CEN/TR 17465:2020

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-julij-2020
Vesolje - Ugotavljanje položaja z uporabo sistema globalne satelitske navigacije
(GNSS) pri inteligentnih transportnih sistemih (ITS) v cestnem prometu -
Opredelitev terenskih preskusov za osnovno zmogljivost
Space - Use of GNSS-based positioning for road Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) -
Field tests definition for basic performance
Definition von Feldtests für Grundleistungen
Espace - Utilisation de la localisation basée sur les GNSS pour les systèmes de
transport routiers intelligents - Définition des essais terrains pour les performances
générales
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 17465:2020
ICS:
33.070.40 Satelit Satellite
35.240.60 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in transport
prometu
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

TECHNICAL REPORT
CEN/TR 17465
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
April 2020
ICS 03.220.20; 33.060.30; 35.240.60

English version
Space - Use of GNSS-based positioning for road Intelligent
Transport Systems (ITS) - Field tests definition for basic
performance
Espace - Utilisation de la localisation basée sur les Definition von Feldtests für Grundleistungen
GNSS pour les systèmes de transport routiers
intelligents - Définition des essais terrains pour les
performances générales
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 23 February 2020. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee
CEN/CLC/JTC 5.
CEN and CENELEC members are the national standards bodies and national electrotechnical committees of Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom.

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre:
Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2020 CEN/CENELEC All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means Ref. No. CEN/TR 17465:2020 E
reserved worldwide for CEN national Members and for
CENELEC Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 6
1 Scope . 7
2 Normative references . 8
3 Terms and definitions . 8
4 List of acronyms . 8
5 Definition of the general strategy: what kind of tests? . 9
5.1 General. 9
5.2 GBPT characterization . 9
5.2.1 An hybrid and heterogenic system . 9
5.2.2 Test combinatory explosion: an issue . 10
5.2.3 Proposed approach . 11
5.3 Stakeholders and responsibilities . 13
5.3.1 Industry value chain . 13
5.3.2 Roles and responsibilities . 14
5.4 Main criteria for testing strategy . 16
5.5 Potential test methods . 17
5.5.1 General . 17
5.5.2 Simulations . 17
5.5.3 Field test . 17
5.5.4 Record and Replay . 18
5.5.5 Verification methods face-off table with regard to main criteria for testing strategy . 19
5.6 Metrics coverage . 21
5.6.1 Need of refinement of the metrics data sets . 21
5.6.2 Unique data collection for the accuracy, availability, integrity metrics . 21
5.6.3 Same data collection for a flexible list of road applications . 22
5.6.4 Particular case of the integrity risk . 22
5.6.5 Particular case of the TTFF assessment . 24
5.6.6 Fit the test methodology to the metrics purposes . 24
5.7 Recommendation for testing strategy . 26
5.7.1 General . 26
5.7.2 Proposal for a homologation plan (case of complex hybridized GBPT systems considered) . 27
6 Definition of the operational scenario: how to configure the tests? . 30
6.1 General. 30
6.2 Preamble . 30
6.3 Status of definition of an operational scenario: discussions . 32
6.3.1 General . 32
6.3.2 Set-up conditions . 32
6.3.3 Trajectory/motion . 34
6.3.4 Environmental conditions . 35
6.3.5 Synthesis on the construction of the operational scenario . 37
6.4 Descriptions of operational scenarios expected for record and replay testing . 38
6.4.1 General . 38
6.4.2 Set-up conditions . 38
6.4.3 Selection of roads . 40
6.4.4 Selection of kinds of trips . 41
6.4.5 Crossing selected roads and trips: proposed organization of tests . 42
6.5 Operational scenarios for TTFF field tests . 46
6.5.1 General . 46
6.5.2 Set-up conditions . 47
6.5.3 Trajectories . 47
6.5.4 Environmental conditions . 48
6.5.5 Proposed combinations . 48
7 Definition of the metrics and related tools: what to measure? .49
7.1 General . 49
7.2 Accuracy metrics . 50
7.2.1 General . 50
7.2.2 Integrity metrics . 60
7.3 Availability metrics . 74
7.4 Continuity metrics . 75
7.5 Timing metrics . 76
7.6 Synthesis on the receiver outputs to be collected . 80
