Validate geometries

[JanVotrubec]

Dear colleagues,

the last problem, we have with validating our GML file for Protected sites is geometry.

My colleague prepared four variants of the GML files (attached in ZIP file), but none of them passed the tests in both ETF and eENVplus validators. If one variant passes in ETF, it fails in eENVplus and vice versa. The four variants represent combinations of boundaries orientation (clockwise, counterclockwise) and coordinates order (XY, YX). You can find the results of our tests in the attached XLS file. We have no clue how to pass tests in both validators, and which variant we should publish. Do you think that there could still be some bug in one of the two validators? Or could you please give us some advice how to repair our GML files?

Here is a link to one of our test reports:
http://inspire-sandbox.jrc.ec.europa.eu/etf-webapp/v2/TestRuns/EIDb28d7869-adc2-42b3-8c54-8dcbdb3af3cb.html
And here is the test, that failed: http://inspire-sandbox.jrc.ec.europa.eu/etf-webapp//v2/TestRuns/EIDb28d7869-adc2-42b3-8c54-8dcbdb3af3cb.html?lang=en#EIDff030b6a-3a6e-483b-91ba-a3eee7381857

You can find our prepared GML files with geometry variant, that we think is correct, on this link: http://webgis.nature.cz/inspire/gml/

Thanks a lot
Jan Votrubec, Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic

test_results.xlsx

20171116_gml_test.zip

[cportele]

I think this is very likely the same issue as #137 and #60. The LAEA CRS is a projected CRS, but it uses Northing, Easting as the axis order, so if the the INSPIRE validator reports an incorrect orientation of rings, this is wrong and a known bug.

[apfelnymous]

This is still an issue right?

[fabiovin]

@apfelnymous
Yes, the issue is still present!

@JanVotrubec
The correct implementation is:

1. counterclockwise boundaries orientation
2. YX coordinates order (LAT-LON).

[josemasensio]

Dear all,

We continue trying to solve the issue. Looks like is related to external libraries improvement.

Best regards.

[josemasensio]

You can follow this issue on #137

[carlospzurita]

We are moving forward with this issue. The pull request deegree/deegree3#1034 with a fix in deegree to be used in the ETF code has been accepted. Whenever the new release is ready, we will integrate it on the validator. Will keep you posted.

[fabiovinci]

Dear all,

a fix for this issue is available in the BETA instance of the validator, could you please test the solution and report your feedback?

For reporting issues, please use the Validator helpdesk.