Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273. GEOPORTALS - THE GATEWAY TO NATIONAL GEOINFORMATION RESOURCES - EUROPEAN CASE STUDY

Dariusz Dukaczewski Institute of Geodesy and Cartography (IGiK) ul. Modzelewskiego 27, 02 – 679 Warszawa tel.: (+48 22) 329 19 70, e-mail: [email protected]

Elżbieta Bielecka Institute of Geodesy and Cartography (IGiK) ul. Modzelewskiego 27, 02 – 679 Warszawa tel.: (+48 22) 329 19 84, e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction The increasing demand for spatial information, the general approval of its broad sharing, as well as the significant development of technology has resulted, over the past 10 years, in building of national geoportals. The number of national geoportals in the European Union and European Economic Area countries has increased, in 2000 – 2010 period, from 1 to 32. One of the for theirs development (especially during last few years) were legal regulations contained in the Directive 2007/2/EC (INSPIRE). The Directive addresses the implementation of a European geoportal in recital 20 and article 15. These two sections seek to establish an European geoportal which will act as an access point to all the geoportals of the Member States. Although the Directive does not require Member States to have a national geoportal, it is recommended that the INSPIRE geoportal links to the portals of the Member States through each national geoportal. Moreover the Directive requires the establishment of a network of several types of services (Article 11 (1)). This development implies the need for analyzing of the progress of work on national geoportals, as well as identification of opportunities, limitations and conditions of their further development.

Methodology The aim of this research was to investigate the state of art of national geoportals in the European Union and European Economic Area countries The authors have compared and analysed the organizational and technical solutions, the available data and metadata (including restrictions to data access), functions as well as services offered by national geoportals. The analysed geoportals were classified due different criteria (i.e.: organizational solutions, number of thematic groups of available data, number and type of functions). The carried analyses allowed us to make a synthesis on state of art of national geoportals in and to identify the major factors affecting opportunities and constraints to their development. The methodology used for assessing the national geoportals was based on data collected through web survey at the beginning of the year 2010. We have analyzed the following national geoportals:  iD’e – Infraestructura de dades espacials d’Andorra (Govern’Andorra, Andorra);  ANCPI (Agenţia Naţională de Cadastru şi Publicitate Imobiliară, Romania);  Austrianmap online (BEV - Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen, );  Den offizielle Geoportal vu Lëtzenbuerg (ACT – Administration du Cadastre et de la Topographie – );  Gagnavefsjá (Landmælingar Íslands, Orkustofnun, ÍSOR, Island);  Geodatenportal.li (Landesverwaltung Fürstentum Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein);  GeoLex (Lantmäteriet, Sweden);  geoNorge – nasjonal geografisk portal ( Digital, Norway);  GéoPortail.be / Portaal.be (EDL, );

247 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.  Géoportail.fr (IGN; BRGM; Ministère du Budget ; Ministère de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales, );  GeoPortal.Bund (BKG - Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie, );  Geoportal.ch ();  Geoportal.čúzk (Český úřad zeméměřický a katastrálni, Czech Republic);  GeoPortal.hr (DGU - Državna geodetska uprava. );  Geoportal.gov.pl (GUGiK, );  Geoportál.sk (Úrad geodézie, kartografie a katastra Slovenskej Republiky, Slovakia);  Katastrálny portál.sk (Úrad geodézie, kartografie a katastra Slovenskej Republiky, Slovakia);  Go-Geo! (EDINA, University of Edinburgh, Great Britain);  Gys.gr (Γεωγραφική Υπηρεσία Στρατού, Greece);  IDEE – Infraestructura de Datos Espaciales de España (Consejo Superior Geografico, );  Ims.OSIEmaps (Suirbhéireacht Ordnáis Éireann / Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Ireland);  Karttapaikka (Maanmittauslaitos, );  Paikkatietolainaamo (Maantieteen laitos, Turun yliopisto, Finland);  Kortforsyningen – Statens Infrastrukturvirksomhed foor Kort og Geodata (Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen, );  Maa-ameti Geoportaal (Maa-amet, );  Nationaal Georegister.nl (Geonovum, Netherland);  Portale Cartografico Nazionale (Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela el Territorio e del Mare, );  PROSTOR – Prostorski Portal (Geodetska Uprava Republike Slovenije, Slovenia);  Snig – Sistema Nacional de Informação Geográfica (O Instituto Geográfico Português, );  Verslogis – Kartografijos fondų žemėlapiai (Nacionalinė žemės tarnyba prie Žemės ükio ministerijos, );  VZD datu publicēšanas portāls (Valsts Zemes Dienests, Latvia);  Kagi.fo (Føroya Dátu Savn, Faroe Islands).

