- 1 Do we report only inspected and skipped parcels in the Lpis Sample Pre-selection Satus XML?
- 2 Subject of "LPIS polygon zero state" in case of updated parcels
- 3 Content of the "referenceAreaEtsIncomparable" field in the LpisPolygonZeroState.gml
- 4 What is the rationale for the metadata in the reporting package?
- 5 Introducing the scores of the last year in the assessment report increases programming costs
- 6 In the assessment report template, what is the difference between assessment and evaluation?
- 7 Scoping issues and skipping codes
- 8 Non-agricultural features reporting
Do we report only inspected and skipped parcels in the Lpis Sample Pre-selection Satus XML?
NO. The file LpisSamplePreselectionStatus.xml should contain all RP provided by the Lpis Sample Pre-selection file in a reporting year:
- the inspected parcels should hold all RP_FSI values as “false” and belongsToQC_Sample as “true”;
- the skipped parcels should present valid reason for skipping, skipped occurence="true” and belongsToQC_Sample as “true”;
- the other RP (neither inspected nor skipped) should hold all RP_FSI values as “false” and belongsToQC_Sample as “false”.
As a consequence:
- the number of inspected parcels (not including the skipped ones) should be equal to the sample size for the ETS inspection.
- the number of parcels flagged as: belongsToQC_Sample = “true” should reflect the sum of the inspected and skipped parcels.
Subject of "LPIS polygon zero state" in case of updated parcels
The updated polygon should be reported in the LPIS Polygon zero state.gml. The indication that the RP has been updated prior to the ETS should be given through the information stored in the non-structured evidence upload.
Content of the "referenceAreaEtsIncomparable" field in the LpisPolygonZeroState.gml
This field contains the information for all reference parcels comprising those that are within the 100 meter buffer. Flag the field "referenceAreaEtsIncomparable" as TRUE in each case when you have recorded evidence from your LPIS update process to express that the reference area, as recorded in the LPIS, was established on means other than GPS/CAPI area delineation or mapping.
Skip the reference parcels that are in the discarded zone and use the feasibility code T2 (parcel is partially or fully not covered by image). Additionally, document your justification for the discarding of the zone via the Non-structured evidence upload. Do not report the discarded zone in the OrthoimagerySet.xml
NOTE: Pay attention to the correct terminology: skip parcels but discard zones!
What is the rationale for the metadata in the reporting package?
It is a compulsory element required by ISO 19157. It can be considered as the metadata for the assessment report and also enables "assessment through usability" for that report (rather than an assessment on scores).
Introducing the scores of the last year in the assessment report increases programming costs
The introduction of the assessment report template does not affect the scoreboard.xml, so we do not see how this affects the IT programming or raises the costs. We understand it has to be manually looked up from the previous year's document, but it serves the "effect of actions" fields, improving the readability of the combined document.
In the assessment report template, what is the difference between assessment and evaluation?
The difference was introduced because of two reasons:
- to allow for a better distinction between the output of the inspection observations (output) and conclusion (outcome).
- to include considerations previous assessments into these conclusions.
As a result, we expect: Assessment: a summary description of the findings (i.e. the scores, meeting thresholds, and other relevant observations) Effect of actions: the observed changes from last year esp. regarding possible effects of an action from the remedial action plan from the previous year, if any.
Evaluation: (which is in fact a self-evaluation) taking into account both above and possibly other analysis, provide your final conclusion and what needs to be done and why (i.e. define a remedial action, continue in the same way, or take no action.) For further reading see e.g. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-assessment-and-evaluation (from quick Google search).
Scoping issues and skipping codes
Skipping code S1 is introduced for wrong scoping matters when some reference parcels should not have been put in the LPIS QA scope in the first place (if declared exclusively for 'other uses'). RP's with reference area less than 0,1 ha that were declared during previous year are in the scope, therefore should be inspected according to the ETS workflow, regardless of the national minimum payment area regulation. LPIS QA procedure doesn't regulate the minimum size of the RP area.
From Annex I, Table 0: (1) The use of code F1 requires provision of additional information (evidence or proof) to confirm the occurrence of the force majeure situation. (2) Part of the codes listed, are the same used for the categorization at parcel level, in the CTS documentation used in the CwRS program.
Non-agricultural features reporting
It is not mandatory to include non-agricultural features in gml file but xsd schema offers an option to include non-agricultural features.