Hi Paul,
I found some shapefiles that I consider very interesting. Unfortunately, I cannot upload them to the platform because they are too large.
I am indicating them below :
- Cadastre
- Mobility plan
- Cadastre of the sewerage network

What do you suggest to do? I should broke down the files in different layers?

Thanks a lot !

Hi Nicole,

I've had a look at the files and it seems that the Cadastre and the Cadastre of the sewerage network contain many separate shapefiles. In those cases, I recommend you upload them individually, which may right away solve the issue that they are too large. If the individual ones are still too large, let me know and I will have a look. For the mobility plan, it seems to be a 4MB file which should already be small enough, no?

IMPORTANT: don't upload every one of the shapefiles that you find there but do consider the question: is this useful / will this bring added value? I think many of them do, but maybe not all of them, so do consider that.

Good luck!

Hi Paul,

thanks a lot to have taken the time to help me and to answer all my questions.
I saw your new video on processing shapefile, thank you for that as well, it is really an effective and smart option! :-)

I still have some questions regarding shapefiles:

• 
  

  As you can see here, I have the administrative boundaries of Canton Geneva and Grand Geneva in addition to Geneva City. They are still read as shapefile with multi reference space.
  When I will process datasets, I would like to be able to tag them on the correct boundary. For example, I have a lot of dataset related to the totality of Canton Geneva.
  If I process the boundaries of Canton Geneva and Grand Geneva again in a single reference space, I will be able to fix this issue tagging my datasets in the correct reference space representing the whole of Canton Geneva/Grand Geneva? If yes, amazing! And I just need you to mark them to process again please.

  
  
• 
  

  I fixed the issues with larger shapefile. At the moment, there is only this one that is still to big to be uploaded (it's only one file so it can't be break). Anyway, it's not the most important thing in MFA, so let me know what do you think is it best to do.

  
  
• 
  

  The GIS file you see here "assigned to me", are actually processed but then they don't appear between the processed files. Can you just check if everything is ok?

  
  
• 
  

  Then between the processed file a lot need to be verified by an administrator before to be fully uploaded. The problem is that some of them were processed before the new option about selecting the number of reference space was available. Do you want me to list the ones I would like to process again?

  
  
• 
  

  In the same context, some of the shapefile I have already processed are marked in the completed GIS file as "OK". Actually, they are not ok because I need to mark their correct reference space.
  Those are the followings:

  
  
• 
  

  Points de collecte des déchets du Canton de Genève

  
  
• Installations de traitement des déchets du Canton de Genève
• Distribution des espèces piscicoles dans les cours d'eau du Canton de Genève
• Concept énergétique territorial du Canton de Genève
• Carte hydrogéologique du Canton de Genève
• Cadastre forestier du Canton de Genève
• Carte pedologiques des sols agricoles

Can you maybe mark them as I can re process them please?

• Last, I have two tricky shapefiles. One is about fish ditribution in rivers and its full of "empty cases" showing a lot of time the value "None". How would you recommend me to manage this file?
  Then there is even this one about rivers that's showing an error I can't understand. Maybe those files are even not so relevant.. so please let me know what would you recommend me to do.

Thanks a lot for your time again!

Nicole

Hi Nicole,

Thanks for your replies. I'll go through it point by point in the same order (next time you may want to use numbering to make it easier to refer to specific things):

1. Hmmm I am not totally sure here. Can you clarify the following. Let's take Canton Geneva. From your description I understand that the Canton Geneva is one specific area, one specific reference space. However, the shapefile that you linked contains many individual areas - and they actually all have names! (none of them called CANTON GENEVA though, it seems). Do I understand you correctly that CANTON GENEVA is the entire area that is in that shapefile, is that it? In other words, if you were to put all these smaller areas together then they form CANTON GENEVA. Is that it? If so, then we need another approach here. Firstly, the file you uploaded should be renamed. I assume that those smaller areas have a certain name, a certain terminology (say, neigborhoods or municipalities). We should use that name to describe this particular shapefile. After all, that is what is in the shapefile. Secondly, a separate shapefile should be uploaded that contains the outline of the canton. Our system is not made to modify shapefiles (which is what seems to be needed here) - it's just made to have different options to classify shapefiles differently. Let me know if this makes sense. Same applies to that other file - it seems to me.
2. Great. That particular one we don't have to worry about - this is indeed not that relevant that it warrants processing it at this stage.
3. Ah yes, good point. The system still showed shapefiles that are in the process of being "crunched" by the system (can take 6h). Also, some files were too large and required approval from an admin. I have now a) made sure those shapefiles that are already processed are removed from the list, and b) I have manually approved the large ones so that they are processed by the server. However, there is one file which is very large. It is this file with the tree cover. The shapefile (.shp) is not that large, but the file with properties (dbf) is huge (158 MB!). I can not imagine that we need all of these properties in the system. There are an insane number of properties, check the dbf (eg with Libreoffice). Can you remove unnecessary columns? I think species name, and width/height data is useful, but most of the other info doesn't seem useful.
4. Ahhh yes please do let me know which ones you want to re-process (I already approved them but we should still re-process them).
5. With the Canton once we have sorted it out (see point 1) I will mark those as editable again.
6. Well the shapefile with the fish distribution is that a count/estimate of the fish population? Or is that simply about which fish occur where? If it's the former, then I suggest you look into extraction the data on fish stock, and make it into a spreadsheet to be uploaded to the material stock section. If it's the latter then this is purely info on the natural environment and out of scope for MOC. Ecomorphologie des cours d'eau du Canton de Genève --> can you explain in English what this shapefile contains?

