1

Outcomes of the 2015 LPIS workshop Baveno

GeoInf team

21st MARS conference - Thessaloniki

November 25th, 2015

Outline2015 LPIS upgrade and LPIS QA activities• ETS guidance and documentation• LPIS QA sampling by EC:

• handling

• representativeness

• image quality separate presentation

Brown paper sessions on technical guidance needs• Design• Resulted priorities and state of handling

2

ETS guidance and documentation activities1. Holistic approach replacing targeted instructions/guidance• Inputs/outputs are received/disseminated in standard ways• Technical solutions are maintained in one central place• documentation is automatically generated• Additional information and illustrations can be added2. LCM driven specification• based formal requirement model• business/system use-case model elements• re-use and tracing of components TG ETS: hybrid of DPS + UML-derived dynamic model• Not well accepted by DPMM @May, possible reasons:

• Too radical a change: fear of misunderstanding between stakeholders

• Too focused on system view; hidden changes in business component

• Resource constraints for full holistic model implementation

• roll-back to targeted “annexes” @July with recovery of business component activity diagrams

2015 LPIS QA zone planningBased on RP + agricultural area density: <2 (blue), 2-5 (cyan), >2 RP/km2121 normal: (1 failed, 1 contingency) 2 pan-EU (in blue): BG+FIrandom inside NUTS grouping (78) 10 optional bonus (in cyan): none

3

VHR/aerial LPIS QA imagery2014 2015

Circled MS: see next slide

Sample representativenessRP area distribution: 2014-2015 no statistical significant difference / trend fewer LPIS QA sites do not jeopardize representativeness as to CwRS

many equivalent

some better some worse

RP area (ha): sample >< population

4

Perceived representativeness (27/44)

Delivery of images & samples

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

February-15 March-15 April-15 May-15 June-15 July-15 August-15 September-15

Progress during 2015

Image Acquisition LPIS RP population Sample Preselection

Start: CwRS – 1 monthClosure: foreseen 30/9Contingency taken 1/9• Skip 1 UK-NI image• Reprocess 1 UK-EN

image

One image per pass: Last image delays the sample: stratify triple image zones?4 images rejected: snow, haze, clouds

5

Appreciation of JRC managementJRC handling: tools & communications perceived rather positively

Move population upload deadline to September 1st ?

WS concept: TG as Data Product SpecificationDPS: complete, coherent and clear reference document to

focus on chapters:• scope• content & structure• capture• maintenance• quality• portrayal

The template is proven in EU context• Basis for the INSPIRE common data specification

Regulations• JRC wants to use it a structure for technical guidance

documentsA standard (ISO 19131) ensures compatibility with other GI

standards

6

Methodology: brown paper session1. Every member writes down his/her facts/experiences for the

topic of the working group. These remarks can be about any of data related to the specific topic of the working group: short and focused on solutions/improvements.

2. The prepared presentations can offer inspiration.

3. The memo papers are discussed and clustered. The sections of ISO 19131 may be used for relevancy check and also clustering.

4. Work towards a common agreement on the remarks.

5. Together with the members of the working group, the chairmen tries to summarize the clustered remarks.

Content: 6 working groups

12

Workgroup # chair rapporteur facilitator preps

Field Cases and semantic description

17 Peter Karoshi Attila Kocsis Wim Devos 2

Permanent Grassland 22 MatjazRotenhajzer

ZuzanaZakova

Agnieszka Tarko

3

EFA-Layer 26 Jaap Kroon Anne Peschon Natasa Luketic

2

Geospatial Application 24 Joachim Mueller

Martin Havlicek

Andrius Kucas

2

Data interoperability 17 Henrik Friis Bernadett Csonka

Katalin Toth 1

Upkeep 21 Lynne Martin Ana Carmena Slavko Lemajic

3

7

Outcomehttp://ies-webarchive-ext.jrc.it/mars/mars/News-Events/LPIS_2015_WS_Baveno/Agenda.html

In the following slides outcomes are• regrouped by generic issue (over all WG, indication of WG relevance)• without focus on DPS chapter• indication of each