7.7 Synthesis of the metrics computation tool functions . 80
8 Definition of the test facilities: which equipment to use? .81
8.1 General . 81
8.2 Equipment panorama and characterization . 81
8.2.1 Equipment for in-field data collection . 81
8.2.2 Laboratory Test-beds . 86
8.2.3 Log and Replay Solutions . 91
8.3 Equipment Justification . 95
8.3.1 Equipment for in-field data collection . 95
8.3.2 “Log & Replay” Solutions . 98
9 Definition of the test procedures: how to proceed to the tests?. 100
9.1 General. 100
9.2 Field tests for recording the in-file data of the standardized operational scenario . 101
9.2.1 General . 101
9.2.2 Test plan. 101
9.2.3 Good functioning verification . 104
9.2.4 Field test conducting . 105
9.2.5 Data analysis and archiving . 107
9.3 Characterization of environment . 108
9.4 Replay step: assessing the DUT performances . 109
10 Definition of the validation procedures: how to be sure of the results? . 110
10.1 General. 110
10.2 Presentation of a scenario: rush time in Toulouse . 110
10.3 Quality of the reference trajectory . 112
10.4 Availability, regularity of the of the DUT’s outputs for the metrics computations . 113
10.5 Statistic representability of the results . 114
11 Definition of the synthesis report: how to report the results of the tests? . 118
11.1 General. 118
11.2 Identification of the DUT . 118
11.3 Identifications of test . 118
11.4 Personal responsible of tests . 119
11.5 Identification of the tests stimuli . 119
11.6 Report of tests conditions . 119
11.7 Identification of the files including the test raw data . 119
11.8 Identification of tools used in post processing for computing the metrics . 119
11.9 Results . 119
11.10 Date of report, responsible and contact, lab address and signatures . 120
Annex A (normative) ETSI test definition for GBLS . 121
A.1 Synthetic reporting of the ETSI specification for the operational environment and tests
conditions . 121
Annex B (normative) Detailed criteria for testing strategy . 133
B.1 First criteria: trust in metrology . 133
B.1.1 Reproducible results . 133
B.1.2 Representative and meaningful results for the road applications . 135
B.1.3 Reliable procedure for the metric assessment . 135
B.2 Second criteria: Reasonable cost for manufacturers . 135
B.2.1 Cost of test benches . 135
B.2.2 Cost of the test operations . 136
B.2.3 Additional costs . 136
B.3 Third criteria: clear responsibility and sharing between actors . 137
Annex C (normative) Size of data collection (GMV contribution) . 139
C.1 Data campaign definition: sample size . 139
C.2 Statistical significance . 140
Bibliography . 144
European foreword
This document (CEN/TR 17465:2020) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 5 “Space”,
the secretariat of which is held by DIN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
1 Scope
This document is the output of WP1.2 “Field test definition for basic performances” of the GP-START
project.
The GP-START project aims to prepare the draft standards CEN/CENELEC/TC5 16803-2 and 16803-3
for the Use of GNSS-based positioning for road Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Part 2: Assessment of
basic performances of GNSS-based positioning terminals is the specific target of this document.
This document constitutes the part of the Technical Report on Metrics and Performance levels detailed
definition and field test definition for basic performances regarding the field tests definition.
The purpose of WP1.2 is to define the field tests to be performed in order to evaluate the
performances of road applications’ GNSS-based positioning terminal (GBPT). To fully define the tests,
this task addresses the test strategy, the facilities to be used, the test scenarios (e.g. environments and
characteristics, which should allow the comparison of different tests), and the test procedures. The
defined tests and process will be validated by performing various in-field tests. The defined tests focus
essentially on accuracy, integrity and availability as required in the statement of work included in the
invitation to tender.
This document will serve to:
• the consolidation of EN 16803-1: Definitions and system engineering procedures for the
establishment and assessment of performances;
• the elaboration of EN 16803-2: Assessment of basic performances of GNSS-based positioning
terminals;
• the elaboration of EN 16803-3: Assessment of security performances of GNSS-based positioning
terminals.
