European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Grouping of facilities to find the centre points of their parent sites

Our institution CENIA (Czech Environmental Information Agency) is responsible for coordination of INSPIRE acitivities in the Czech Republic.

Concerning Production and Industrial Facilities, there are 1770 objects available in the Czech national register managed by CENIA. These facilities should be represented in the INSPIRE. The list of facilities is frequently updated.
Each facility provides coordinates of its location (centre point) within internal national reporting. Out of these 1770 facilities, 9 facilities only use the coordinates already provided by another facility, i.e. we have 1761 individual points in the map of facilities (see attachment Facilities_CZ_EntireCountry.jpg - yellow points).

The problem is, how to get the coordinates of sites (which are the parent category for facilities). 
If one site contains one facility only, then the centre point of site is identical with the centre point of facility, of course (see attachment LocationOfSitesFacilitiesInstallations_scenarios.jpg - Scenario 1).
Unfortunately, one site often contains 2 or even more facilities (scenarios 2 and 3). It is unrealistic to ask the facilities themselves to provide next to their own coordinates also the coordinates of their parent site, which should be common for 2 or more facilities. The facilities are independent economical units.  We in CENIA do not have sufficient capacity and time to organize such grouping of facilities for the entire country, because it will be the permanent process. Next, I am affraid, it is not possible to use grouping based on geographic position only (e.g. in GIS), because local distribution of facilities and grouping conditions could differ for each site and knowledge of local situation is needed for delineation of individual sites.

The only option which can be implemented immediately now is to consider each facility to be an individual site. How is this problem solved in other countries?

  • Alexander KOTSEV

    By Alexander KOTSEV

    Dear Miroslav,

    Thanks a lot for the interesting question raised on the data about Industrial Sites data. This discussion is highly relevant in light of the recently developed EU Registry on Industrial sites [1]. 

    Some thoughts on your question - equalizing the site to a facility which you mention as one of the possible solutions would indeed create problems in some cases, and would therefore not be ideal (as highlighted in the EU Registry manual for Reporters.

    Please note that, from a purely INSPIRE point of view, the site is voidable in accordance with the PF specifications (see page 20 of [2]). If voided, a reason should of course be provided in accordance with the codelist [3]. That is why you may still encode your facility data and meet your obligations. This does not mean that this would be the case with regards to the EU Register. You might use this opportunity to trigger a dialogue on a national level on how to create/share between institutions data on the location of sites. Note that the PF data model (and it’s extension for the EU Register [1], are particularly useful for describing the hierarchical dependencies between Site – Facility – Installation – Installation Part).

    I would be very interested to see how other countries are handling this situation and for developments in the Czech Republic in particular.


    Kind regards,






Facilities & Utilities, Public Services

Facilities & Utilities, Public Services

Covers a broad set of facilities, installations, networks and constructions supporting economic activities and public services