Question (NPOC)

One of our datasets (on water bodies, see example below) can’t be brought in conformance with the specification as the current data structure is such that the information needed to bring the data in conformance is lacking (two classes not separated in the original data). Even after re-structure (which is planned) the data will still not easily be brought in conformance due to the same reason, lack of the information needed to make the distinction. The information needed to do the re-structure can’t easily be gathered. Can the dataset still be reported as conformant due to the fact that the information is not in existence although the dataset can’t to 100% fulfil the specification?


Answer (EC Inspire Team)

If data are within the scope of INSPIRE (digital, held by public authority, related to one of the themes), they have to be made conformant with the requirements of the Regulation within the timeframe given by the Directive.

However, the effort required for this (in the example given, splitting up existing Waterbody objects - including lakes and rivers > 6m wide - into Watercourse and StandingWater spatial objects under INSPIRE) could be considered as "new data collection" (e.g. manual digitizing), which explicitly is not required by the INSPIRE Directive (article 4 (4)).

The effort needs always to be weighted against the use that will be made of this data under the INSPIRE scope.

Note (for the attachment of names to the new objects) that the geographicalName attribute is voidable (like essentially all other attributes except inspireId and geometry) and thus does not have to be provided if it cannot be made available under reasonable costs.