The document is structured as follows:
• Clause 1 is the present Scope;
• Clause 5 defines and justifies the global strategy for testing;
• Clause 6 defines and justifies the retained operational scenario;
• Clause 7 defines the metrics and related tools;
• Clause 8 defines the required tests facilities;
• Clause 9 defines the tests procedures;
• Clause 10 defines the validation procedures;
• Clause 11 defines how to report the tests results.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments)
applies.
EN 16803-1:2016, Space — Use of GNSS-based positioning for road Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)
— Part 1: Definitions and system engineering procedures for the establishment and assessment of
performances
3 Terms and definitions
No terms and definitions are listed in this document.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
• ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp
• IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
4 List of acronyms
▪
GNSS Global navigation satellite system
▪
GPS Global positioning system
▪ SBAS Satellite based augmentation system
▪ COTS Commercial on the shelves
▪ GBPT GNSS based positioning terminal
▪ OTS On the shelves
▪
ITS Intelligent transport systems
▪
ETSI European telecommunications standards institute
▪
A-GNSS Assisted GNSS
▪
FAR False alarm rate
▪
PFA Probability of false alarm
▪
PMD Probability of miss detection
▪ PPK Post processing kinematic
▪ AIA Accuracy, integrity, availability
▪ SW Software
▪ LoS Line of Sight
5 Definition of the general strategy: what kind of tests?
5.1 General
The technical solutions for ITS (road environment), focused in the targeted standard, are more and
more complex.
One consequence is that their performances and behaviours will no more only depend on their design
but also, and strongly, depend on a lot of external situations and parameters, uncontrolled by the
stakeholders. Among those parameters, we can quote the dependencies on the status of international
worldwide space systems (GNSS), on physical atmospheric conditions, and other environmental
conditions in the proximity of the vehicle (traffic, tree foliage, buildings in vicinity etc.).
As an example, this situation implies that any realization of one field test procedure of a given product
at a given date and hour, will give a different result than the same test procedure of the same product
in the same location at a different date and hour (neither ergodic nor stationary stochastic process).
The obvious consequence is that, if a pure field test strategy is targeted as a preferred solution for the
performance assessment aiming homologation of devices, the analysis of the tests results would
require specialists, and may frequently result in intangible and unreliable interpretations, the opposite
of metrology.
A solution to avoid this issue is to have a total trust in simulations where all the tests conditions are
controlled and which could be perfectly repeatable. ETSI addressed a similar issue during its
standardization process targeting the GNSS based Location Based Services (See ETSI TS 103 246-1, −2,
−3, −4, −5). As a conclusion of its work, ETSI, selected a solution exclusively based on simulations (see
Annex A).
Considering that the real-life environment remains complex to be simulated, the pure simulation
technique will lead to scenarios with a very great number of parameters to be set-up, inducing risk of
human manipulation errors, and anyway a remaining lack of representation of the reality.
New paradigms have to be seriously considered, and this Clause 5 aims to open solutions by analysing
the best way to select and phase the tests to be performed in a standardized performance assessment.
5.2 GBPT characterization
5.2.1 An hybrid and heterogenic system
According to Figure 3 of (see EN 16803-1), Positioning-based road ITS system is the integration of the
GBPT into the road ITS application. Moreover, GBPT is presented also as a complex assembly of
sensors, with multiple interfaces with external systems.
The positioning level, focused in this part of document for the definition of tests, is still an assembly of
more or less complex components where at least one (1) component is a GNSS sensor.
