and interpolation error when recording speed and acceleration.
Direction and turning angle:
Similar to distance, the measured direction m and turning angle m are more similar to the true
direction and turning angle when they are calculated from positions that are close together in
space and time. Therefore, high sampling rates reduce the effects of measurement and interpolation
error.

5.3

Discussion

GPS trajectories have been widely used for describing and analyzing movement [3335]. However,
the influence of error on these trajectories has only been addressed briefly if at all in these
studies, which is rather surprising. Moreover, the choice of the sampling strategy has not always
been explained. We claim that an appropriate sampling strategy for collecting movement data by
means of a GPS is crucial and that it must consider the following aspects:
The sampling strategy must reflect the aims of movement analysis, i.e. which information is
needed for the analysis and at which level of detail?
It must respond to the characteristics of the moving object under observation, i.e. it must
consider the expected interpolation error.
It must address the influence of measurement error when collecting the movement data.
In this paper we reveal three fundamental properties of GPS measurement error and we discuss
their implications when calculating movement parameters. These properties are independent of the
type of movement under consideration. Hence, our findings are generally applicable when analysing
movement by means of a GPS. We claim that they provide an important basis for designing an
appropriate sampling strategy for collecting movement data by means of a GPS.
Our findings have implications not only for recording movement but also for simulations. Laube
and Purves [36] performed a simulation to reveal the complex interaction between measurement error and interpolation error and their effects on recording the movement parameters speed, turning

15
angle and sinuosity. Their Monte Carlo approach assumed GPS errors to scatter entirely randomly between each two consecutive positions. Our empirical analysis shows that this assumption
is not realistic, since measurement error is not purely random, but affected by spatio-temporal
autocorrelation, and, thus, tends to be similar for similar positions in space and time.

Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the Doctoral College
GIScience at the University of Salzburg (DK W 1237-N23). We thank Arne Bathke and Wolfgang
Trutschnig from the Department of Mathematics of the University of Salzburg for their invaluable
help on quadratic forms.

References
1. Higuchi H, Pierre JP (2005) Satellite tracking and avian conservation in asia. Landscape
and Ecological Engineering 1: 3342.
2. Douglas-Hamilton I, Krink T, Vollrath F (2005) Movements and corridors of african elephants in relation to protected areas. Naturwissenschaften 92: 158-163.
3. Elwen SH, Best PB (2004) Environmental factors influencing the distribution of southern
right whales (eubalaena australis) on the south coast of south africa ii: Within bay distribution. Marine Mammal Science 20: 583-601.
4. Zheng Y, Liu Y, Yuan J, Xie X (2011) Urban computing with taxicabs. In: Proceedings of
the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous computing. ACM, pp. 89-98.
5. Van der Spek S, Van Schaick J, De Bois P, De Haan R (2009) Sensing human activity: Gps
tracking. Sensors 9: 3033-3055.
6. Zito R, dEste G, Taylor MA (1995) Global positioning systems in the time domain: How
useful a tool for intelligent vehicle-highway systems? Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies 3: 193209.
7. Mintsis G, Basbas S, Papaioannou P, Taxiltaris C, Tziavos I (2004) Applications of gps
technology in the land transportation system. European Journal of Operational Research
152: 399-409.
8. G
uting R, Schneider M (2005) Moving objects databases. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
9. Macedo J, Vangenot C, Othman W, Pelekis N, Frentzos E, et al. (2008) Trajectory Data
Models, Berlin: Springer, book section 5. pp. 123 - 150.
10. Schneider M (1999) Uncertainty management for spatial data in databases: Fuzzy spatial
data types, Berlin: Springer. pp. 330-351. doi:10.1007/3-540-48482-5\ 20.
11. Dodge S, Weibel R, Lautensch
utz AK (2008) Towards a taxonomy of movement patterns.
Information visualization 7: 13.
12. Hofmann-Wellenhof B, Legat K, Wieser M (2003) Navigation: Principles of positioning and
guidance. Wien: Springer Verlag, 427 pp.
13. Olynik M (2002) Temporal characteristics of GPS error sources and their impact on relative
positioning. Report, University of Calgary.

