ESDIN Quality Model – Benchmarking exercise

ESDIN Quality Model – Benchmarking exercise

Introduction • In Dublin we agreed to carry out a benchmarking exercise • The team • Jonathan • Ourania • Jordi • Gunhild • Carol Final report to be presented back to Plenary in Belgium

Aims • To validate the ESDIN quality model • To see if it is possible to implement the model • To identify issues with the model • To identify potential costs with the implementation

Methodology Topic selected in plenary Group leader appointed Group selected from volunteers Secretary appointed Questionnaire prepared Jan Mar Apr Questionnaire issued Answers prepared Workshop to collate answers First draft prepared Review May Second draft prepared Final check Final version presented to plenary

Questionnaire • Click here....

Responses

Results – Administrative Units • Generally the quality model appears to be implementable. • It was noticeable that some feature types, most noticeably Administrative Units, are currently not assessed for quality at all. • There are some issues with the Administrative Unit feature type attributes nationalCode and inspireId which need to be addressed by the ESDIN quality model. • NMCAs may introduce an evaluation programme for this theme.

Results – Geographical Names • Generally the quality model appears to be implementable • Most NMCAs thought that the measures proposed would be useful to their organisation • All NMCAs were willing to introduce an evaluation programme for this theme even though there may be significant cost in doing so. • The ESDIN project needs to look at the use of domain consistency on the following attributes: • Spelling of name – text • Pronunciation of name - pronunciationSoundLink and pronunciationIPA. • The ESDIN project should consider the use of thematic accuracy on the Named Place type(NamedPlaceTypeValue) attribute

Results – Cadastral Parcels • Generally the quality model appears to be implementable • Most NMCAs thought that the measures proposed would be useful to their organisation • All NMCAs either already have an evaluation programme or are willing to introduce one for this theme. The costs do not appear to be significant. • The ESDIN project has specified “Absolute accuracy” as a feature attribute of the FT_CadastralBoundary. This needs to be looked at as this is different to the Inspire specification • The ESDIN project should look at the use of format consistency within the estimatedAccuracy attribute of Feature Type of Cadastral Boundary as this appears to be superfluous

Results – Transport Networks • Generally the quality model appears to be implementable • Most NMCAs thought that the measures proposed would be useful to their organisation • Three NMCAs already have an evaluation programme and three others are willing to introduce one for this theme. The costs do not appear to be significant. • There appears to be a misunderstanding with the feature types Transport Network, Network Type and Network Connection. The results from these sections are inconclusive. • There is an issue with the ESDIN model in that within INSPIRE the transport properties of the INSPIRE TN model can be applied to every TN feature type, unless otherwise specified by a restriction. • The ESDIN quality model has applied an absolute accuracy measure to both road centre lines and road nodes. If the network line is not a true centre line then this measure is not implementable. • The usefulness of measuring “Non-quantitative attribute correctness” on FormofWay: and FunctionalRoadClass within the Roadlink Feature type is questionable given that there is also a measure on classification correctness. This needs to be looked at by the ESDIN project.

Results – Hydrography • There is a clear issue that needs to be looked at by ESDIN as to how the positional accuracy and completeness of some feature types can be measured when these features may be dry for much of the year. • Those areas that do not have issues with water features running dry felt that the model looked implementable. • It was noticeable that for many of the feature types or attributes there were either none or just one response. With so few organisations responding to this section, the value of the measures could be questioned. • Two NMCAs already have an evaluation programme and the other would be willing to introduce one for this theme. The costs do appear to be significant.

Conclusions – AU,CP, GN & TN • In general appears to be implementable • Many respondents already measuring some elements • Others willing to measure more elements • Items in each theme that need to be addressed by ESDIN • AU and GN – NMCAs willing to set up sampling programme despite cost • CP and TN – NMCAs costs increase by a small amount

Conclusions – Hydrography • Results not so conclusive • Some NMCAs felt that model was implementable others didn’t • Issue with temporary water features • Unable to complete assessment • Minimal responses to some questions • Costs appear to be significant

Conclusions – Did the BM meet the aims? • To identify whether the ESDIN quality model could be implemented • To identify any issues with the quality model • To identify potential costs with the model

Issues and lessons learnt • We can deliver to tight timescales • Must be organised • Collate evidence in advance of any meeting • Have some experts on hand!

Finally • I’d like to say thank you to • Ourania, Jordi, Gunhild and Carol • Ken, Magni and Slavko for their responses • Antti, Jaana and Erling from ESDIN WP8

ESDIN Quality Model – Benchmarking exercise