Location Inaccuracy for each location service protocol for 90 vehicles in a full infrastructure based network for the 1050 m-1260 m distance range

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... performance of the location service protocols are now examined from the perspective of the returned location inaccuracy and overhead incurred. It was noted earlier that the difference between the QSR and the PDR is minor across most schemes as observed in Figs. 4 and 5. This is indicative of little location service inaccuracy, verified in Fig. 6 which shows a CDF of the location error for all location service protocols i.e. the difference between the location of the queried vehicle reported by the location service protocol and its actual location. It can be observed that UVLS, GHLS Non RR and ILS incur small location errors (approximately 80 % of queries are resolved with ...

Context 2

... GHLS Non RR and ILS incur small location errors (approximately 80 % of queries are resolved with location errors of 90.9 m, 88.9 m and 95.35 m or less respectively). It must be noted however that while ILS and GHLS Non RR do not incur high inaccuracy, they experience lower QSR than UVLS as previously highlighted. It can be further observed from Fig. 6 that GHLS RR incurs location errors of up to 635 m with MBLS incurring location error of up to 1 km with 86.7 % and 80.2 % respectively of the reported locations under the maximum theoretical radio range of 210 ...