Can the use of a base also affect the fixed position?

Dear community!

I have a basic question about correction data via CORR services and the use of an RS2/RS3 base station.

It is clear that a base station does not make sense if the rover is to be used in heavily wooded areas, in narrow urban canyons or even in buildings. But can a local base (RS2/RS3 with LoRa) increase the range of the rover? What I mean by that is that, for example, the measurement with Fix can work better near a high wall where it is no longer possible with a CORR service? Or that a measurement can work in wooded areas with a base and the measurement with the RTK service cannot.

What is your experience or level of knowledge? It would be helpful for me if you could say that the measurement options are improved with a local base (ATTENTION: I expressly do NOT mean improving accuracy, but only achieving more fixed positions). Or can you definitely say that using a local base station has no influence on the improvement (IMPORTANT: regardless of mobile data reception, of course).

I’m looking forward to your feedback. Thanks in advance…

Best regards from Austria

If I understand your question then from my experience with matching receivers, you can get some performance boost with a base station near by.
Mainly because of the shorter baseline and a matching set of receivers might utilize satellites or data not found on cors systems.


Like they say, it depends. It depends on your use case, site conditions and error budget, but in general, I would say there would always be some benefit to having your own Base unit onsite. Like TB_RTK mentioned, shorter baselines, more satellites/bands, matching receivers are going to work faster/better for you. Here is a link to what one of the highly regarded manufactures of high end surveying receivers had to say about the advantages of using a local Base.

It also depends on the receiver brands used. You mentioned both high multipath environments in your scenario, including trees and walls, where it can be tough to get precise and accurate results. I would say generally, that higher end receivers like Javad, Trimble, Lecia, Carlson, etc. are going to be better at mitigating high multipath environments. Though you still have to use your head, and have enough time on station, in order to get verifiable results even using Javad receivers I have found.

On high value targets, you would want to do repeated measurements at different times and days and/or static. Emlid multiband units do a commendable job, but even they say to be careful of high multipath situations. Sometimes it just faster and better to break out the total station/robot and get the results that way. Just my 2 cents…


Thank you for your very interesting feedback. I will soon carry out some tests and share my experiences with you.

1 Like

Hi Hannes,

First of all, I can agree that having shorter baselines can help obtain a more reliable connection between the base and the rover. In the case of using an NTRIP service, this means connecting to closer mount points.

But, either receiving corrections from an NTRIP service or using your own base to stream corrections via LoRa radio, the solution and accuracy highly depends on the environmental conditions. Surveying in a forest or with buildings nearby and having limited satellite visibility will probably make it more challenging for the receivers to obtain a stable FIX solution and can affect the achievable baseline, too.

I’d also like to share our Support tip with several ideas and thoughts about the configuration with LoRa radio.

Please feel free to share any further experience!