European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Layer naming proposal sufficiently compliant to the IR and the TG for PS?

Dear all,

We need to change the layer names in our WMS services in order to get them fully INSPIRE compliant. According to the layer naming convention proposed in the Geology theme, accepted for example by Clemens Portale, it is enough if the layer names follow the TG requirements at the Group layer level (below point 1. and 2.). Is my interpretation correct?

1. PS.ProtectedSites.NatureConservation

  • PS.ProtectedSites.ESA
  • PS.ProtectedSites.VMA_ESA_KPU_LHA_LPU_MHA_SSA
  • PS.ProtectedSites. YSA_ERA_LTA_MRA

2. PS.ProtectedSites.Natura2000

  • PS.ProtectedSites.SpecialAreaOfConservationLines
  • PS.ProtectedSites.SpecialAreaOfConservation
  • PS.ProtectedSites.SpecialProtectionArea
  • PS.ProtectedSites.ProposedSpecialProtectionArea
  • PS.ProtectedSites.ProposedSiteOfCommunityImportance

In all other TG that I've had a look at there's a point between the elements. The point is missing from the examples of the layer names in the tables of the TG on PS. I guess we fail the validation if we include a point here to be consistent with the layer naming in other themes?

In  the examples of tables of the TG on PS, the applcation schema name is written in plural form. In the esamples in the text, also singular form occur. According to the IR (see picture below), the singular form should be used. Is there a need to take this into account? If yes, how?

Layers  PS IR

We have an internal meeting related to these issues tomorrow and I'd be grateful for any help, opinion or feedback. Thanks.

Lena

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Hi Lena,

    the mandatory layer type is PS.ProtectedSite (singular form) also in the TG table (the second table, below the IR requirement). The plural form PS.ProtectedSites appears only in the further classification naming convention, and has to be used in conjunction with code list-valued and enumeration-valued attribute e.g. PS.ProtectedSitesNatureConservation. No separating point should be used between 'ProtectedSites' and further classification in the layer name (though this may be different from the TG of some other themes, it is the PS naming convention and shall be followed smiley)

    You may find it useful to have a look at the "issues related to PS View Service" page where you will also find a good example from Romania.

    Best,

    Stefania

  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    Hi Stefania,

    Ok, thanks. Your answer to my second question is according to my expectations. Let's skip the second dot then.

    FYI: We cannot consistently use code list values for Natura 2000, since some of the Natura 2000 sites consist of line geometry and therefore we need to add an extra 'Lines' to them to differentiate them from the polygons. We plan to call the layer we provide 'PS.ProtectedSitesSpecialAreaOfConservationLines', where the 'SpecialAreaOfConservation' is the code list value. But if only the group layer really matters then we are on the safe side (according to "Geology naming convention").

    For several reasons we'd like to skip the PS.ProtectedSite layer but I suppose we cannot do so as that layer is mandatory, correct? 

    Best,

    Lena

     

     

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Hi Lena,

    1. Almost all data providers that are involved in CDDA, Natura 2000 and Protected Planet, should present these layer names bellow:

    PS.ProtectedSite
       +PS.ProtectedSitesNatureConservation
           +PS.ProtectedSitesUNESCOWorldHeritage
           +PS.ProtectedSitesUNESCOManAndBiosphereProgramme
           +PS.ProtectedSitesRamsar
           +PS.ProtectedSitesNatura2000
                PS.ProtectedSitesSpecialProtectionArea
                PS.ProtectedSitesProposedSiteOfCommunityImportance
                PS.ProtectedSitesSiteOfCommunityImportance
                PS.ProtectedSitesSpecialAreaOfConservation

           +PS.ProtectedSitesIUCN
                PS.ProtectedSitesStrictNatureReserve
                PS.ProtectedSitesNationalPark
                PS.ProtectedSitesNaturalMonument
                PS.ProtectedSitesHabitatSpeciesManagementArea
                PS.ProtectedSitesProtectedLandscapeOrSeascape

    2. As you can see layers are grouped, therefore when requesting the PS.ProtectedSitesNatura2000 layer, all the values that are in this group layer should be returned via WMS.

    3. I am curious what you will expose in the PS.ProtectedSitesProposedSpecialProtectionArea layer. There is no such category as pSPA, but only pSCI in the EU legislation. This value was wrongly included as a designated category and in the registry as well http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/Natura2000DesignationValue. If I am wrong, somone please comment.

    4. It is quite strange that there are no SCIs, but only SACs. Could be the case that all SCIs were recognised as SACs in your country, but this is quite strange.

    5. The PS.ProtectedSitesSpecialAreaOfConservationLines layer name is not correct. Even if the data is composed as lines and poligons, all geometry types should be presented in the same layer PS.ProtectedSitesSpecialAreaOfConservation (and in the same GML). This is possible, but data should be stored in a database (i.e.: PostGIS) and not in shapefiles. INSPIRE data thenes are based on complex features and shapefiles are not a suitable format for such complex features.