I think that's it for now... good luck!

Hi Paul,

thanks for replying so fast, and yes, actually it's easier with number! :-D

So..

1. You are right and you perfectly understood which was my problem about the Canton Geneva shapefile. I'll try to menage and fix that issue.
2. Great!
3. Ok perfect thanks a lot! I'll take away the tree cover shapefile, fix it and upload it again.
4. 
   

   Here I let you the list of the large shapefile I need to re-process to assign the correct reference space :

   
   
5. 
   

   Chemins de fer du Canton Genève

   
   
6. 
   

   Relations entre bâtiments et chaudières centralisées du Canton de Genève

   
   
7. 
   

   Inventaire des équipements publiques (points)

   
   
8. 
   

   Inventaire des équipements publiques (surfaces)

   
   
9. 
   

   Historique des bâtiments hors-sol et sous-sol du Canton de Genève

   
   
10. 
    

    Surfaces agricoles recensées du Canton de Genève

    
    
11. 
    

    Surface Agricole Utile (SAU) du Canton de Genève

    
    
12. 
    

    Couverture du sol du Canton de Genève

    
    
13. 
    

    Graphe de l'eau du Canton de Genève

    
    
14. 
    

    Réseau écologique Genevois, réservoirs de biodiversité

    
    
15. 
    

    The other shapefiles I need to process again are those related to point 5 that were alredy marked with "OK" as mentioned above. In their name you have "..du Canton de Genève" but just because the collected GIS data are related to that area, it has nothing to see with point 1.
    To summarise they are :

    
    
16. 
    

    Points de collecte des déchets du Canton de Genève

    
    
17. 
    

    Installations de traitement des déchets du Canton de Genève

    
    
18. 
    

    Distribution des espèces piscicoles dans les cours d'eau du Canton de Genève

    
    
19. 
    

    Cadastre des installations de combustion stationnaires – chaudières du Canton de Genève

    
    
20. 
    

    Concept énergétique territorial du Canton de Genève

    
    
21. 
    

    Plans d'extraction des graviers du Canton de Genève

    
    
22. 
    

    Carte hydrogéologique du Canton de Genève

    
    
23. 
    

    Cadastre forestier du Canton de Genève

    
    
24. 
    

    Carte pedologiques des sols agricoles

    
    
25. 
    

    Ok thanks, for the shapefile about fish population I see what I need to do. For the other one "Ecomorphologie des cours d'eau du Canton de Genève", the file shows the rivers present in our territory and the give information on their management. So if they are natural rivers or "man managed". Maybe this is also only about the natural environment and consequently not so relevant.

    
    

New question.. I have a shapefile with many many bus stop, I process them as a single reference space. Would you recommend to split them into different reference spaces or let it like this?

Thanks a lot as always!

Nooo... number changed when posting and lead to a disaster! I'm sorry. :-)
Maybe clearer like that:

Hi Paul,
thanks for replying so fast, and yes, actually it's easier with number! :-D

So..
1. You are right and you perfectly understood which was my problem about the Canton Geneva shapefile. I'll try to menage and fix that issue.
2. Great!
3. Ok perfect thanks a lot! I'll take away the tree cover shapefile, fix it and upload it again.
4. Here I let you the list of the large shapefile I need to re-process to assign the correct reference space :

Chemins de fer du Canton Genève

Relations entre bâtiments et chaudières centralisées du Canton de Genève

Inventaire des équipements publiques (points)

Inventaire des équipements publiques (surfaces)

