1 / 24

Danube RB - River Coding Test of WISE recommendations

Danube RB - River Coding Test of WISE recommendations. Gabriela Vincze Ingrid Roder Friedrich Unterfrauner. WISE TG Meeting Ispra, 22/23 January 2009. Background. WISE GIS guidance: chapter 5.4.3 „European coding system for hydrological features“

olwen
Download Presentation

Danube RB - River Coding Test of WISE recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Danube RB - River CodingTest of WISE recommendations Gabriela Vincze Ingrid Roder Friedrich Unterfrauner WISE TG Meeting Ispra, 22/23 January 2009

  2. Background • WISE GIS guidance: chapter 5.4.3 „European coding system for hydrological features“ • Test the implementation of the hydrological feature code • Supported by ICPDR: national data provided (Danube GIS) • Data used: • CCM2.1 (river network, catchments) • National data: rivers > 1000 km²

  3. Danube River Basin 2nd largest river basin of Europe 801,463 km² 18 states

  4. CCM2.1, rivers > 1000 km²

  5. Elements of the hydrological code Format: HSIICCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPEELL

  6. Hydrological System and Sea Region HSIICCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPEELL • Danube: M5

  7. Pfafstetter Commencement Code HSIICCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPEELL • Danube: 2 Black seacoastalordering: Alfred de Jager, JRC

  8. River Segment Code – 1st Order HSIICCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPEELL River codes Danube: M52 Siret: M522 Sava:M524 Tisza: M526 Drava: M528

  9. River Segment Code -2nd Order HSIICCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPEELL River codes Tisza: M526 Maros/Mures: M5262 Hármas-Körös: M5264 Sajo: M5266 Bodrog: M5268

  10. Methodology (1) • Selection of rivers > 1000 km² in CCM2.1 via matching with national data • Selected CCM2.1-rivers > 1000 km² provided to Danube countries for approval • Creation of Pfafstetter code at segments of the dataset of rivers >1000 km² (CCM2.1 rivers) • Pfafstetter code at CCM2.1 segments already available, but segmentation of selected rivers is different (lower level of detail!) • Analysis of the differences and problems in CCM2.1

  11. Methodology (2) • Adaption of CCM2.1 river segment code of selected rivers dataset according to national data • Documentation of the cases which have to be resolved with Danube countries and discussion of open issues • Complete coding of CCM2.1 river segment code of selected rivers • Transfer the code to national data via intersection procedures • Creation of a hydrological river code for rivers > 1000 km²

  12. Differences between CCM2.1 and National Data • Level ofdetail(rivers > 1000 km²) • Itis not alwayspossibletoidentify 4 greatesttributarycatchments, riversmayhavelessthat 9 sub-catchments • Identificationofthemainriverin the sub-catchments • Sub catchmentselectionisdonebycatchmentsize (attheconfluence) • Next step: themainrivercourse (sourcetomouth) hastobeidentifiereitherby • Length (longestpath) or • Name

  13. Example - Less than 9 sub-catchments • Drina (River 42) has in the dataset of rivers > 1000 km² only 7 sub-catchments • In the detailed CCM2.1 dataset a river draining into the segment 421 is identified as first sub-catchment 422 • Thus the coding of the less detailed river dataset is different to CCM2.1 detailed data • 424 CCM2.1  422 rivers > 1000 km² • 425 CCM2.1  423 rivers > 1000 km² • etc. Drina 422

  14. Example – Identification of main river Sava river • In CCM2.1 theriverKupa was identifiedtobetheheadwater in the Sava riverbasin  code49.. (redfigures) • Sava rivergotthecode46..  49..isthecorrectcode (blackfigures) Correct code Sava Kupa

  15. Differences between CCM2.1 and National Data • Missing river segments • Missing rivers • Missing river connections • Displaced river connetions • No artificial rivers, channels

  16. Differences between CCM2.1 and National Data

  17. Examples

  18. Examples

  19. Examples

  20. Examples

  21. Examples

  22. Findings Transfereof CCM2.1 segmentcodesto national data not straightforward – obstacles: • Level ofdetail • Identificationofmainriverof sub-catchments • Problems CCM2.1 – missingsegments, missing/ displacedriverconnections, etc. • Nature vs. model rivers (e.g. hungarianplain: riversareflowing in a „circle“)  Differences in thehydrologicalnetwork/river order (river a flowsintoriver b) andcatchmentsize(wrongriverconnections)  thusdifferences in thehydrologicalsegmentcode

  23. Findings – Danube, rivers > 1000 km² PfafstettercodeofDanuberivers > 1000 km² will be different from CCM2.1 in manycasesbeginningwiththe 3rd order ofthecode (HSIICCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPEELL) (Sava river basin also beginning with the 2nd order)

  24. Next steps • Solve open issues with Danube countries (IM+GIS EG Meeting, 3&4 February 2009) • Complete coding of CCM2.1 river segment code of selected rivers • Transfer the code to national data via intersection procedures • Creation of a hydrological river code for rivers > 1000 km²

More Related