Results The organizational and technical solutions It was possible to distinguish 11 types of the organizational solutions: 1. Geoportals created by development of portals of national mapping agencies, with a predominance of services of visualization of: a. topographic maps (Austrianmap online); b. topographic & cadastral maps (Verslogis, VZD datu publicēšanas portāls); c. cadastral maps (Katastrálny portál.sk); d. topographic & thematic maps (Ims.OSIEmaps); e. topographic maps and ortofotomaps (PROSTOR); f. map indexes and metadata (Gys.gr, ANCPI); 2. Geoportals created by development of metadata portals of national mapping agencies (GeoLex); 3. Geoportals created by development of metadata and query portals of University (Go-Geo!); 4. Geoportals being the developped platforms of spatial data exchange and analysis of University (Paikkatietolainaamo); 5. Spatial data infrastructure geoportals, managed or coordinated by national mapping agencies (Den offizielle Geoportal vu Lëtzenbuerg, Geoportal.čúzk, GeoPortal.hr, Kortforsyningen, Maa-ameti Geoportaal, Karttapaikka, Geodatenportal.li, Geoportal.gov.pl, GeoPortal.Bund, Geoportál.sk, Kagi.fo); 6. SDI geoportals, coordinated by spatial data producers and/or related ministries (Géoportail.fr, Gagnavefsjá, Portale Cartografico Nazionale); 7. SDI geoportals, coordinated by the government (iD’e Andorra); 8. SDI geoportals, coordinated by emergency services (GéoPortail.be / Portaal.be); 9. SDI geoportals, coordinated by national spatial data infrastructure council (IDEE, geoNorge, Snig);

248 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273. 10. SDI geoportals, coordinated by foundation (Nationaal Georegister.nl); 11. Pilot project of the national geoportal (Geoportal.ch). Big part of national geoportals is managed or coordinated by national mapping agencies. However, it to mention, that the most developed national geoportals (Spanish IDEE, Norwegian geoNorge) are coordinated by spatial data infrastructure councils. In Slovakia there are 2 complementary geoportals – the cartographic and cadastral one, what is caused by national law regulations, governing the access to the data. The first of two national geoportals of Finland - Karttapaikka (managed by ) is a national spatial data repository, while the second – Paikkatietolainaamo (managed by Faculty of Geography at University of Turku) allow access to the advanced spatial analyses. In Island, beyound the more developped geoportal called Gagnavefsjá, there are a few specialized geoportals (i.e. Fasteignamat ríkisihs, Nátúrufræðistofni Íslands, Náttúruvefsjá, Shipulagssjá) managed by ministries and state agencies. The majority of national geoportals (25) were the WMS solutions. The WebGIS type solution were employed only in the case of: Austrianmap online (Austria), Gys.gr (Greece), Ims.OSIEmaps (Ireland), Verslogis (Lithuania), VZD datu publicēšanas portāls (Latvia). The ANCPI portal (Romania) was a WebMap solution, while British Go-Geo! was de facto a developped search solution.

The thematic scope and metadata The thematic scope of the data, accessible through the analyzed national geoportals was relatively rich, but very dispersed (Appendix 1 on CD). It was possible to distinguish 105 thematic groups. The thematic scope of 34 of them was coincided with the thematic groups of INSPIRE, listed in the Directive appendices I, II and III. The number of thematic groups of data, accessible through the analyzed national geoportals varied from 2 (ANCPI) till 71 (Nationaal Georegister.nl) (tab. 1).

249 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

Number of Number of Geoportal Country thematic INSPIRE groups thematic groups Nationaal Georegister.nl Netherland 71 29 Paikkatietolainaamo Finland 55 25 Karttapaikka Finland 54 25 Geoportal.ch Switzerland 51 20 geoNorge Norway 47 20 Den offizielle Geoportal vu Lëtzenbuerg Luxembourg 45 26 IDEE Spain 44 26 GeoPortal.Bund Germany 43 20 Maa-ameti Geoportaal Estonia 36 18 Gagnavefsjá Island 34 17 Portale Cartografico Nazionale Italy 28 16 Géoportail.fr France 24 14 Geoportál.sk Slovakia 24 13 iD’e Andorra Andorra 23 17 Geodatenportal.li Liechtenstein 22 14 Geoportal.gov.pl Poland 22 11 GeoPortal.hr Croatia 17 10 Kortforsyningen Denmark 17 7 GéoPortail.be Belgium 16 8 Katastrálny portál.sk Slovakia 14 10 Snig Portugal 13 7 Geoportal.čúzk Czech Republic 12 7 Ims.OSIEmaps Ireland 11 8 Austrianmap online Austria 10 8 VZD datu publicēšanas portāls Latvia 10 7 Kagi.fo Faroe Islands 10 6 Gys.gr Greece GeoLex Sweden 9 5 PROSTOR Slovenia 7 5 Verslogis Lithuania 5 4 Go-Geo! Great Britain 2 1 ANCPI Romania 2 0