Historique des bâtiments hors-sol et sous-sol du Canton de Genève

Surfaces agricoles recensées du Canton de Genève

Surface Agricole Utile (SAU) du Canton de Genève

Couverture du sol du Canton de Genève

Graphe de l'eau du Canton de Genève

Réseau écologique Genevois, réservoirs de biodiversité

1. The other shapefiles I need to process again are those related to point 5 that were alredy marked with "OK" as mentioned above. In their name you have "..du Canton de Genève" but just because the collected GIS data are related to that area, it has nothing to see with point 1.
   To summarise they are :

Points de collecte des déchets du Canton de Genève

Installations de traitement des déchets du Canton de Genève

Distribution des espèces piscicoles dans les cours d'eau du Canton de Genève

Cadastre des installations de combustion stationnaires – chaudières du Canton de Genève

Concept énergétique territorial du Canton de Genève

Plans d'extraction des graviers du Canton de Genève

Carte hydrogéologique du Canton de Genève

Cadastre forestier du Canton de Genève

Carte pedologiques des sols agricoles

1. Ok thanks, for the shapefile about fish population I see what I need to do. For the other one "Ecomorphologie des cours d'eau du Canton de Genève", the file shows the rivers present in our territory and the give information on their management. So if they are natural rivers or "man managed". Maybe this is also only about the natural environment and consequently not so relevant.

New question.. I have a shapefile with many many bus stop, I process them as a single reference space. Would you recommend to split them into different reference spaces or let it like this?

Thanks a lot as always!

Hi Nicole,

All noted and good to see. In response: I have put all the documents back so that you can re-process. Some notes:

1. Installations de traitement des déchets du Canton de Genève --> I couldn't see this, can you send the link
2. Distribution des espèces piscicoles dans les cours d'eau du Canton de Genève --> also couldn't find that one, please send the link
3. This one, I believe, shows different sites for gravel mining. I would actually leave it as they are. The reason is that there may be data on the total quantity of gravel extracted, for each individual mining site. So in that case we want to have them separately. Furthermore, the total number is not very high. And they all have a unique number. What do you think.
4. For the bus stops: for me it's fine as it is, as a single file. If we find data in the future on individual bus stops, we can split them up, so let's start in the simple form, and "upgrade" if we have to.

Keep up the great work Nicole!

Hi Paul,

super, thanks a lot for your work and all the suggestions!
Yes sorry, you don't find the files related to number 1. and 2. anymore. I had to took them away to modify some things in the attribute table.

Best regards and have a nice day!

Hi Paul,
I fixed the different issues I had with shapefiles regarding their size and format. Thanks a lot again for your help and for all the suggestions!

Unfortunately, I still have some problems for which I need to ask your help.

1. 
   

   When I try to process the following shapefile, MOC gets blocked and tells me it is updating. This occurs only with those two files and at every moment. Can you maybe help me?
   Forests
   Lines and pipelines

   
   
2. 
   

   Those files have some errors that I don't know how to fix, because actually I think that the shapefile is correct.
   Morphology of rivers; We already talked about this one "Ecomorphologie des cours d'eau du Canton de Genève", the file shows the rivers present in our territory and gives information on their management. So if they are natural rivers or "man managed". Maybe this file is only about the natural environment and consequently not so relevant to be processed.
   Natural soil land coverage
   Boiler pipelines
   Road land coverage ; For this one and the following (Soil type...) the problem appears when you try to visualise the mastermap
   Soil type in agricultural land

   
   

Last, I still need to reprocess those files:
Public equipements 1
Public equipements 2
Waste collection points

Just to let you know, I do not want to process all the shapefile I have, because I think some are interesting just to have there, or can be a good source of information. So, it is normal that you see that some files are not processed. :-) Is this ok?

Really many many thanks!

Hi Paul !! :-)

Sorry, I have a few questions more..

So, I still have some problems processing shapefiles.. and for that you can see my comment above.

Then, I started processing dataset and I have two questions:
- I have some datasets including information on both Canton Geneva and on Geneva City, so two different reference spaces (Canton Geneva includes Geneva City). Should I create two different document and split the dataset in two, right?
- I also wanted to process datasets on import and export, but there you have really general categories of products and I was a bit confused on how to use EMP codes. Here you have the link of some examples :
- Eurostat statistics
- Cantonal Statistics
Could you please give me some suggestions?