WGx WGyx WGx x's top/1st issue/comment/suggestion EC's reponsex x issue mentioned by both WGx and WGy EC's reponse

x issue mentioned by WGy On-site EC response

Eligibility of Land

Fieldc

ases

/sem

antic

s

Perm

anen

t Gra

sslan

d

EFA-

layer

GSAA

Inte

rope

rabil

ity/co

mpa

tibilit

y

LPIS

upk

eep

x xELP: Grazable trees in local practise: extensive grassland vs. Landscape features …

xGuidance to deal with conditions under rural development support (e.gNatura2000 layers working @ different scales than LPIS. TG MLL

x x xHow to make definitions and criteria objective, non-discriminatory, measurable and consistent? …

xHow to deal with maximum densities defined by traditional cropping practices and member states’ decisions?

partly TG pro rata

xAgroforestry: Arable land, permanent grassland or permanent crop?

x What is a tree (how big: now vs. future), …x When does a parcel with tree become a forest? …x x What is the role of species for tree/forage/grazeble definition? …x What is the status of photovoltaic fields? …

x xDoes it make a difference if land is topographically included in the RP or if adjacent? CircaBC

8

Use of agricultural land

Fieldc

ases

/sem

antic

s

Perm

anen

t Gra

sslan

d

EFA-

layer

GSAA

Inte

rope

rabil

ity/c

ompa

tibilit

y

LPIS

upk

eep

x Guidance on sofa farmers (unused land) …

x x xHow to distinguish between use of arable becoming permanent grassland? Quid three year rule? …

x Guidance on minimum activity. WS 9/12

x xGuidance on demonstrating "at the disposal": only when conflicting? Quid ownership rights

fieldcases bilateral Q&A

Eligibility of agricultural land cover/use The working group proposed a

decisions tree for land with trees• National definitions apply!• Probably there is a similar need for

permanent grassland

Information is rather dispersed• Several communication channels

operated by DGAgri• EcoJ verdicts • WS on PG in Brussels, 9/12/2015

DG JRC proposes sharing yourexperience/solutions via catalogue of field cases

9

Data capture techniques

Fieldc

ases

/sem

antic

s

Perm

anen

t Gra

sslan

d

EFA-

layer

GSAA

Inte

rope

rabil

ity/com

patib

ility

LPIS

upk

eep

x xWhat are national definitions of forest (minimum area, minimum cover, minimum height of a tree)? national matter

x x x x What impact has deviation between polygon and TG CD / ETS

x xGuidance on estimating non eligible areas in an objective way TG MLL

x xGuidance on temporal and spatial resolution of imagery TG MLL

x x x x x Guidance on accuracy of measurement TG CD / TG EFA / TG MLLx Issue geometry validation rules TG MLL

x x x x xCAPI guidance, agriforestry, MMU, tree densities, scattered features, grazebility TG MLL + work in progress

xWhen we capture land cover, and when we assess the land use?

TG MLL + LPIS QA (Annex III) + work in progress

x x Emphasize the importance of local knowledge/rules TG CD

Fieldc

ases

/sem

antic

s

Perm

anen

t Gra

sslan

d

EFA-

layer

GSAA

Inte

rope

rabil

ity/c

ompa

tibilit

y

LPIS

upk

eep

x x When to split a RP, moving to AP? TG upkeepx x x What about features that change in time? …

x How to measure completeness? …

x xClarify chronology of processing with GSAA/ OTSC / LPIS QA

Guidance on AA/LPIS/OTSC

x x x Guidance on cycle duration/frequency TG upkeepas needed, no legal 3yrs basis

xClarify effect of the 2% threshold on the payment process work in progress

x Guidance onretroactive recoveries4 yrs laid down in R.2988/1995

x x Guidance on remedial actions / upgrade work in progress

xHow to incorprorate more efficient the new CAP land types into LPIS

TG MLL+work in progress

Database upkeep

10

Creating the EFA-layer

Fieldc

ases

/sem

antic

s

Perm

anen

t Gra

sslan

d

EFA-

layer

GSAA

Inte

rope

rabil

ity/c

ompa

tibilit

y

LPIS

upk

eep

x x Give point/line/polygon advice by RP type TG EFAx Leave implementation choice to MS Defaultx Clarify the adjacency rules (BPS/Gaec) Guidance on EFA

xIntroduce restricted, proportional and relevant QC/QA for EFA …

x LF-interaction with GAEC in progressx Reconsider content (fallow land) in progress

