| Austria | The descriptions are very different and they are in the national language. (German) |
| Belgium | Please review M5.2 for the description of the compliance assessment provided as good practice for BE in Section 5.2.1. This process
includes a (partial) quality check of the provided (meta)data. |
| Bulgaria | Later |
| Croatia | No quality evaluation is performed. We performed friendly CA within the work of the WG5. |
| Cyprus | At present, no quality assessment procedures are in place. |
| Czechia | The quality is NOT reported at the moment. (just as a written report accompanying self-declaration form = available to MS as authority)
Traffic Information are internally checked for their consistency by operators at National Traffic Information Centre (NTIC). Some data sources (i.e. police) are trusted implicitly, other data i.e. from municipalities are checked.
Error in data, if found are internally logged as issues into the reporting system and then dealt with (reaction and correction time being one of the KPIs).
There is a room for improvement in structural quality and completeness of the published data sources.
|
| Denmark | We are reevaluating the way we are working with data quality, how to measure it and how to describe it. We also want to develop the Danish NAP to better support a good data quality description for each dataset.
We will split the quality description into 4 categories. |
| England | N/A |
| Estonia | No special quality criterias. Mostly the data is created/located in-house. |
| Finland | No quality information provided |
| France | List of validation tools : https://transport.data.gouv.fr/validation
Visualization of freshness & quality : https://transport.data.gouv.fr/stats (4 & 5 map)
Example of presentation (validation report, availability indicator) : https://transport.data.gouv.fr/resources/25381
Classification of national road network https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/classification-du-reseau-routier-national/ |
| Germany | We are asking data providers to use Quality Frameworks by EU EIP and NAPCORE |
| Greece | The quality of accommodated data is freely assessed by data providers. Relevant predefined (fixed) fields in the metadata page of each publication include the update frequency of data resources (applicable for dynamic data) and date of the last publication update. |
| Hungary | It is continuously checked if the data published is consistent with the data shared by the source (quality, frequency).
Data categories are currently in revision, in order to full fill the EU regulations. |
| Ireland | N/A |
| Italy | N/A |
| Latvia | In platform, there are matadata validation and automatic filling options, .xml data validation, test environment for data providers data validation, infected files and virus detection, automatic notifications about necessity to renew data, errors ir publications etc.
Quality guidelines are provides in Help section (U EIP 4.1_SRTI RTTI Quality Practical guidelines, Quality of Safetly-Related and Real-Time Traffic Informational Services |
| Lithuania | The datasets published in the NAP’s are formed on the basis of data captured in the following state information systems:
- Traffic Information System accumulating dynamic traffic data (traffic counter data, road weather station data, Traffic registration data, EV charging stations data, etc.);
- Road asset management information system accumulating static road data (roads elements, road parameters, environmental protection, traffic safety, speed cameras, traffic data, road works, road statistics, etc.);
- Public transport multimodal journey planning system accumulating journey planning data (public transport timetables, routes, stops, stations, airports, etc.).
In the information systems listed above there are implemented the data quality validation tools such as e. g. completeness of mandatory fields, compliance of the data format with the requirements of the data specification, etc. |
| Luxemburg | There are no formal quality indicators published on the NAP |
| Malta | NAP is in the development stage, as part of the ITS project. |
| Netherlands | Not yet available |
| Norway | Metadata quality is indicated for each dataset on the NAP. Metadata quality is meant to be an indicator data owners can use to evaluate the quality of their data.
Work in progress on assessment of data quality for selected datasets.
|
| Poland | --- |
| Portugal | The multimodal travel information metadata includes the quality information elements specified by the coordinated metadata catalogue, namely the update frequency, the quality description, and the national body assessment status. These elements are, however, provided by the data publishers and are not controlled by IMT – Instituto da Mobilidade e dos Transportes, I.P. |
| Romania | There are no data published in NAP.
However, NAP implements some criteria:
- There are data (values) validation tools, for example: coordinates (geographical coordinates), emails format, customizable predefined options;
- Duplication of data is verified;
- The data uploaded in NAP will be validated by a data administrator;
- Data responsibility is based, legally, on a declaration of conformity |
| Slovakia | We would welcome methodological materials and specifications for the harmonization of data in the NAP |
| Slovenia | Data quality is not reported at the moment. For the time being, only quality measure is the feedback from the data receivers (service
providers). Data receivers create their profile on the NAP, through which they can contact us whenever they have issues. |
| Spain | Data quality is not reported. |
| Sweden | . |
| Switzerland | - |
