Post a comment on the text below

Previous comments

• ES - Spain (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 19 Mar 2019 16:40:39

  The explanatory text should include a reference to the identifier specifications included in GIS gudance (reproduced below)

   

  The specification has changed in the current reporting. The identifiers must:

  • Start with the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, except for Greece ('EL') and the United Kingdom ('UK');
  • Be followed by the national code, with a maximum of 40 characters;
  • Use only upper case letters [A to Z] and digits [0 to 9].
    The underscore character ('_') or the hyphen character ('-') may be used as separators within the code (but not to separate the country code from the national code, and not in the end of the code).
    This means that the comma character (',') and the period character ('.') can no longer be used.

  The reason for this change is that each identifier will be associated with a stable URL in the WISE system (e.g. http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/SpatialUnit/euRBDCode.ES030).

  A regular expression may be used for a preliminary check the syntax of the identifiers. Adapt the following pattern to the specific country: ^[A-Z]{2}[0-9A-Z]{1}([0-9A-Z_-]{0,38}[0-9A-Z]{1}){0,1}$

• IE1 - Ireland (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 27 Mar 2019 15:52:25

  1. The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.

  1. It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
  2. Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.
  • EL - Greece (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:53:50

     
    

    1. The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.

    1. It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
    2. Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.

     EL supports this comment
    

  • IT - Italy (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 15:18:36

     
    

    1. The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.

    1. It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
    2. Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.

     IT supports this comment
    

  • PT - Portugal (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 18:19:13

     
    

    1. The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.

    1. It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
    2. Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.

     

    PT supports this comment

    In the reporting of spatial information, namely of the monitoring site, we need that some stations with "deletion" in the field "WiseEvolution" can re-enter to the next report. Sometimes, we do not have access for a while, but later the stations are again accessible and is important to consider the all time series.