Tab. 1. Number of thematic groups and INSPIRE thematic groups of data, accessible through the analyzed national geoportals.

Almost all geoportals (31) allowed access to the geographical names. Through big part of them it was possible to visualize the topographic maps (28), data about the coordinate reference systems, administrative units (27), cadastral parcels and orthoimagery (24). Frequently it was possible to visualize the thematic maps, transport networks layers (22), hydrography layers (21), as well as topographic and thematic maps indexes (19), buildings layers (19). Less frequently accessible were DTM (17), data on protected areas (17), geology (16), physical planning and adresses (15), as well as cadastral maps (13), land use maps, old topographic maps, power lines layers (12). Through the part of geoportals it was possible to visualize the watersheds layers, sea navigation maps, water–sevage management layers, soil maps, as well as data on environmental monitoring facilities, natural risk zones (9), utility and governmental services, habitats and biotopes, networks, power systems (8), gas and oil pipelines, subsoil waters, coastal zones, statistical units, risk management, erosion, bio-geographical regions, species distribution, mineral resources (7), energy resources, proposed transport networks, education and orthoimagery indexes (6). Only small part of geoportals

250 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273. allowed access to the data on human health and safety, demography, potential nitrate concentration zones, museums, archeology, cultural institutions, tourist trails, sport facilities, weather conditions (4), sea borders, sea economic zones, thermal waters, slopes, traffic obstacles, waterways infrastructure, historical heritage, plantations, tourist facilities, restriction zones, fire risks, sea level, irrigation systems, noise (3). The access to the data on biogeographical regions, urban fragile zones, production and industrial facilities, agricultural and aquaculture facilities, labour, meteorological stations, fibre- optic cable networks, animal migration corridors was very limited (2 cases). Incidentally it was possible to find the data on settlement types, cultural associations, agricultural associations, postal codes, dialling codes, real estate market, waste management, sea wind power stations, fishing grounds, hunting areas, traffic intensity, land & sea meteorological regionalization, as well as forest and election maps, cemeteries. In the group of very interesting solutions it is worth to mention i.e.: noise maps available through the national geoportal of Andorra, detailed maps of events and access to the cemetery GIS-es available in the case of national geoportal of Belgium, detailed layers of underground networks available via geoportal of Estonia, meteorological layers of geoportal of Ireland, fire risk maps available through geoportal of Portugal, maps of sea wind power stations, gas and oil pipelines of German geoportal, as well as detailed maps of physical planning in the case of geoportal of Switzerland. Only 22 national geoportals allowed to access to the metadata (iD’e Andorra, ANCPI, Den offizielle Geoportal vu Lëtzenbuerg, Géoportail.fr, GeoPortal.Bund, Geoportal.ch, Geoportal.čúzk, Geoportal.gov.pl, GeoPortal.hr, Geoportál.sk, geoNorge, Gys.gr, Kortforsyningen, Paikkatietolainaamo, Karttapaikka, IDEE, Snig, GeoLex, Go-Geo!, Nationaal Georegister.nl, Portale Cartografico Nazionale, Kagi.fo). In the case of 2 portals (iD’e Andorra, Kortforsyningen) the historical metadata were also available. The scope of metadata available through all analysed geoportals was not completely conform with recommendations of INSPIRE implementing rules.

