European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Group activity

  • Are you interested in solving exciting challenges with open data, in getting visibility for your work and in winning great prizes? 
  • Wideke BOERSMA
    Wideke BOERSMA added a new discussion topic Overlapping zoningelements
    Dear colleagues, We have the question if zoningelements in the application schema Planned Land Use of the dataspecification Land Use may overlap? In the Netherlands zoning elements can overlap. But in the dataspecification is stated: “A...
  • Enrico Iredi
    Enrico Iredi replied on the discussion topic Dimensioning Indication
    Hello Andrej, here you can find an example with many 'plu:dimensioningIndication' values. https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/file/view/229340/gml-example-plannedlanduse-plu All the best Enrico view reply
  • Andrej ABRAMIC
    Andrej ABRAMIC replied on the discussion topic Dimensioning Indication
    Hi Enrico,  just saw your post. Thank you for explanation, it fits. Would be nice if someone can point an example to see how is encoded, as complex data type.  Best,  Andrej   view reply
  • Enrico Iredi
    Enrico Iredi replied on the discussion topic Dimensioning Indication
    Hello Andrej, not an expert, but I think the dimensioningIndication attribute includes binding planning specifications. For example: Height dimensions for buildings, Maximum number of apartments in residential buildings, building types... xsd... view reply
  • Andrej ABRAMIC
    Andrej ABRAMIC added a new discussion topic Dimensioning Indication
    Dear all,  I am trying to understand Planned Land Use conceptual data model, and one of the attributes is very difficult to understand what is it for.  The Data specs. do not provide explanation or I did not find it. Attribute is...
    • Enrico Iredi

      Hello Andrej,

      not an expert, but I think the dimensioningIndication attribute includes binding planning specifications. For example: Height dimensions for buildings, Maximum number of apartments in residential buildings, building types...

      xsd description:

      ZoningElement - -- dimensioningIndication Definition -- Specifications about the dimensioning that are added to the dimensioning of the zoning elements that overlap the geometry of the supplementary regulation.

      SupplementaryRegulation – dimensioningIndication Definition -- Specifications about the dimensioning of the urban developments.”

      Best regards

      Enrico

    • Andrej ABRAMIC

      By Andrej ABRAMIC

      Hi Enrico, 

      just saw your post. Thank you for explanation, it fits. Would be nice if someone can point an example to see how is encoded, as complex data type. 

      Best, 

      Andrej  

    • Enrico Iredi

      Hello Andrej,

      here you can find an example with many 'plu:dimensioningIndication' values.

      https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/file/view/229340/gml-example-plannedlanduse-plu

      All the best

      Enrico

  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie
    Lena Hallin-Pihlatie replied on the discussion topic Extent for ExistingLandUseDataset
    Dear Julian, I see what you mean, but that would need an update of all LU schemas, but the raster (gridded) LU schema, increasing the risk for inconsistencies for sure. Let's wait for input on this from others until the end... view reply
  • Julián DELGADO
    Julián DELGADO replied on the discussion topic Extent for ExistingLandUseDataset
    Dear Lena, thanks for your input From my side, the smarter solution could be to modify the data model changing the definition of ‘extent’ attribute to EX_extent, instead GM_MultiSurface. However this change would motivate the... view reply
  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie
    Lena Hallin-Pihlatie replied on the discussion topic Extent for ExistingLandUseDataset
    Dear Julian, Thanks for bringing this issue to discussion. I skimmed through the INSPIRE data models to compare also with  the solutions of other vector application schemas. In addition to LC and LU I could only find an example in EF (a... view reply
  • Julián DELGADO
    Julián DELGADO replied on the discussion topic Discussion about amendmends for TG Land Cover and Land Use
    Dear Roland, I revised your proposals About AT-001, 002, 003, I agree, these changes would simplified the implementation of WFS and GMLs for Land Cover theme. About AT-004. As I understand, the reason to propose the change of multicity... view reply
  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie
    Lena Hallin-Pihlatie replied on the discussion topic Atributes
    Hi Beatriz, Sorry for late reply. Usually data providers map their data to the relevant INSPIRE application schema and leave out attributes not required/supported. You can also extend the INSPIRE application schema to include all... view reply
  • Roland GRILLMAYER
    Roland GRILLMAYER added a new discussion topic Discussion about amendmends for TG Land Cover and Land Use
    Find attached a first proposal for for amendments to the TG for Land Cover and Land...
    • Julián DELGADO