Introducing the GSAA

Fieldc

ases

/sem

antic

s

Perm

anen

t Gra

sslan

d

EFA-

layer

GSAA

Inte

rope

rabil

ity/com

patib

ility

LPIS

upk

eep

x xHow to compare AA with external data sources? When does AA prevail over external sources ? Guidance on AA

xProvide explicit functional requirements for SW and data work in progress

xClarify relationship between spatial overlap and double declaration

inform farmer asap, before AA deadline

11

GI/IT support

Fieldc

ases

/sem

antic

s

Perm

anen

t Gra

sslan

d

EFA-

layer

GSAA

Inte

rope

rabil

ity/com

patib

ility

LPIS

upk

eep

x Provide LPIS concept and core model LCM draft 2.0 frozen

x Develop a compatible EFA and RD core modelEFA in draft LCM 2.0, RD not developed

xConsider flexibilty in the data encoding / exchange formats noted

x x Manage scale, precision, accuracy TG MLL

xConsider data exchange/access: legal, metadata, standards LCM draft 2.0 frozen

x x x Share more examplesfieldcases: work in progress

x Reduce human factor TG MLL

EC’s communication at closure4 categories identified:1. Questions regarding the regulatory framework:• Handle WS “information” with care, some interpretations clarified on-site 2. Methodological problems • e.g.: level of precision, accuracy of measurement for EFA,• if appropriate TG3. Proposals regarding the 'how to implement' • e.g: 2% stability threshold also for EFA, common geometry validation rules• if appropriate Guidance/TG4. Issues that encompass a more political/policy perspective • e.g. for example: how to measure the completeness of the EFA-layer?• to be considered in the upcoming simplification

12

draft TG on Management of LPIS LayersSources of spatial data in LPIS Imagery Ground survey Third-party data

Geospatial features in LPIS Feature properties Spatial relationships – geometry

rulesLayers in LPIS Layers in general Single feature layers in LPIS Interacting between different layers Multiple feature layers in LPIS Area calculation

Positional Accuracy Coordinate reference system Units and precision Minimum mapping units Error propagation and final

accuracy Spatial interaction between the

LPIS layers

1. Data structure1.Feature level metadata2.Life-cycle management3.The anomaly feature type

2. Data capture: the main steps of an upkeep workflow1.How to assess and categorize potential data sources?2.Does the reported anomaly need an update?3.How to process the geometry of the reference parcel?4.How to determine the validity of the updated reference parcel version?5.Which attribute values need updating?

3. Additional methods1.How to detect manifest changes? land cover CAPI2.How to perform a visual inspection? quid CTS?3.Performing a congruency test to formally discard uncertainty status?4.Assess the status of pro-rata contributions quid validation?5.Merge surveys6.Apply the 2% stability threshold

draft TG update (1st part of upkeep)

13

ConclusionsThe LPIS QA image implementation was very successful from a procedural

viewpoint • >98,3% of planned imagery 1 month before campaign closure, no bonus needed• Will be continued in 2016, BUT

+ later population upload can be considered (e.g. by end of August)

+ maybe stratify “triple image” zones?

- Image area will be smaller (150km2 i.s.o. 225km2) due to rising costs, bonus may kick in

• Technical aspects discussed in separate presentation

The LPIS WS identified a wide range of issues for TG• Those without regulatory basis (TG MLL, TG upkeep part 1) are published• Those issues linked to technical aspects of rules or detection of eligibility:

• Fragmented (e.g. in TG on OTSC-CD, TG on OTSC-EFA) and DGAgri communications

• Delayed (e.g. TG MTS (incl. eligibility profile for new grasslands), TG on CAPI?)

work in progress, see outcome of other WS