Functionality The interfaces of analysed national geoportals were available in 28 language versions (tab. 2). The number of languages varied from 1 (20 geoportals) till 7 (IDEE of Spain). The employment of only 1 language version in the case of Swiss portal was resulting of pilot character of this project. In the case of 4 national geoportals different functional versions were available. Karttapaikka, geoNorge, Portale Cartografico Nazionale have widely available ‘civil’ versions and specialist, limited acces versions. In the case of Finnish and Norwegian geoportal the password was needed for access to the topographic databases (Maastotietokanta, FKB), while in the case of Italian geoportal - for access to the 3D module. French geoportal has 3 widely available versions: Découverte, Exploitation, Expert of different level of advancement (and time of response). Thirteen of analysed geoportals have service modules. Its number has varied and ranges from 14 (Estonian portal), 10 (Belgian portal), 7 (Spanish and Czech portals), 6 (Danish portal), 5 (Andorian portal), 3 (Polish and Slovak portals), till 2 (French, Italian and German portal).

251 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

Tab. 2. Language versions of interface of analysed national geoportals

It was possible to identify 122 functions (Appendix 2 on CD), but it’s number has varied from 2 (ANCPI) to 55 (Portale Cartografico Nazionale) (tab. 3).

252 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

Geoportal Country Number of functions Portale Cartografico Nazionale Italy 55 geoNorge Norway 47 Nationaal Georegister Netherland 45 Géoportail.fr Francja 41 Geoportal.gov.pl Poland 38 GeoPortal.hr Croatia iD’e Andorra Andorra 37 IDEE Spain Den offizielle Geoportal vu 36 Lëtzenbuerg GeoPortal.Bund Germany 34 Karttapaikka Finland 33 Snig Portugal Geoportál.sk Slovakia 29 Geoportal.čúzk Czech Republic 27 Geoportal.ch Switzerland PROSTOR Slovenia 26 Maa-ameti Geoportaal Estonia Katastrálny portál.sk Slovakia 24 Gys.gr Greece Kortforsyningen Denmark 22 Paikkatietolainaamo Finland 21 Geodatenportal.li Liechtenstein 20 Kagi.fo Faroe Islands GeoLex Szweden 19 GéoPortail.be Belgium Verslogis Lithuania 17 Ims.OSIEmaps Ireland 16 Gagnavefsjá Island 15 VZD datu publicēšanas portāls Latvia 14 Austrianmap online Austria Go-Geo! Great Britain 9 ANCPI Romania 2

Tab. 3 Number of functions of analysed national geoportals

The most frequently available were navigation functions: zoom out (31), selection of layer (29), visualization of coordinates of cursor (28), layer panel (28), pan (28), legend (27), help (26), preview (24), line measure, zoom in. Very frequent were also functions like: metadata viewer (23), fit to selected zone, go back (22), full extent (20). Quite often were functions of: change of extent, scale select, print (19), coordinates measurement (16), query using the name (15), information about the selected object, query using the number of parcel (14), query using the adress (13), area measurement (12), add serwer, fit in center, query using the name of administration unit (11), repeat, import layer (10). Less frequent were functions like: set window of logical selection, remove the selection (9), selection with point, selection of coordinate systems, save (8), find object using the coordinates, query using the coordinates, layer, and attribute, information about the selected layer, configuration of visualization (7), transformation of coordinates, show map index, add selected layer, signal the error, set tranparency (6), add service, query with key words, fit map to the selected area, fit map to selected coordinates, print setup, remove selected layers, add cursor/remove symbol, select with polygon, lock the automatic refreshment, restart the application (5). Relatively rare were functions of: query with: type of objects, number of real estate, selected map sheet; fit the map to: selected window, visualized

253 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273. layers, selected layers; tilt, open new window (4), 2D / 3D, selection with an rectangle, bring to front/send to back, introduce the metadata, send, add to favourites, turn, query with time parameter (3). Very rare were functions like: query using the name of owner, prepare the animation, home, fit to selected object, lock fit to selected object, go to the previous window, show the coordinates of map extent, remove all layers, way finder, show visualization setup, show recent and old data on parcel, copy to clipboard, export data, exaggerate the relief, play animation, pause, stop, buy a map (2), and: setup of classes, select the units, measure the azimuth, select with circle, select object inside a polygon, set the precision of selection, create a buffer, change the coordinates, set format of data, show time of response of server, query using name, date of birth and death, query using: name of parish, name of police station; find the nearest adress, load XML, show/hide the base map, compare the maps, edition of metadata, create a link, orientate to the north, set mist, set luminance, make a film, set the symbols, edit: points, arcs and polygons (1). The comparison of state of art of geoportal services with recommendations of INSPIRE directive and implementing documents can allow to conclusion that in the case of majority of national geoportals it is necessary to develop especially the queries (i.e. very rare query using the key words), as well as metadata modules. It is also to emphasize the need to development of analytical functions.

