...
Spreadsheet here shows a comparison of error (in km) between CBG with multi-lateration and CBG with tri-lateration. The technique I've just taken the first three landmarks from each target file. Upcoming updates will include the followingfollowed:
- Sorting target lists in ascending order on the basis of RTT to bring those landmarks at the top which have lowest RTT values.distance between the target location and landmark location.
- Re-running the CBG code for new results.
- Populated the spreadsheet with results.
What I didn't do so far and why:
- Avoiding duplicate landmarks.
- Reason: If you look at the spreadsheet you will notice that there are duplicate entries for multi-lateration as well. You can infer this from matching Estimated Lat/Longs to Actual Lat/Longs and by observing the distance to the nearest landmark values. Also a few targets don't have more than two landmarks and consequently those are duplicates (in terms of Lat/Longs), so in such a case I don't have an option but to use the duplicate ones. However I do require comments on this on whether I should remove duplicates or not. The reason for my confusion is that multi-lateration uses duplicate entries
- .
- Avoiding landmarks present within a target's vicinity. This requires taking note of the location.
- Reason: Closely related to the point mentioned above.
What I don't plan to do (because I've tried and tested it and it failed):
- Sorting target lists on the basis of RTT to bring those landmarks at the top which have lowest RTT values. This technique fails since in some cases the top three landmarks in the Target files are located thousands of kilometers apart. I don't how these landmarks managed to have such low RTT values from the target. CBG with tri-lateration failed on such a sorting technique .. because landmarks were way off!
- Re-running the CBG code for new results.
- Populating the spreadsheet with new results.