European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

What's your opinion on the theme-specific requirement on Land Cover


I'd like to ask your opinion on the following theme-specific requirement related to the Land Cover theme:

Theme-specific Requirement (IR + LC DS 3.0 page 27): "If an onlineDescription (typo, should probably be externalDescription, as there is no onlineDescription in v.3.0) attribute is provided for a LandCoverNomenclature data type, the referenced online description shall define, for each class, at least a code, a name, a definition and a RGB value to be used for portrayal. If the online description describes the nomenclature for a LandCoverGridCoverage object, an integer grid code shall also be provided for each class. This code shall be used in the range of the LandCoverGridCoverage to represent the corresponding class."

The reasons why I think that the requirement needs to be discussed and that it maybe could be slightly amended are the following:

1) The requirement is contradictory with the general text of the Technical Guidelines on Land Cover (For example in LC DS 3.0 on page 22 it says that: ”It is also recommended to include portrayal rules and a formal definition of the codes”)

2) If you use the alternative and provide information using the embeddedDescription attribute (and not the externalDescription), then you don't need to fulfill these requirements, such as providing RGB values, which seems unlogic.

3) There is already a requirement to use a code list for the land cover classes, where at least a code and a name and in some cases also part of the definition can be included. However, it is up to the code list provider to decide on the contents of the land cover code list, so it is not a completely reliable source in providing all necessary information.

Please express whether you think the requirement should:

A) stay as it is

B) be slightly modified, how? For example taking away the requirement for providing the RGB values

C) be changed into a recommendation

D) be completely excluded

Please motivate why when answering and if there are any conditions to your proposal.

I'm collecting feedback on this issue until the 20 October and will then decide whether the discussion is mature enough to formulate it into a change proposal to the MIG. Hoping to hearing your opinions on this issue soon!




  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie


    As there has been no feedback on this issue so far, I assume that it isn't an issue of high priority to the LC INSPIRE community. Therefore I plan to close this discussion topic 15 September.







    I completely agree with your suggestion - alternative D!


This discussion is closed.

This discussion is closed and is not accepting new comments.

Land Cover & Use

Land Cover & Use

Join this group to share your knowledge, learn and collaborate in solving issues related to the Land Cover and Land Use themes