    6. Layers names, such as PS.ProtectedSitesESA, PS.ProtectedSitesVMA_ESA_KPU_LHA_LPU_MHA_SSA and PS.ProtectedSites YSA_ERA_LTA_MRA are not valid unless VMA_ESA_KPU_LHA_LPU_MHA_SSA is a designation category and it was registered in the EC registry. Of course VMA_ESA_KPU_LHA_LPU_MHA_SSA does not sound like a designation category. I can provide more quidannce if you will explain what kind of protected sites will be presented trough each of these three layers. I saw some data providers that misconfused the Protected Sites data theme and wanted to expose within this data theme some features that actualy are not protected areas.

    7. If VMA_ESA_KPU_LHA_LPU_MHA_SSA are national designations that are reported in the CDDA, then most probably they are mapped to IUCN categories and therefore PS.ProtectedSitesIUCN layer with its sub-layers should be used for them.

    8. As most probably in your country there are Ramsar sites, Biosphere reserves an/or UNESCO world heritage sites, then PS.ProtectedSitesUNESCOWorldHeritage, PS.ProtectedSitesUNESCOManAndBiosphereProgramme, PS.ProtectedSitesRamsar layers should be used.

    9. If you have as well data not related to nature conservation, then other layers should be used as well (i.e.: PS.ProtectedSitesNationalMonumentsRecordDesignation)

    10. Yes the PS.ProtectedSite layer is mandatory and I agree that there is no reason to present this layer from several reasons:

    -with current styles the PS.ProtectedSite layer is not not understandable, all designation types beeing overlapped.

    - rendering this layer takes a lot of time and because of this layer the WMS is not responding in due time according to Network IR so the WMS will not pass the EC Geoportal test.

    Best regards,

    Iurie Maxim
    Teamnet
    Romania

  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    Hi Iurie,

    Thank you for your valuable comments! We will take them into consideration in our work. Next phase is to test these things in practice.

    Regarding your point 3. We have a few (4) Natura 2000 sites that fall into the following category: PS.ProtectedSites.ProposedSpecialProtectionArea. They still have the status of proposal.

    Best,

    Lena

      

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Hi Lena,

    Regarding point 3:

    The Birds Directive is not mentioning pSPAs. If a member state is designating trough a national legislative act an SPA, than the site is automatically recognized at EU level as SPA. The EU is not publishing in the Official Journal the list of SPAs, because they are designated by the MS.

    On the other hand the Habitats Directive is mentioning pSCIs. If a member state is proposing to EC or is designating trough a national legislative act an SCI, than according to the Habitats Directive the site is a pSCI because it is not automatically recognized at EU level as SCI. The EC is analising all data from pSCIs at species and habitats level in each biogeographical region in the so called biogeographical seminars. The data is analysed according to several criteria listed in the Directive. Only after this analisis the EC is creating/updating the list of SCIs by publishing them in the EC Official Journal and some pSCIs are not accepted in the final SCIs list (in practice there are no or just few sites that are rejected and EC is asking for more pSCIs to be proposed by MS for certain species/habitats that are not so well covered by the existing network). 

    Therefore the SPAs are designated by member states trough a national legislative act, but SCIs are designated by EC trough a Decision published in the EC Official Journal. Till the EC recognition, the sites that are sent to the EC are pSCIs.

    At http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015D2370&from=EN you can see one of the list of SCIs for the Alpine bio-geographical region.

    Have a look at http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# and you will see that there are no pSPAs.

    Have a look at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites_hab/index_en.htm to better understand the process of transformation from pSCI->SCI->SAC.

    Have a look at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm to understand that there are no pSPAs, but only SPAs.

    After several years and only if the SCIs have management measures and are recognised as well trough national legislation, the SCIs are becoming SACs.

    Should be noticed that the information written at http://www.ymparisto.fi/en-US/Nature/Species/Species_in_the_EU_Habitats_and_Bird_Directives about SACs designated according to Birds Directive is not correct. Based on Birds Directive MS are designating only SPAs (and there are no pSPAs).

    If a Member State intend to designate new SPAs, than they are not pSPAs. They simply are not protected sites.

    It is similar to a national park. If a country intend to designate a new national park, that is not a protected area/protected site. It becomes a protected site/area only after it is designated trough a national legislative act.

    It is similar to the Ramsar sites, world heritage sites and biosphere reserves. If a country is proposing a to Ramsar Convention or to UNESCO a site in order to be internationally recognized (designated) that area is not a protected area/site until it is recognized/designated.

