Back to section

Post a comment on the text below

Class: SurfaceWaterBody

  1. Please include here any comments which apply to all the schema elements in this Class.
  2. In addition to those general schema element level comments, we welcome your views on: a) whether you think this Class can be simplified;  and b) whether you think the linkages with other reporting Classes or Schemas can be improved, and how;

Previous comments

  • HU - Hungary (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 25 Mar 2019 11:52:18

    Comments which should apply to all the schema elements in this Class:  there is no real connection between GML and XML schemas thus some information should duplicate, some are missing as basic information from XML. We would prefer if  all data in GML would be included in XML as a view from GML schema element.

    In addition to those general schema element level comments: This XML should be linkaged with other GML  SWB schemas and add new element whether the water body really changed or not, because in GML all changes will be registered without knowledge on reality (very small changes because of basemap corrections either  transformations between coordinate systems or  joint point negotiations at country borders, etc.)

  • IE1 - Ireland (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 27 Mar 2019 16:02:36

    Some general comments on overall reporting for the overall processess added in here:

    1. The guidance uses some confusing terms which could benefit from the inclusion of worked examples to guide MS reporters. An example would be a pre-compiled database to best practice.
    2. We struggled to make sense of the error codes returned when data was being reported. The staff at the EEA helpdesk did what they could to assist but too often this was just to reiterate the Guidance document. Having error codes accompanied with an English explanation would help.
    3. A lot of detail is required but perhaps all of the information is not being used. There is potential to save an awful lot of time and effort if the schema could be streamlined. Did other jurisdictions get around this by submitting a large annex 0 document?


  • BG - Bulgaria (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 27 Mar 2019 17:19:44

    We suggest that the Member States have the opportunity to report the names of the surface water bodies on national language, either in the current fields or in additional column.

  • NO - Norway (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 13:56:47

    We support the BG proposal

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.