      By Julián DELGADO

      Dear Roland, I revised your proposals

      About AT-001, 002, 003, I agree, these changes would simplified the implementation of WFS and GMLs for Land Cover theme.

      About AT-004. As I understand, the reason to propose the change of multicity from the dataset side, is because a land use polygon can be in more than one dataset because does not change in the time period of the datasets. The idea is good and implementable, but would carries with more implications. At the moment the considerations for (LU or LC) datasets are ‘status layers’ from one particular datetime. Status layers ease the user interpretation, publication by webservices, etc. In summary… allowing (LC or LU) polygons in more than one dataset we would open a discussion about publication of ‘status layers’ dataset or ‘temporal continuos’ dataset in INSPIRE.

      About AT-005, LU data is hard to be implemented in some cases, data can be addressed but not digitalized, or historically described at least only by the dataset and not by the polygons. From my side, I’m ok to accept multiplicity 1..*, if there is a consensous by the INSIRE community.

      Best

       

       

  • Julián DELGADO
    Julián DELGADO added a new discussion topic Extent for ExistingLandUseDataset
    Dear all Late days a previous commented topic have arose due to the last clarifications from the consultation issues IR-ISDSS process: ‘extent’ attribute on ExistingLandUsedataset and SampledExistingLandUsedataset. I remember...
    • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

      By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

      Dear Julian,

      Thanks for bringing this issue to discussion.

      I skimmed through the INSPIRE data models to compare also with  the solutions of other vector application schemas. In addition to LC and LU I could only find an example in EF (a voidable attribute: boundingBox: GM_Boundary [0..1]). It was not a thorough analysis, but anyway it seems that the solution of LC and LU, having a separate dataset feature type, is rare, so there doesn't seem to be a Best practice example to re-use.

      I share your concern and think it would make sense to make the implementation smoother and the solutions of LU and LC to be more alike.

      1) One way to go forward would be to change the definition of the extent attribute and to rewrite the TG to  allow other ways to provide and create the extent (MultiSurface). If it isn't feasible to create an aggregation, then a bounding box or the approximate outline (country borders as polygons) could be used. I attended one TWG LU meeting in Helsinki in 2011, I think, where I suggested that to the TWG group and I still think this solution would in many cases be more feasible.

      2) If you go for a change in the data model (extent: GM_MultiSurface to extent:EX_Extent), one could add at least a TG recommendation on to use EX_BoudingPolygon (and if not possible then to use EX_GeographicBoundingBox, and not EX_GeographicDescription), or how would you go about? :https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=File:EX_Extent.png

      One could also argue that best practice is to provide the BoundedBy information, but that's another discussion :)

      In alternative 2, the already existing implementations (GMLs) would as I see it not be compatible, and therefore if I have to choose I'm in favour of nr 1). Or have I missed something? 

      What does the rest of you think?

      Lena

    • Julián DELGADO

      By Julián DELGADO

      Dear Lena, thanks for your input

      From my side, the smarter solution could be to modify the data model changing the definition of ‘extent’ attribute to EX_extent, instead GM_MultiSurface. However this change would motivate the generation of a new GML schema and could provoke inconsistences in existing implementations. At theoretically level seems feasible because EX_extent can be understood as complex aggregation of GM_MultiSurface, but in practical level many uncertainties appears.