The generic architecture of a Road ITS system ((EN 16803-1), Figure 4) shows directly that the
evaluation of the metrics related to the positioning (accuracy, integrity, availability) will be complex,
since it:
• covers intermediate outputs (position, speed) of a global integrated system, likely not easy to
capture in some future finally packaged and installed products: specific prescriptions and
communication protocols should be standardized;
• depends on worldwide and independently evolving infrastructures, namely GNSS infrastructure and
telecommunication networks, interacting each other’s (Assisted, Differential GNSS) and with the
system itself, and in particular influencing strongly its performances;
• covers sensing of the external environment and consequently depends on a huge number of
external environmental conditions (radio propagation for GNSS and telecommunications, light, fog
and dust for cam and LIDAR, etc.);
• covers in the same time sensing of the motion of the vehicle through odometers and inertial
sensors and consequently depends on the vehicle and its driving as well as additional external
environmental conditions (ex: meteorological, or road-holding for odometer).
In EN 16803-1:2016, Clause 8 presents a long (even if not exhaustive) list of parameters which should
impact the definition of the tests.
Synthesizing together, namely in an integrated lab test facility, the effects of worldwide radio
infrastructures (as existing currently or evolving in the future), their local radio propagation in road
environment, the motion sensing by inertial sensors, and others phenomena like climatic for odometer
or imaging for computer vision is today unfeasible.
Today, the lab facilities for making tests in the environmental conditions interesting each sensor exist
separately but are never integrated.

Figure 1 — Typical test bench in laboratories facilities
Left to right: GNSS signal generation (ESA radio navigation lab), radio oriented for radio navigation or
telecommunications, motion oriented and climatic oriented for inertial sensors (AIAA 092407), computed
vision oriented (JPL robotics facilities)
However, techniques like fusion of sensors and data (e.g. maps) appear more and more mandatory to
leverage the potential of automotive applications and businesses, considering the weakness of the
GNSS signals propagation environments.
5.2.2 Test combinatory explosion: an issue
It is the purpose of sensor fusion to make each sensor impacting (improving is expected) the
performances of the hybridized solution. However, each sensor has two (2) types of errors:
• principles: imperfections of the used physic law modelling the real world (ex: the GNSS
propagation is line of sight, except when refraction like in ionosphere or reflection like multipath
are encountered, accelerometer measuring only the sum of motion acceleration and gravity, etc.);
• measures: imperfections in the design and manufacturing (ex: bias and scale factors in inertial
sensors, thermal noise in electronic, etc.).

Also called ‘exteroceptive’ sensors: GNSS sensors, cam, LIDAR measure physical phenomenon of their extern
environment to deduce location data, to be compared to eyes, nose, (…) on the animals.
Also called ‘proprioceptive’ sensors: inertial units, odometer measure physical parameter changes due to motion in order
to deduce location data, to be compared to sensors belonging to muscles on the animals.
In particular when the performances of other sensors than GNSS are considered – required for hybridized systems.
By capturing information from a lot of parameters of the external environment or from the motion,
and because many physical principle errors of the measurements exist in the reality, the sensor fusion
multiplies also the risks of performance degradations. A strict performance assessment should
consequently measure the performances in any combination of favourable/unfavourable conditions
for good measurements, sensor by sensor. For GBPT, these combinations are still to be combined to
the multiplicity of the road usages, road environment varieties, and finally combined with the
multiplicity of installation and set-up in the vehicles. There are then a so vast set of possible
combinations that it becomes incredible to build reliably and exhaustively the list of the necessary test
scenarios covering correctly the computation of performance metrics.
This combinatory explosion affects as much the lab tests in terms of facilities and scenario diversity, as
the field tests or the simulation techniques, where, in addition, some of the physical effects are very
complex to model representatively.
This implies that experimenting field tests (where the sensors capture during each test one true
representation of the real life, namely one instance at a given instant and in a given location of all of
the parameters which control the GBPT performances) provide a unique and not reproducible
representation. This representation is thus unable to provide, on one test, whatever its length, a total
characterization of the statistical properties (like expected in the metric definition).
In this sense, GMV experiment on Madrid (TR WP1/D1) illustrated that very well: 12 samples of a
similar procedure (same location) have been run giving 12 separate cumulated distributive functions
of the accuracy metric:
Figure 2 — Diversity of field tests results [TR WP1/D1]
This experiment shows that the metric itself, as assessed by field tests, becomes a random function,
with a significant dispersion and that the field test proposition gives a non-ergodic random process,
preventing to become the best solution for the selected metric assessment.
