1. WISE Tools & Services Contract 2007/480664/SER/D2
ART5
Diagnostic Data Analysis
Dimitrios Biliouris
SADL

2. The Commission requires water related information to be reported for the following reasons:
To check compliance with the requirements of specific articles of the WFD
To carry out preliminary assessment of the situation in the Member States
To carry out further detailed analysis (where additional data may be required)
To compile statistics for its own needs and to inform the European Parliament and,
To create a European-wide picture to inform the public.
For that reason EU set up the WISE project…go to next slide
SADL

3. Data Submission
WISE allows Member State users to submit data in several different formats, based on XML, GML and ESRI Shape files as appropriate.
The formats are tightly defined to match the requirements outlines in the reporting guidance documents.
For each phase of reporting, the data requirements are defined as an XML schema for attribute/text based information, and GML/ESRI shapefiles for spatial/geographic data.
SADL and GEOSOLUTIONS got a contract for wise project on tool and services. A report/task of that project was on diagnostic analysis of ART5 data…next slide
SADL

4. Member State data
Under Article 5, countries had to submit data using XML with XY coordinates of points or centroids, in case of polygons and lines. All metadata are held in XML.
SADL

5. Data Overflow
SADL

6. SADL/GEOSOLUTIONS Handling of reported datased
Since the MS report their files independently a number of differences were identified among the reported schemes of each MS
Additionally a number of errors and inconsistencies were identified in each MS reported data
Some examples are displayed below
SADL

7. Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies in database
Obvious wrong location from shapefiles
e.g.:
1 point for BE (SW-Samme) located near Nigerian coast (problem: LAT decimal should shift one number)
SADL

8. Obvious wrong location
SADL

9. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
Reverse input for Latitude and Longitude (e.g. DE_SWB_DE2000vers1)
SADL

10. SADL

11. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
Spain provided for the RW bodies an extra shapefile containing polygons (instead of lines)
File: rwb_poly_ES014.shp in map ES_RWB_ES014ver1
SADL

12. This is the line file we can use and was needed, but they provide an extra polygon file

14. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
Problems arising from different versions included in the submitted shapefiles
e.g.:
In Denmark for each SWB-XML always 2 versions are given. If there are TW's mentioned in version 1, in version 2 those TW's have been catalogued as CW's!
(compare for example column K of DK_SWB_DK60ver1 with column K of DK_SWB_DK60ver2)
SADL

15. SADL

16. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
-missing country codes (e.g. France)
There should have been a column on COUNTRY CODE
SADL

17. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
Topological errors such as non connectivity among the river networks are common to all MS (e.g. Belgium)
SADL

18. While the network looks connected if we zoom we observe that is not the case
SADL

19. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies on reported centroids not only among different MS but even for the same MS among different country regions
SADL

20. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
5 types of centroids were identified and many countries included more than one reported type. Types: A) only centroids, B) each isolated sliver a centroid, C) on the river, D) fewer than expected, E) full network
SADL

21. SADL MS Type AT A BE A, C, D BG / CY A, B CZ E DE DK B, C EE C, B ES
A, B, C, D FI FR GR HU IE MS
Type IT / LT D LU C LV MT NL
A, D, B PL PT B RO SE
C, B SI
D, B SK UK A
Each country and their centroids types present
SADL

22. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies
SADL/GEOSOLUTIONS performed a Diagnostic Data Analysis on the reported under ART5 data and identified the current status of the existing errors and inconsistencies
In addition to the errors mentioned above a number of issues were investigated and accounted for, regarding referential integrity , topology, and statistical accuracy among different layers
SADL

23. EU-level summary on Errors / Inconsistencies
XML files presented a diversity on naming without following the GIS guidance
SHP files presented the same autonomous variety in naming as the XML files
Shapefiles are inside a cascade of folders and subfolders, organised per Member State at the highest level and then per local district name or number. Each Member State has given its own name to the different shapefiles and has provided several versions
Certain mandatory fields were missing such as country codes, district codes, etc.
Topological errors consist of overlaps, slivers, dangles, undershoots, overshoots depending on the thematic layer and feature type
Regarding Referential Integrity, None of the Member States presented a perfect match between the codes reported under article 5 (EU_code) and the RBD codes reported under article 3 (basins.shp)
SADL

24. EU-level summary on Errors / Inconsistencies
The referential integrity between the country codes in the reported water bodies and the country codes reported under article 3 (countries.shp) was almost 100% and could therefore be used to check the positional accuracy.
SADL

25. EU-level summary on Errors / Inconsistencies
In figure 7 the positional accuracy for different themes at EU level is presented for comparison among RBD, while in figure 8 the same accuracy is presented for comparison among Countries
SADL

26. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies per MS
For each member state a concise explanatory graph is given that includes all the performed checks, attributing them with an indicative colour depending on the weight of the remarks
Based on that graph each member state instantaneously can see in which area the major or minor problems exist.
SADL

27. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies per MS
SADL

28. Examples of Obvious Errors / Inconsistencies per MS
SADL

29. Recommendations
On the basis of the diagnostic analysis of the files reported by the Member States, a number of recommendations can be made concerning the organisational structure of files and file names, the overall quality improvement of data, and the quality of geographic data. The areas where significant improvements can be made for each Member state are:
SADL

30. Recommendations File organisation
Versioning of files should be avoided. Different versions should be incremental improvements that take into account all corrections made in previous files.
Cascading directories are to be avoided. This makes the structure of deliverables per MS more transparent.
Metadata are needed that describe inter alia the origin and corrections made.
File naming should be consistent so that automatic uploads are facilitated.
SADL

31. Recommendations Geometry files (shp) Referential integrity
Codes should match and also field names.
Projection system
The projection system should be defined.
Accuracy (scale)
The recommendations in the GIS guidance are 125 meters with a minimum of 1000 meters.
Topology
Overlaps, overshoots, undershoots, slivers to be avoided. Connectivity of river network is desirable, certainly within the country.
Protected areas:
Per theme a separate layer (shapefile) is needed.
SADL

32. Recommendations Data files (xml) Referential integrity
Codes should match between the different files and should be according to the guidelines.
Centroids
The centroids should be located within the country, district, RBD. The method of calculation should be provided.
Accuracy of reporting
All field names in the predefined schemas should be present and used correctly.
The records should be filled, including the Member State coding.
SADL

33. ART5 Diagnostic Data Analysis
Thank you for your attention
SADL