      A possible solution can be extracted from Lena’s comment. Specifications could be modified textually with recommendation for appropriate use of ‘extent: GM_MultiSurface’ depending on the complexity of the dataset to be published. In case that the dataset allows the union/dissolve operations use the actual contour of the data including all border vertexes. In case that the dataset does not allow union/dissolve operations due to the higher number of vertexes, recommend to use at least and approximate geometry or a bounding box, but encoded like GM_MultiSurface to ensure current GML schemas.

      I do not know much examples of ExistingLandUseDataset implementations excepting ours. In our last modification of the INSPIRE LU WFS, we decided to make public the dataset ‘extent’ by and approximate geometry sufficient to involve inside the complete country. It is not a bounding box, and not correlates exactly vertex-by-vertex with the LU units, but solves the WFS implementation. You can see our geometry for Spain in the following link (save the WFS request as GML file and open with a GIS software) http://servicios.idee.es/wfs-inspire/ocupacion-suelo?SERVICE=WFS&VERSION=2.0.0&REQUEST=GetFeature&TYPENAME=elu:ExistingLandUseDataSet

      Best

      Julián

    • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

      By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

      Dear Julian,

      I see what you mean, but that would need an update of all LU schemas, but the raster (gridded) LU schema, increasing the risk for inconsistencies for sure.

      Let's wait for input on this from others until the end of the week and if others agree (don't disagree), then I will at some point investigate what kind of textual amendments this change would need in practice. And lets then see what the representatives of MIG says.

      In the end, the ETS won't be a test testing whether there is a union behind, but making these textual amendments would make the whole thing more clear and feasible.

      Thanks for sharing your example. Working examples are valuable.

      Lena

       

       

  • Beatriz Caro Gadea
    Beatriz Caro Gadea added a new discussion topic Atributes
    Hi all? Should I keep the original data (atributes) of my layer or should I upload only those that inspire requires? I´m a bit confuse about that and about lot of things really. Thank you in advance
    • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

      By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

      Hi Beatriz,

      Sorry for late reply. Usually data providers map their data to the relevant INSPIRE application schema and leave out attributes not required/supported.

      You can also extend the INSPIRE application schema to include all information, but in this case you need to know how to do it (the extension methodology). 

      Let me know if you need some more help or examples.

      Kind regards,

      Lena

  • Lars Erik STORGAARD
    Lars Erik STORGAARD replied on the discussion topic Attributes in PLU - voidable but not nillable in GML application schema
    Thank you both, Peter and Enrico. Your explanation and the GML example was very useful to us. //Lars view reply
  • Enrico Iredi
    Enrico Iredi replied on the discussion topic Attributes in PLU - voidable but not nillable in GML application schema
    Hello Lars, here is an etf valid gml example. That should answer your question ... Enrico view reply
  • Enrico Iredi
    Enrico Iredi uploaded the file GML Example PlannedLandUse (PLU)
    gml file now ETF valid (status 9.4.2019) https://metaver.de/trefferanzeige?docuuid=D059011F-EDBD-4810-9307-BA8D227B5008&plugid=/ingrid-group:ige-iplug-HH&docid=D059011F-EDBD-4810-9307-BA8D227B5008
  • Peter PARSLOW
    Peter PARSLOW replied on the discussion topic Attributes in PLU - voidable but not nillable in GML application schema
    The backgroundMap attribute of the SpatialPlan feature type is nillable:(I'm not sure how you made your sample visible!) Same applies to the SupplementaryRegulation & ZoningElement. This should mean that a code fragment... view reply
  • Peter PARSLOW
    Peter PARSLOW uploaded the file INSPIRE LU xsd extract
  • Lars Erik STORGAARD
    Lars Erik STORGAARD replied on the discussion topic Attributes in PLU - voidable but not nillable in GML application schema
    Thanks for reply, Peter. Yes, I also noticed the typo in "backgroudMapURI". According to your answer that backgroundMap is correctly nillable - I am not an expert in to reading xsd, but I simply cannot see that in the schema. For me the... view reply
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