event/ date: wise gis – it workshop, eea, 7.-8.5.2012 author: miroslav fanta, etc/icm 1 selected...

Event/ date: WISE GIS – IT workshop, EEA, 7.-8.5.2012Author: Miroslav Fanta, ETC/ICM1

Selected critical issues in current GIS datasets

incl. general rules

Miroslav Fanta

ETC/ICM data manager

2Event/ date: WISE GIS – IT workshop, EEA, 7.-8.5.2012Author: Miroslav Fanta, ETC/ICM

Objective of EEA effortTo provide datasets which are:

• Unified and comparable for all participating countries• Harmonised across country boundaries• Content and precision relevant for planned utilisation• Updated regarding to the latest available sources• Available to all who should use them (EEA / COM / experts /

public)• …..

If possible (realistic evaluation of sources, planned costs, time schedule,…)

If reasonable (for which purposes data will be used, how often,…)

Costs / benefits: Sources available / effort (price of processing) / asset (profit) / time


Starting point - specification

Should be done by expert who is familiar with requested / expected data, to attend maximum of a „weak points“ which can occur

•Determine the definition and classification of requested objects (scale, precision, content of the dataset) - Data Dictionary

•Unify the „variables“ which can differ country by country (or even within one country)

•Specify the realistic time schedule

•Specify the data manager for given dataset- Responsible for preparation of the dataset- Responsible for further utilisation and management of the dataset (the person

who „takes care of the dataset“, support for users)


Starting point harmonisation across country boundaries

Spatial data reported by countries

• Should match to country boundaries provided by submitter (EEA)

• Geometry + content (classification) should be harmonised with data reported by neighbouring countries

Can be ensured by: - neighbouring countries (individual billateral coordination) - dream- regional coordinator – difficult management, additional costs- data manager (central level) – can be huge amount of work - feedback from countries needed (confirmation of corrected data) - in certain cases it is impossible to get successful result


What can happen if mentioned rules are not followed

• Data from different countries are hardly comparable

• Data provided by countries are not checked and harmonised, only „sticked“ together

• Time consuming preparation of pan-European dataset => delayed (or even unfinished) final product, increased costs

• More frequent feedback from countries needed

• Impossible to reach expected quality

• Limited utilisation of data

• Nobody is managing the dataset once produced (missing support for users)

• Know-how about the dataset is lost in case of change of personnel (unsufficient / missing documentation)

• ….


What level of assertivity against national reporters is possible to apply if the requested rules are not followed by

countries?

• Directives reporting

• Non-Directives reporting (WISE – SoE priority dataflows)

• Possitive / negative evaluation of countries

• To whom we can complain, if necessary ?


Examples

errors ??

inconsistencies, special issues

issues to which the submitter national reporter dataset manager user should pay special attention


RBD GIS reference layer v. 1.4Coastal buffer zone is not unified (Netherlands 12 nautical miles, Belgium 0, France 1 nautical mile)red line = country boundaries


UWWTD sensitive areas GIS ref. layer v. 2.2

• Inhomogenous appearance evident (options in directive)

• designation if whole territory• fractionated designation

Catchment of sensitive areas• Detailed subdivision in selected countries; in other cases the whole country

area was specified by countries as Catchment of Sensitive areas without any subdivision


UWWTD sensitive areas GIS ref. layer v. 2.2Individual layers provided by countries were not unified by country to coast and to country boundaries Venice lagoon in Italy: Sensitive area – catchments (hatched polygons with green outline) and Sensitive area – transitional water (filled blue polygon on background).


WFD groundwater bodiesPreparation of dataset is managed by Klaus Duscher (BGR, Germany).Huge amount of work (several years) concerning harmonisation of country data across boundaries needed, incl. level of water horizon in which gw body is located.Dataset still under processing.


WFD groundwater bodies - detailsDifferent numbers of horizons used in neighbouring countries


Transitional and Coastal water bodiesCoastal buffer not unified even within one country (Denmark)Layers SWB_CW and SWB_CW_Legacy not harmonised across country boundaries (Denmark - Germany)


Data quality - Additional metadata information

• Description of the quality of each dataset = part of metadata information

• Known errors, inconsistencies or problematic issues in geometry, content, classification, harmonisation across boundaties should be described

• In many cases, it would be impossible or unreasonable to create 100% error-free dataset, but the user should be informed about existing and known data defects or problems

• Planned utilisation of the dataset, distribution, update, expected workload (costs) and time should be taken into account

• Special attention and effort should be paid to the quality of reference dataset


Basis for further workEEA GIS reference datasets relevant to pan-European scale 1 : 250 000 (1 : 1 000 000, 1 : 100 000)

• Country boundaries (polygon GIS layer) !!!! incl. all West Balkan countries and Turkey

• Coastline

• Rivers, Lakes (WISE Main rivers, WISE main lakes)

• River Basin Districts ( + SubUnits)

• Surface water bodies (Rivers, Lakes, Transitional, Coastal), Groundwater bodies

• Marine Regions and SubRegions

• ….

Legal limitations have to be solved

All other data provided by countries or created at EEA should be harmonised or snapped to these reference datasets – request for any further data specification


Thank you for your attention

event/ date: wise gis – it workshop, eea, 7.-8.5.2012 author: miroslav fanta, etc/icm 1 selected...

Documents