    On the other hand if a member state is proposing to EC new SCIs, they are pSCIs and they are protected sites because the member state is obliged to ensure protection for the species and habitats listed in the Standard data Form from the date of submission to the EC even if the areas are not designated yet trough a national legislative act and because the category is listed in the Habitats Directive. The different designation name is just indicating the stage in which the site is at a certain date. It is true that some may say that pSCIs are not protected sites according to INSPIRE and there are some reasons to sustain this. (Protected site according to INSPIRE = Area designated or managed within a framework of international, Community and Member States' legislation to achieve specific conservation objectives.). At least in Romania pSCIs are protected sites because they are first designated trough a national legislative act even if the Habitats Directive is requiring the MS to designate the areas only when they become SACs. Romania decided to designate the pSCIs trough national legislation in order to apply the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure from the date of the national designation in order to ensure their formal protection. According to EC legislation EIA should be undertaken only for SCIs and not for pSCIs, so here is a point why pSCIs can be considered that are not protected sites according to INSPIRE because the MS have no obligation to designate or to manage the pSCIs. Once the EC designate the SCIs they are protected sites according to INSPIRE definition.

    Best regards,
    Iurie Maxim
    Teamnet
    Romani

  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    Hi Iurie,

    I'm not an expert in Natura 2000 data, nor in the EU or national legislation related to it, but I will pass these greetings forward to the ones whom it concerns. Our task is to provide all the spatial objects of our national Natura 2000 database in an INSPIRE compliant way.

    What validation tool(s) have you used to check that your layer names are valid?

    You could actually argue that the PS.ProtectedSitesNatureConservation layer in your example isn't needed or actually that it may be misleading to use it here, especially if not all UNESCOWorldHeritage sites are related to NatureConservation. Anyone else than Iurie having an opinioin on this layer naming issue?

    Best regards,

    Lena

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Hi Lena,

    As far as I know curently there are no validation tools for layers names and no validation tools for validating INSPIRE WMS conformity. There are tools for validating INSPIRE WFS conformity for certain data themes, inclouding protected sites. 

    For view service you can find the Abstract Test Suite (ATS) here: https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation/view-service/tree/master/iso-19128

    All ATS are located here: https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation

    Regarding PS.ProtectedSitesNatureConservation.... Indeed, according to the PS schema, the "ProtectionClassificationValue" is voidable ... but voidable is also "DesignationType", so ... "PS.ProtectedSitesNatura2000" and all others are not "needed" as well, the only one that is obligatory is "PS.ProtectedSite" (but this layer is not usable as described in previous posts). Take care that if an attribute is voidable but not filled a "nillReason" for not providing the data should be filled. have a look at the PS XSD schema version 4 http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/schemas/ps/4.0/ProtectedSites.xsd

    As it is quite dificult to claim that for Natura 2000 sites a data provider is missing the information regarding its classification, it is quite difficult to provide the nillReason value. Therefore you should provide the natureConservation layer as well, unless you consider that Natura 2000 sites are classified as "ecologocal" or "environmental" and then you should provide them within one of these layers.

    Names of the layers are 

    On the other hand, as you mentioned the World Heritage Sites, you are completly right that there are nature ones, cultural ones and mixed ones. The PS schema allows to indicate this as the "ProtectionClassificationValue" has one-to-many relationships, so one protected site can be part of the "natureConservation" and "cultural" ProtectionClassification.

    Therefore in this case you will have two upper layers, namely:

    PS.ProtectedSite
       +PS.ProtectedSitesCultural
           +PS.ProtectedSitesUNESCOWorldHeritage
       +PS.ProtectedSitesNatureConservation
           +PS.ProtectedSitesUNESCOWorldHeritage
           +PS.ProtectedSitesUNESCOManAndBiosphereProgramme
           +PS.ProtectedSitesRamsar
           +PS.ProtectedSitesNatura2000

    Those World Heritage Sites that are cultural ones will be part only in  "PS.ProtectedSitesCultural" layer, those that are nature conservation ones will be part of the "PS.ProtectedSitesNatureConservation" and those that are mixed ones will be part in both layers. 

    Important is that the data provider to manage this data. In Romania there are different central public authorities that are managing this data: Ministry of Culture for cultural sites and Ministery of Environment for nature conservation sites. As data should be managed at the source it means that in this case two datasets exist in Romania. Therefore only the World Heritage Site that are "nature conservation" and "mixed" will be part of one dataset and in another dataset will be part "cultural" and "mixed". However in Romania we do not have "mixed" WHSs and I do not see neither mixed ones in Finland according to http://whc.unesco.org/en/interactive-map/. Therefore have a look at point 9 from the post above.

    Hope it helps,

    Iurie Maxim

    Teamnet

Biodiversity & Area Management

Biodiversity & Area Management

If themes like Protected Sites, Area Management/Restriction/Regulation Zones and Reporting Units, Habitats and Biotopes, Species Distribution, Bio-geographical Regions matters to you, join these groups!