European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Waste deposit sites covered by AM or US

Hi everybody,

We are supposed to align waste deposit data and from the information I find, I cannot say if it should be mapped to AM or US:

1. AM * INSPIRE Directive: "Areas managed, regulated or used for reporting at international, European, national, regional and local levels. Includes dumping sites, restricted areas around drinking water sources, nitrate-vulnerable zones, regulated fairways at sea orlarge inland waters, areas for the dumping of waste, noise restriction zones, prospecting and mining permit areas,river basin districts, relevant reporting units and coastal zone management areas." * ManagementRestrictionOrRegulationZone definition (implementing rules): "Area managed, restricted or regulated in accordance with a legal requirement related to an environmental policy or a policy or activity that may have an impact on the environment at any level of administration (international, European, national, regional and local)." * 'manage' (implementing rules): "manage’ means plan, perform, monitor and control activities to achieve specific legally defined environmental objectives" * ManagementRestrictionOrRegulationZone.zoneType codelist (mandatory attribute) contains value 'areaForDisposalOfWaste': "Area affected by disposal of waste as defined in Article 3(19) of Directive 2008/98/EC ." * Directive 2008/98/EG Article 3(19): "‘disposal’ means any operation which is not recovery evenwhere the operation has as a secondary consequence thereclamation of substances or energy. Annex I sets out anon-exhaustive list of disposal operations;" * Directive 2008/98/EG Annex I: [...] pecially engineered landfill (e.g. placement into lined discrete cells which are capped and isolated from oneanother and the environment, etc.) [...]

2. US * INSPIRE Directive: "Includes utility facilities such as sewage, waste management, energy supply and water supply, administrative and socialgovernmental services such as public administrations, civil protection sites, schools and hospitals" * EnvironmentalManagementFacility (implementing rules): "A physical structure designed, built or installed to serve specific functions in relation to environmental material flows, such as waste or waste water flows, or a delimited area of land or water used to serve such functions." *data specification US: "The INSPIRE Directive ―Definition of Annex Themes and Scope v3.0 (D 2.3)‖ states that this sub-theme comprises several categories in order to identify the environmental protection facilities. Categories such as waste treatment sites, waste treatment facilities, regulated and illegal areas for dumping, mining waste and sewage sludge are mentioned as categories to be included. The use cases also indicate the need for providing information on waste treatment, storage and disposal. [...] Land use: Dumping of waste onto land and landfills may be seen as overlapping with land use [...] The following types of data are within the scope of the TWG-US sub-theme. They are provided with links to reference documents that illustrate which user requirements the type of data originate from. [...] Disposal [1] (of waste) [...] [1] Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste" When only taking into account the legally binding directive and implementing rules, I would definitely chose AM - there is no indication to me why it would be US. When taking into account the data specification of US though, it is less clear. For both themes, the conclusion is that waste deposit according directive 2008/98/EG belongs to each of them (and in the DS of US, it is even mentioned that it could be LU, too). Any hints or best practices on how to report waste deposits?

Thanks and all the best Johanna

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Dear Johanna,

    is your data providing sites (areas managed) or facilities locations?

    In the first case I'd go for AM ,in the second one for the US (EnvironmentalManagementFacility).

    Hope this helps,

    Stefania

  • Johanna Ott

    Dear Stefania,

    Thanks a lot for your feedback! It is facilities locations, so I will go with US.

     

    All the best

    Johanna

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Short side note on this topic, in some cases environmental monitoring takes place around waste deposit facilities, measurements of the impact of the waste on air, water and soil. This data is foreseen under EF

  • Johanna Ott

    Hi everyone,

    Now that I am using US, I want to try to link to one of the wastes classified by the commission decision 2000/532/EC. The codelist on Classification of Wastes according to Decision 2000/532/EC contains an external reference link to the PDF with the commission decision.

    It is not clear to me how I can build a meaningful link to one of the wastes classiefied there? What kind of URLs to use to link them?

    Do you have experiences with that by coincidence? I also asked in the US cluster but as I did not get any reactions there on my last post, I hope to get some input here :)

     

    Thank you for your help

    Johanna

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hi Johanna,

    I fear this is a common issue across various INSPIRE Themes, at least I've run into the exact same bit (codelist only referencing a PDF) also in the Soil Theme.