A more practical approach should then be agreed in the standard, preventing useless, unreasonable
testing effort and costs.
The combinatory explosion finally prevents an exhaustive coverage by the metrics of all environmental
situations impacting the performances.
5.2.3 Proposed approach
In EN 16803-1, the standardization working group has already and clearly separated the performance
of the application in two (2) layers:
• the positioning level with the GBPT;
• the ITS application level.
The described previously problematic necessitates to propose an additional breakdown in several sub-
problematics.
The proposed approach to deal with the GBPT (hybridized systems) performance assessment through
testing is to impose a dichotomy between additive sensors (supplemental with respect to geolocation)
and primary sensor (GNSS) and positioning solution, as identified on the Figure 3.

Figure 3 — Proposed approach for the testing requirements
It should thus be retained for the future ITS applications a gradual verification and homologation
process.
This process could support three assessment levels:
• additive sensor level:
o separately, inertial sensors, odometer, vision sensors should be evaluated in terms of
performance, with their own metrics (e.g. measurement errors on ranges to the landmarks for
LIDAR, video, opening range[…], accelerometers biases, gyro drift, etc.);
o at their manufacturing level;
o covering, for example with lab tests, quasi exhaustively the specific environmental conditions,
up to limits of functioning, which affects their performances (weather, road grip, vibrations in
addition to motion, dust, etc.);
o leading to characterize separately the sensors with labels and classifications;
o leading to propose, for each sensor device an ‘equivalent reference additive sensor’ and/or a
‘additive sensor model’.
• GNSS based positioning level (optionally including fusion of sensors and data):
o for the test purpose, the GBPT device under test shall be able to receive GNSS signals (radiated
or conducted according to the antenna integration level);
o for the test purpose, the GBPT device under test shall be able to receive ‘reconstructed test
stimuli’ in place of each integrated additive sensors (necessitates standardized input/outputs
protocols);
o the scenario list shall represent a selected set (not exhaustive) agreed typical but realistic
combinations of operational situations as input/outputs of any sensors (including GNSS) so
that the fusion of sensors could be tested in, without trying to reach an exhaustive set of
situations.
• application level: PVT error models and sensitivity analysis as proposed in EN 16803-1.
In the above proposal, one should understand that:
• ‘equivalent reference additive sensor’ means a COTS sensor (among a list of homologated devices)
of same nature (inertial, odometer, visual) and same class of performances giving similar
availability behaviour and performances statistic behaviours, possibly used in GBPT field test for
capturing data;
• ‘sensor error model’ means an open SW model dedicated to one sensor kind (inertial, odometer,
etc.), whose inputs are physical parameters of the environment, like temperature, pressure,
humidity […] which may be easily measured during a data collection (possibly acquired during the
GBPT field tests) and sufficient to describe the performance behaviour and availability of the
sensor;
• ‘reconstructed test stimuli’ are data aresued either from the ‘equivalent reference additive sensor’
capturing directly the environment during field tests, or from the ‘additive sensor model’ using
inputs issued data acquired during field tests (temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.).
At positioning level, only an agreed selection of typical operative situations would have been performed
in field tests (or recorded for 'Record and Replay' solutions), avoiding the combinatory explosion. That
necessarily assumes that at lower level of manufacturing, sensors have typically be submitted to a
quite exhaustive coverage of any environmental conditions, comprising the limits of the operating
domain in order to get enough trust in a sensor model or in a reference sensor.
It is not in the scope of this document to go further in the definition of the process dedicated to the
characterization of additive sensor level, for which the involvement of the own industry (inertial units,
vision, wheel coding) is mandatory. We only recommend opening a complementary process to
standardize those issues, which are of utmost importance to address hybridized systems.
We now assume in this document that the proposed approach might be retained, that ‘equivalent
reference additive sensors’ are existing and known as well as ‘additive sensor error models’, and that
the standardized interfaces with additive sensors for test purposes are also known.
5.3 Stakeholders and responsibilities
5.3.1 Industry value chain
The life cycles of the development, production, integration of the electronic devices are industrials
features depending on the business models usually applied in the corresponding market.
