430 likes | 439 Views
a potential European contribution to the UN geo-DB claude.luzet@ megrin .org. Who are we?. grouping(s) of European NMAs Comité Européen des Responsables de la Cartographie Officielle Multipurpose European Ground-Related Information Network. Why do we exist?.
E N D
a potential European contribution to the UN geo-DBclaude.luzet@ megrin .org
Who are we? • grouping(s) of European NMAs • Comité Européen des Responsables de la Cartographie Officielle • Multipurpose European Ground-Related Information Network
Why do we exist? • All NMAs have common concerns technical, organisational, legal, etc… a discussion and exchange platform CERCO since 1979 • Increasing cross-boarder issues dedicated and permanent resources business-like structure MEGRIN since 1993
resources • annual budget ~1 million • 70% members financial subscriptions • coordination unit • Marne-la-Vallée (Paris-France) • 4~7 people • distributed resources
our experience • national datasets are not interoperable • technical differences • format, standard, co-ordinate system, … • semantics, language, ... • policy differences • access rights, price policy, ... >>> need for harmonisation mechanisms
membership MEGRIN
membership CERCO + MEGRIN CERCO
membership CERCO + MEGRIN CERCO CERCO observers
L’Europe des 15 European Union member countries
Achievements and on-going activities • (CERCO) Working Groups • R&D projects • metadata : GDDD - LaClef • admin.boundaries : SABE • 1:250 000 : EuroMap • 1:1 million : MapBSR & Global Map
metadata • the current GDDD (since 1995) • harmonised description of 360 ‘digital maps’ • the future LaClef/EuroMapFinder • “unlocking public sector information” • operational by Dec. 2000 • fully multilingual • distributed system • XML exchange protocol • wide product range • e-commerce
SABE : Seamless Administrative Boundaries of Europe Current version • official national data • 26 countries, ~100 000 polygons • geometrically and semantically harmonised • single licence • maintained : ‘91, ‘95, ‘97, 2001, (continuous?)
SABE Current version added2000
SABE Current version Negotiation for 2001
EuroMap 250 Vmap level 1 remote from actual demand Class 1: EUROMAP prototype Class 2: EUROMAP extended with product 1 and external funding issues resolved
Current assessment • our assets • the organisational structure • 10 year trans-national experience • actual concrete achievements • obstacles • politician/deciders awareness : no EU GI policy • funding : insufficient to continue on our own
Ex. DG13 several GI initiatives …. But no GI strategy or policy
ETeMII E.G.I.I. • European Territorial Management Information Infrastructure • Aims • To organise a network of excellence • To build consensus on technical issues • To raise awareness
7 Work-packages • 1 - Project management • 2 - User’s requirements • 3 - Reference data • 4 - Metadata • 5 - Standards, interoperability • 6 - Dissemination • 7 - Assessment and evaluation
Main aim: To reach a technical consensus on the definition of reference data at European level, at global level (GSDI) To address data policy issues Focus on minimum spec. for reference data, main users: medium scales the existing situation WP3 - Reference data
Global Map • Phase one • starts with existing global datasets • locally updated by NMA • Internet distribution starts end 2000 • Phase two • integration of national datasets • flexible scale/resolution • legal framework and commercial exploitation
MapBSR • 1:1 million topo database • pan-European extension? • contribution to Global Map?
Conclusions • Extensive Geographic Information projects needs multi-year planning • Source-data is not interoperable • Data maintenance is critical • Data sources and quality are generally difficult to assess >>>> collaboration is the sensible approach
Lack of resources and of policies Obstacles : not technical
and drivers • clear policies contribute to: • collaboration, co-ordination • reduced costs (no duplication) • consistent information (common references) & attracts resources
Alice’s two keywords COLLABORATION MAINTENANCE
Risks • Information not the same • at global (and UN) level • at regional (eg. European) level • at national (government) level • in commercial products • Maintenance duplicated • at all levels • at different scales
Suggested action plan • 1. Reference data • centrally stored, used by all • 2. Cataloguing • UN system data and GIS related projects • links to other metadata resources • 3. Co-ordination and agreements • internal to UN system • with NMAs, other (official) data owners • distributed databases
UN ‘reference’ data(base) • reference-data, core-data, base-data or fundamental data • is NOT all the data needed ... • but the common data needed by most (UN) users • should be (relatively) scale-free • today’s technology allowing on-the-fly feature selection/generalisation • therefore higher available accuracy/resolution?
Ref.data : suggested steps 1. Assess UN various internal needs 2. Define a common “reference data” - in co-ordination with other initiatives 3. Use current global/regional initiatives 4. Support filling out gaps - emerging regional initiatives - harmonisation initiatives - data developments
Number 1 best candidate • administrative boundaries • international boundaries • lowest (communal) administrative units • harmonised hierarchies (cf. EUROSTAT) • names (multilingual) • unique identifiers (cf. EUROSTAT) • additional key features • coast-line, ‘big’ lakes • other land use, natural parks, ...
Second bests • population, settlements • transport & infrastructure • road network, tunnels, bridges, ... • rail, stations, ... • water-ways, harbours, ... • airport/airfields, ... • power lines, ... • DEM
An issue ... flexible & incremental implementation vs. semantic & topological consistency
a second issue quality, richly attributed object oriented vector database, but rapidly aging vs. (or combined) up-to-date information-poor raster images
… a necessity ... Think big (and medium term) and start small (and fast)
…and a citation “The UN can do little on its own” quoted by Mr. Kensaku Hogen consider collaboration and agreements with main source-data providers (NMAs, …) and their global or regional groupings (already harmonised datasets)
UN Carto.section and GM • Start with the existing • avoid duplication (globally & nationally) • ensure interoperability • ensure sustainability • Build on the existing • availability vs. needs • plan for incremental evolution • collaborate with and support global/regional/national relevant initiatives
GSDI Global Map UN geoDB PCGIAP MEGRIN Industry NMA PC-Americas NMA NMA NMA NMA NMA NMA NMA
Thank you Merci http://www.megrin.org