Finally, I saw that those datasets are processed wrong.. in the charts’ legend, you don’t see the correct name of the segment, but the name “Canton Geneva” that is the reference space. I checked the tables and they seem correct to me. Could you maybe help me? I noticed this happen every time I have only one segment for year, and so each segment is called in the same way. So, I’m probably missing something…
- CO2 emissions from gas consumption
- Fuel oil sold
- CO2 emissions from fuel oil
- Road network
- Biogas production

Lastly.. My reference space is quite always Canton Geneva, because I don't have enough detailed geospatial information/data to link each flow to a specific place. What do you think about that?

Thanks a lot for your help, and I wish you a beautiful month of March!

Nicole

Hi Nicole,

Great to see your progress as always! Hereby some responses:

1. Yes please split up the data that is currently covering two separate reference spaces. Make each document just cover one - that will make processing, displaying and analyzing much easier.
2. Can you give me some examples of a few specific materials that you struggle to classify?
3. Segments are only used to subdivide your dataset. That means that you can use it to say: "within all of my data, this data point is segment A, this is segment B, etc". However, the first few documents that I saw all have only one segment. In that case it doesn't work to have segments. Instead of using that, you should use the document description or material to indicate what this dataset is about because it is apparently a characteristic for all data points. Does that make sense?
4. Yes, I understand. In principle it is fine, but it would be a good challenge to see if you can dig deeper. After all, there must be some original data that underlies these datasets. For instance, if you have data on potable water production, wastewater treatment quantities, energy generation, etc. those are all flows that can likely be linked to a few very specific places. So it would be really useful if you can find the original data. It may require reaching out to people to ask them where to find this - have you tried this yet?

Keep it up!!

By the way, I now notice an older message from you that I seemingly didn't respond to. Were these previous queries sorted out through some of our other chats, or is your previous chat still unanswered?

Hi Paul,

thanks for your answer and suggestions!
Yes, actually, my previous comment on this chat regarding shapefiles is still not answered.

For the message of yesterday.. So :

1. For import and export I have data on general groups of goods. I don't know if process them associating to a specific code EMP is a great idea, or will maybe alter a future analysis.
   For example, I have the class of goods "Products of agriculture, hunting, and forestry; fish and other fishing products", which I think could be easily classified in the general code EMP1. Then I have other classes as "Food products, beverages and tobacco" ; "Transport equipment"; "Equipment and material utilized in the transport of goods" ; "Goods moved in the course of household and office removals; baggage and articles accompanying travellers; motor vehicles being moved for repair; other non market goods n.e.c.", "Other goods" ; etc. That I really don't know how to manage.
2. I think I understand what you are saying.. So, actually, those datasets are processed correctly, and the legend displays "Canton Geneva" because is the total quantity of that specific material we have in our reference space ?
3. Ok, got it! I will see what to do :-)

Thanks a lot !

Hi Nicole and Paul,
I was following this thread to also learn from you two as much as I can. To shed shed some light on point 1, I recognise the labels for those codes. These come from the "Standard goods classification for transport statistics " (NST) classification. This can be related to NACE codes and CPA codes, both of which we already have as lists/catalogues in the system, but there is no relationship table yet between any of those and the EMP catalogue.
I'm mentioning this, because it would indeed be a shame of this info was lost.

Thanks Carolin. Nicole, can you try using the codes from the CPA catalog to see if the system picks those up? E.g. "CPA.90". If it doesn't work give me a shout and I'll make some changes.

With regards to the Canton Geneva label: yes, the dataset looks good, but in the future please remember not to use segments unless you have more than 1 segment.

I'll get back to your other message soon!

Hi Carolin and Paul !
Thanks a lot to both of you for the answer!

I was trying to link the NST classification labels I have in my dataset, with the CPA codes. Unfortunately, I'm still struggling.
For example, in NST classification, I have the class of goods "Coal and lignite; crude petroleum and natural gas", this correspond to CPA.05 Coal and lignite, and CPA.06 Crude petroleum and natural gas (see here). Moreover, if you want to use a more general category, let's say CPA.B Mining and quarrying, this includes more products that shouldn't be related to the same class of goods.

I'll try to use directly the NST 2007 codes listed here and see if the system picks them up.

Yes please do

I'm also VERY curious. Btw, if you want to dive deeper into NST and CPA, there are also various correspondence tables, this one for NST 2007 - CPA 2.1, for example.
More connections, can be made, see image. Source of image
BUT, we are still exploring the "general public" user-friendliness of all this, so this is more for your own data understanding ;)

Thanks a lot Carolin, this is nice !
Anyway... bad news...

Thanks for the update Nicole.

I will build something so that you can select this alternative catalog. It may take a bit of time but I would suggest you sign up for updates in this task, and you'll be notified when it's available.