Not really. All you need to do is follow the sun.
L
What do you mean?
The problem is to "save the appearances," that is to put together an account which explains what one sees. The advantage of Copernicus is the comparative simplicity of heliocentrism. But if the sun is "fixed" and the earth moves, then the "fixed stars" should have apparent motion because the earth moves with respect to them.
And it turns out they do, but that wasn't detectable with the instruments of the 17th century.
Observing the sun showed the troubling phenomenon of a change in apparent diameter. My impression is that that was one of those things that made Kepler's explanation more elegant than Copernicus's