    I've looked through the list in the directive, in this case, I think there's a pragmatic way forward :) The PDF does provide a nicely structured list, so to my unofficial view, providing these codelist entries by concatenating the code from the PDF to the codelist URL as follows should work:

    https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/document/WasteHaz/{ID from PDF}

    Thus, for the PDF entry: 20 03 01 Mixed municipal waste

    I'd provide the codelist entry: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/document/WasteHaz/200301

    This way, if the powers that be ever get around to providing the codelist, you'll be pointing the correct entry. In the meantime, the data would at least be compatible/comparable (especially if all MS chose this pragmatic approach)

    For what it's worth!

    :)

    Kathi

     

  • Johanna Ott

    Hi Kathi,

    Thank you for the feedback - let's hope a lot of people read this discussion and follow the same approach then.

    @everyone: If anyone else already used the codelist and followed a different pattern, please let us know, so we can align within the community.

     

    All the best

    Johanna

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Dear both,

    First off: to my knowledge there is no official guideline on how to proceed in cases like this. And risk here is that each data provider will do his own way …

    Below my personal vision.

    I prefer avoiding non-working links, therefore in this case I would not use https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/document/WasteHaz/200301.

    Also because, if a code list ever comes, it will be probably using a different URL

    What I generally do in code list cases:

    • Search if any relevant code list exist somewhere. In that case I would use values from the codelist. If no code list exist, then
    • in the "href:xlink" I would point to the document (e.g.  https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/document/WasteHaz)
    • in the "href:title" I would provide the classification e.g. “Wastes from mineral excavation” , “Wastes from mineral dressing “ (so what would correspond somehow to code list labels)
    • maybe use the gml:description to add “ classification of wastes in the “href:title” “

    This way, e.g. opening the GML in a GIS environment, the user will be able to use the information without further investigation …

    For sure, there should be an official guidance on this, though having discussion here and somehow "agree" on a common way to proceed would help ...

    Forcing the code list values to be provided as http identifiers is great if these latter exist, but when they don’t, it would be important to have the possibility to provide a string (like it was in old versions of the INSPIRE schemas) …

    Best,

    Stefania

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hi Stefania,

    only bit that worries me on your approach is that the numbers get lost while the text strings may end up in local languages. At the same time, there's no xlink attribute for the identifier, so wouldn't know where to put it. Reason I'd extend it to the href, users will still be able to find the code-list stub, but the additional information would be provided

    Alternatively, is there something available from waste reporting?

    :)

    Kathi

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Hi Kathi,

    I was not as clear as I would have liked .. I was somehow triggered by the reference to the soil code lists and I took the opportunity to recommend an encoding for “the code list cases” , that is for the cases when we have an attribute whose value type is a code list (gml: ReferenceType) and code list registry entry provides only a reference to an external document (PDF, excel … )

    e.g.  

    https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/MarineStrategyFrameworkDirectiveCodeValue

    https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/MarineStrategyFrameworkDirectiveClassificationValue https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/NaturalVegetationClassificationValue 

    and that’s why I ended with

    "Forcing the code list values to be provided as http identifiers is great if these latter exist".

    That said, in any case I would avoid using non-working links, unless commonly/ clearly agreed as a way forward.

    I was thinking about something like <gml:identifier codeSpace=" https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/document/WasteHaz">200301</gml:identifier&gt;

    Would this work?

    :) Stefania

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hmm... theoretically that would work, but in reality we'd have to modify the UML, or at least the XSD. Probably the same amount of work as putting up the codelist (none of the three are technically difficult, but the administrative aspects will take a few years off your life ;) )

    To my view one of the underlying issues here is the misuse of the xlink standard, originally designed for a totally different purpose (providing an external linking mechanism for resources available via a URI). 19115 handles codelists differently, codelist references become gco:CodeListValue_Type in the XSD, providing the two attributes codeList and codeListValue (in this version, you get to guess how to concatenate the two to get to a resolvable URL).

    I believe that GML encoding then shifted this to xlink, but am not really sure where this really came from. Result in INSPIRE is that we have to deal with both versions, as some codelists are referenced by types adopted from 19115 (so the 2 attribute version), others defined within the model use xlink - perfect confusion all round!

    Conclusion - as there's currently no correct solution, the incorrect ones are valid by default (very curious how the validator will try and solve this!)

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!