Adding <feature type>‘Pumping Station’ as a generalization from <featureType>’ManMadeObject’ in Annex I Hydrography – Hydro – Physical Waters

[marloesschiereck]

# Change proposal description The Netherlands have different types of pumping stations. Sewer pumping station and pumping stations for drinking water, which we can exchange within Annex III theme US. And a surface water pumping station used in our watermanagement processes. We do not consider this type of pumping station part of the utility service network. We consider this type of pumping station as a made made object and a hydro object. This type of pumping station is visualized in figure 33 – Modelling of a polder and associated physical waters / related objects of the technical guideline of theme I Hydrography. We would expect it find is as a feature type in annex Hydrography – Hydro – Physical Waters but we can’t. We would like to add ‘PumpingStation’ or ‘SurfaceWaterPumpingStation’ to the hydrography model

## Addressed TG D2.8.I.8 Data Specification on Hydrography – Technical Guidelines dataspecification_hy.pdf

## Location B.3.1.3.5. Polders Figure 33 –Modelling of a polder and associated physical waters / related objects And Table 11.1. Layers to be provided by INSPIRE view services Layer name: HY.PhysicalWaters.ManMadeObject Spatial object types: Crossing, DamOrWeir, Embankment, Sluice, Lock, Ford, ShorelineConstruction

We would like to add ‘PumpingStation’ or ‘SurfaceWaterPumpingStation’ to the hydrography model

## Issue faced We cannot exchange our surface water pumping stations as a man-made object in the same layer as our other water management hydro objects like sluice and weir and such..

## Proposed solution Add a feature type ‘PumpingStation’ or ‘SurfaceWaterPumpingStation’ as a generalization from feature type ManMadeObject (like ‘Sluice’, ‘Lock’. ‘Embankment’….)

### Pull request n/a

# Additional information n/a

## Relevant legislation INSPIRE Directive

## Impact on IR We have not enough knowledge to decide on the impact on IR

## Impact on INSPIRE validator The new feature type must be added and allowed. The new feature type ‘PumpingStation’/’SurfaceWaterPumpingStation’ can adopt the same validation rules as the other Man Made Objects feature types.

### Linked issue n/a

## Impact on INSPIRE XML schemas The new feature type must be added, the same as the other Man-Made Object feature types.

### Linked issue n/a

## Impact on INSPIRE code lists none

### Linked issue n/a

## Change proposer Dutch Waterboard Organisation (het Waterschapshuis), Dutch Water Information Centre (Informatiehuis Water), Geonovum

References

For the record: we have over 8000 surface water pumping stations in the Netherlands to control our water system and polders we would like to share on a European level.

[sMorrone]

Your proposal will be discussed at the next sub-group meeting and the outcome will be reported here. Please note that:

• at the time of drafting the HY data specification, there was already some discussion as to whether the Hydro - Physical Waters model should include the 'PumpingStation' feature type - see the 'PumpingStation' entry in the placeholder table in 'Section B.4.5. Placeholder' - and in the end it was decided not to include it.
• the introduction of the new feature type would require an amendment to the IR.

[hogredan]

Dear @marloesschiereck and all,

unfortunately I was not able to attend the sub-group meeting yesterday but I would like to add a comment from one of our national experts on hydrography:

The LAWA (the German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government represented by the Federal Environment Ministry) has agreed on codes for "Hinterlandsentwässerungsbauwerke" (structure that supports or replaces a natural area drainage system), "Pumpwerk" (taking and transfer of water by means of pumps) and "Schöpfwerke" (lifting device for water, into open water generally for dewatering). These codes have been assigned very pragmatically to “sluice”, so to speak, as the water level is regulated. Perhaps it would also be a possibility for NL to define the term “sluice” a little more widely.

[fabiovinci]

Sub-group meeting on 17.06.2025: the sub-group reviewed the change proposal and decided to forward it directly to the MIG-T for a final decision.

[sMorrone]

The MIG-T members approved the change proposal at the 82nd MIG-T meeting. The two-week period for objections by MIG members expired without any comments, so the proposal is now endorsed.