English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

GIScience 2016 Short Paper Proceedings Managing and Updating Geographical Data: Issues Along the Hierarchical Chain? K. Ooms 1 , J. Crompvoets 2 , P. De Maeyer 1 , P. Lambert 3 , E. Mannens 3 , N. Van de Weghe 1 , S. Verstockt 3 , P. Viaene 1 Department of Geography, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 (S8), 9000 Ghent, Belgium Email: {kristien.ooms;philippe.demaeyer;nico.vandeweghe;pepijn.viaene}@ugent.be KU Leuven Public Governance Institute, Parkstraat 45 (box 3609), 3000 Leuven, Belgium Email: joep.crompvoets@soc.kuleuven,be Data Science Lab, Ghent Univeristy - iMinds, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Email: {peter.lambert;erik.mannens;steven.verstockt}@ugent.be Abstract This article describes the needs and challenges (technical, juridical and governance) related to exchanging, managing and updating a large scale geographic reference dataset. The focus is placed on a specific case, namely the large scale reference frame of Flanders, the GRB. Furthermore, new challenges and needs for the future are considered. 1. Introduction Nowadays most countries have a detailed digital geographic dataset covering their territory (Carpenter & Snell 2013). To manage this dataset, it is integrated in the country’s hierarchical administrative structure, with specific rules regarding who can use, manage and update the information. This is embedded in framework, which is often referred to as a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) (e.g. Crompvoets et al. 2004). These SDIs have proven to be especially challenging when considering the interplay between the different governments and other actors within a country, each with their own authorities and responsibilities (Jacoby et al. 2002; Warnest 2005). Nevertheless, the development of (national) SDIs is not new, but a shift has been noticed in its main goal from data to data use (Williamson et al. 2006). 1.1 GRB – the Large Scale Reference Frame in Flanders In Flanders, the dataset which serves as the large scale reference frame is called GRB (Grootschalig Referentiebestand). Its specifications are imposed by the Flemish Government (objects to be included, metadata, finances, use, management, maintenance, etc.) (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap 2004; AGIV 2014), and is managed by Informatie Vlaanderen (IV), a governmental institution. Recently, access to this detailed dataset has been opened up to a wider public, including architects, notaries, surveyors, intercommunal, federal government, etc. (Informatie Vlaanderen 2015). Since January 1 st 2015, the GRB became obligatory as a reference frame for its users to facilitate the exchange of large scale geographical data. This means that the users of the reference frame will superimpose their own (thematic) data layers on top of this reference frame. 1.2 Top Level Updates vs Low Level Mismatches When dealing with geographic information that covers a territory, keeping it up-to-date across all related instances can be problematic (Jing et al. 2014). The Flemish Government is responsible for maintaining the dataset of the GRB. Updates can be divided into two groups: (1) a change in the real situation (splitting or merging a parcel, change in road infrastructure, adding a building, etc.); (2) quality improvements (e.g. more accurate measurements,