16
14. DEon RG, Serrouya R, Smith G, Kochanny CO (2002) GPS radiotelemetry error and bias
in mountainous terrain. Wildlife Society Bulletin : 430-439.
15. Parent C, Spaccapietra S, Renso C, Andrienko G, Andrienko N, et al. (2013) Semantic
trajectories modeling and analysis. ACM Computing Surveys 45: 1-32.
16. Langley RB (1997) The GPS error budget. GPS world 8: 51-56.
17. Colombo OL (1986) Ephemeris errors of GPS satellites. Bulletin geodesique 60: 64-84.
18. William J Hughes Technical Center & NSTB/WAAS T&E Team (2013) Global Positioning
System (GPS) Standard Positioning Service (SPS) Performance Analysis Report . Report,
Federal Aviation Administration.
19. Jun J, Guensler R, Ogle JH (2006) Smoothing methods to minimize impact of Global Positioning System random error on travel distance, speed, and acceleration profile estimates.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1972: 141150.
20. Mumford P (2003) Relative timing characteristics of the one pulse per second (1PPS) output
pulse of three GPS receivers. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Satellite
Navigation Technology Including Mobile Positioning & Location Services (SatNav 2003). pp.
22-25.
21. Codling EA, Plank MJ, Benhamou S (2008) Random walk models in biology. Journal of the
Royal Society Interface 5: 813-834.
22. Buchin K, Sijben S, Arseneau TJM, Willems EP (2012) Detecting movement patterns using
brownian bridges. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advances in
Geographic Information Systems. ACM, pp. 119128.
23. Jerde CL, Visscher DR (2005) GPS measurement error influences on movement model parameterization. Ecological Applications 15: 806-810.
24. Bos, MS, Fernandes R, Williams S, Bastos L (2008) Fast error analysis of continuous GPS
observations. Journal of Geodesy 82: 157-166.
25. Chin GY (1987) Two-dimensional Measures of Accuracy in Navigational Systems. Report
DOT-TSC-RSPA-87-1, U.S. Department of Transportation.
26. Sigrist P, Coppin P, Hermy M (1999) Impact of forest canopy on quality and accuracy of
GPS measurements. International Journal of Remote Sensing 20: 3595-3610.
27. Modsching M, Kramer R, ten Hagen K (2006) Field trial on GPS Accuracy in a medium
size city: The influence of built-up. In: 3rd Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and
Communication. pp. 209-218.
28. Wing MG, Eklund A, Kellogg LD (2005) Consumer-grade global positioning system (GPS)
accuracy and reliability. Journal of Forestry 103: 169-173.
29. Zandbergen PA (2009) Accuracy of iPhone locations: A comparison of assisted GPS, WiFi
and cellular positioning. Transactions in GIS 13: 5-25.
30. Menditto A, Patriarca M, Magnusson B (2007) Understanding the meaning of accuracy,
trueness and precision. Accreditation and Quality Assurance 12: 45-47.

17
31. Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1994) Continuous Univariate Distributions: Vol.: 1,
volume 1. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
32. Palmer MC (2008) Calculation of distance traveled by fishing vessels using GPS positional
data: A theoretical evaluation of the sources of error. Fisheries Research 89: 57-64.
33. Zheng Y, Li Q, Chen Y, Xie X, Ma WY (2008) Understanding mobility based on GPS data.
In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing. ACM, pp.
312-321.
34. Giannotti F, Nanni M, Pedreschi D, Pinelli F, Renso C, et al. (2011) Unveiling the complexity
of human mobility by querying and mining massive trajectory data. The VLDB Journal The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases 20: 695-719.
35. Andrienko G, Andrienko N, Hurter C, Rinzivillo S, Wrobel S (2011) From movement tracks
through events to places: Extracting and characterizing significant places from mobility data.
In: 2011 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). IEEE, pp.
161170.
36. Laube P, Purves RS (2011) How fast is a cow? Cross-Scale Analysis of Movement Data.
Transactions in GIS 15: 401-418.