Clarification request: INSPIRE themes for groundwater extraction about helpdesk HOT 6 CLOSED

Seems similar to water quantity in rivers that we've been modelling as EF.

Advantage of the EF model is that it allows for dynamic data, extraction over time, through the integrated O&M model. If you go this direction, I'd recommend investigating the use of OGC SensorThings API (STA), now accepted as an INSPIRE Good Practice, demonstrators (including water surface quantity) available from the API4INSPIRE pages

from helpdesk.

I understand... groundwater extraction can be compared with water extraction from a river.

I also found that drinking water extraction points are mapped to EF as prioritaire dataset nr. 21.02. See https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/need-driven-data-prioritisation/blob/main/documents/eReporting_PriorityDataList_V2.1_final_20201008.xlsx

Next the relation of this to my questions 1 and 3: map facilities and production figures to EF? Or map the facilities also to PF?

Secondly, in the Netherlands we make a distinction between groundwater extraction for the purpose of drinking water and groundwater extraction for other purposes. That explains my questions 2 and 4.

Question 5 is of course related to the use of groundwater, but not for any kind of consumption (extraction + infiltration in a closed system or in an open system for the purpose of extracting energy).

from helpdesk.

Very good questions, nice that somebody is clearly detailing!

To the various types of groundwater extraction (Q2&4), from the EF view it's not relevant for what it's being extracted, just provides the amounts together with relevant methodology.

To the use of EF vs PF (Q1&3), would depend on the data available for these facilities. EF would be required in either case if you're providing the amounts (Q2&4) via the EF Model. Adding PF would depend on if you have additional information on these facilities that cannot be provided by EF, but is covered by PF.

To Q5 on groundwater based subsurface energy systems - sounds like something for the RenewableAndWasteResource or RenewableAndWastePotentialCoverage types from ER (the coverage model has a GeothermalPotentialValue codelist foreseen)

from helpdesk.

Dear @HanWelmer & @KathiSchleidt ,
I fully agree that the choice of most suitable INSPIRE data theme strongly depends on the specific information available. Generally speaking, EF is to be preferred when the facilities link to observations and measurements taken.
Likewise for Q5: the data theme selection depends on whether the available data focuses on resources (in this case I would go for ER) or on energy systems (probably PF fits better).

from helpdesk.

Dear @HanWelmer,
do you need further support or can I proceed with closing this issue?
Did the answers provided help you? It would be interesting if you could share also the solution(s) adopted (if any) for providing your data under INSPIRE.

from helpdesk.

Dear Stefania Morrone,
Sorry for not closing the subject.

We have included Geonovum in this discussion. Together, mainly based on this discussion, we came to the following conclusions:

• we will map GUF (facilities) to PF.
• where GPD (production data) is available we will map the combination of GPD + GUF to EF.
• we will not additionally map groundwater based subsurface energy systems to ER as GPD/GUF concentrates on the facilities and water volume and it doesn't really fit the definition of geothermic energy.

All participants, thanks a lot for your contribution.

from helpdesk.