To illustrate the GBPT for road ITS application, it is interesting to refer to the value chain elaborated
by the GSA (GNSS market report for road applications). This value chain allows to identify the
industrial actors and how they play a role and have responsibilities in the final positioning
performances and testing:
Figure 4 — Road value chain (according GSA market report)
5.3.2 Roles and responsibilities
The various cycles of products industrialization are to be considered in order to define a cost-effective
test strategy and phasing, up to an optional homologation or certification process for ITS operations by
adequate authorities and government bodies.
This way:
• The GNSS sensor (electronic radio chip) manufacturer has a first major responsibility in the final
GNSS positioning performance once embedded in the car, but can only test its production out of
this context; It will never take the complete liability regarding neither the ITS application nor the
road application. Having created a general-purpose device, it has no interest to particularly invest
for testing the road ITS applications, even if it cannot ignore this mass market. In the opposite, it
has the maximum skills to know how the final GNSS performances can depend on its product for
one part, and its integration in the second part. Finally, it is not necessarily an antenna
manufacturer even if it defines recommendations for these appendices.
• As well, the additive sensors manufacturers (inertial units, cameras or LIDAR, etc.) or data
providers, which are not specifically mentioned in Figure 4 because out of scope of the pure GNSS
value chain have also a clear responsibility in the final GBPT positioning performance when
hybridization or fusion of sensors are used. They too may have created a general-purpose device
and not a road specific one, have the maximum skills to know how the performances of their
sensors can depend on their products themselves, of the operational conditions where they work
(for example face sunlight, fog and humidity for the cameras, etc.) and finally, of their integration
in the vehicle. The sensor manufacturers shall provide a clear statement about these
performances and limits of operation and should provide clear recommendations for the
integration and installation.
• The GBPT manufacturer integrates the GNSS sensors with other sensors, data and has a major
responsibility in the final positioning performance on board the vehicle. It is more specialized on
road applications than the sensor manufacturer, and will invest in specific means and models for
stimulating the internal sensors and for testing the integration on car, maybe recommending the
best integration and installation. While keeping a distance with the final ITS application for
avoiding a too customized product, it will still remain independent from the car manufacturer in
order to keep the potential of its market, but will certainly build strong partnership with some of
them. It can, but not necessarily, integrates the antenna, and also depends, for the final
performances, on some final installation concepts. Therefore, it should occupy the best stage for
endorse a black labialization of its product on the shelves, with respect to the GBPT positioning
performances and participate to the elaboration of a technical agreement for integration and
installation of the dedicated electronic devices allowing to finalize the certification of a particular
ITS application. The main test effort with respect to the standardized accuracy, integrity,
availability performance assessment should take place with these manufacturers, considering a
variety of situations in terms of propagation environment even if it should well be noticed that it is
only a “on the shelves” evaluation, therefore rather a “lab” evaluation. At this stage, conducted
tests are preferable, using either simulations or replays.
• The important step to be held by the vehicle manufacturers (and system integrators for the second
market if any) should be the setup of the facilities components of the final integration of the GBPT
like power supply, communication buses connections, computing resources, antenna location and
fixation, mechanical interactions between GBPT and vehicle, location of the system (antenna,
inertial unit, etc.) with respect to the dynamic figures of the vehicle motion (centre of gravity,
centre of rotation, etc.). None of these facilities is the core of the positioning functions but almost
all have an impact on the final positioning performances assessment (power micro-cut duration as
an example, or vibrations). The process will depend on each vehicle’s model (each first or
modified installation) and therefore, even if a same GBPT on the shelf is retained in this process
for several models, a particular field test campaign of the final installation should be led for
verifying the overall positioning performance in a good functioning verification. At this level, the
goal should not be to cover any propagation situation with respect to environment (atmospheric,
rural/ cities, etc.) but to cover real situations of radiated signals, electromagnetic compatibilities
between each connected component […]. (as an example GNSS and A-GNSS with entertainment
applications, etc.) and finally dynamics coverage for the inertial and other proprioceptive sensors.
T
...