Limitations of access Access to the part of services is limited and protected by password (i.e. case of Karttapaikka, geoNorge i Portale Cartografico Nazionale, as well as part of functions of VZD datu publicēšanas portāls and Katastrálny portál.sk). It is to mention, that the access to the part of the data is also limited (i.e. KDB10LT 10 LT topographic database in the case of Verslogis geoportal, the orthoimagery and topographic maps in the case of Greek Gys.gr). According to the national law regulations part of available orthoimagery of ‘fragile zones’ were masked (i.e. case of Géoportail.fr). The same time other Internet services (i.e. GoogleEarth) allowed users to visualize the information about these zones. This situation encouraged users to create the lists of fragile zones (i.e. list of 27 ‘secret’ objects in France) and resulted in change of full mask into the reduced resolution masks by geoportal administrators.

Errors of national geoportals Although the methods of portrayal of spatial data in national geoportals is generally correct, they aren’t errors free. Big part of errors arose due to the source data imperfection (i.e. lack of sea border between Poland and Denmark in the case of German geoportal, lack of part of water bodies in the case of database of Slovak geoportal), lack of data harmonization (i.e. German, Italian, Norwegian, Slovak geoportal), lack of data continuity in the case of federal structure countries (Swiss geoportal). Big part of errors results of wrong generalization (i.e. Irish and Norwegian geoportal), incorrect employment of cartographic presentation methods and design of legends (German geoportal), erroneous choice of symbols (Belgian and Norwegian geoportal). Detailed analysis of errors of geoportals was carried out by Bielecka and Dukaczewski (2009).

Typology of national geoportals Taking like a criterion the number of thematic groups, which can be visualized in cartographic form (tab. 1) it is possible to distinguish 5 types of national geoportals: 1. of very big number of thematic groups (Dutch, Finnish, Swiss, Norwegian, Spanish, German geoportals and geoportal of Luxembourg); 2. of big number of thematic groups (Estonian, Icelandic, Italian, French, Slovak, Andorian, Polish geoportals and geoportal of Lichtenstein); 3. of medium number of thematic groups (Croatian, Danish, Belgian, Slovak (cadastral portal), Portuguese, Czech, Irish, Austrian, Latvian, Faroese, Greek geoportals); 4. of relatively little number of thematic groups (Swedish, Slovenian, Lithuanian geoportals); 5. of little number of thematic groups (British and Romanian geoportals). Using like a criterion the number of available functions (tab. 2) it is possible to distinguish 5 types of national geoportals: 1. of very big number of functions (Italian, Norwegian, Dutch and French geoportals); 2. of big number of functions (Polish, Croatian, Andorian, Spanish, German, Finnish, Portuguese geoportals and geoportal of Luxembourg);

254 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273. 3. of medium number of functions (Czech, Slovak, Swiss, Slovenian, Estonian, Greek, Danish, Faroese geoportals and geoportal of Liechtenstein); 4. of relatively little number of functions (Swedish, Belgian, Lithuanian, Irish, Icelandic, Latvian and Austrian geoportals); 5. of little number of functions (British and Romanian geoportals). Employing like a criterion the main purposes of available functions it is possible to distinguish 15 types of geoportals with predominance of functions of query and visualisation of: 1. Metadata and maps/layers indexes (Romanian and Greek geoportal); 2. Metadata and topographic maps (Swedish geoportal); 3. Entities (at GoogleMap) and links to the thematic maps (British geoportal); 4. Topographic maps (Austrian geoportal); 5. Topographic maps, orthoimagery (Slowenian geoportal); 6. Topographic maps, cadastral maps (Latvian geoportal); 7. Topographic maps, cadastral maps, orthoimagery (Croatian and Lithuanian geoportals); 8. Topographic maps, cadastral maps, navigation maps (Danish geoportal); 9. Topographic maps, thematic maps (Irish geoportal); 10. Topographic maps, thematic maps, orthoimagery (Icelandic and Portuguese geoportals); 11. Topographic maps, thematic maps, cadastral maps, orthoimagery, DTM (geoportal of Liechtenstein); 12. Topographic maps, thematic maps, cadastral maps, orthoimagery (Slovak geoportals); 13. Topographic maps, thematic maps, cadastral maps, orthoimagery, databases, indexes (Belgian, Czech, Estonian, Finnish, Polish, Norwegian, Dutch geoportals and geoportal of Luxembourg); 14. Topographic maps, thematic maps, cadastral maps, orthoimagery, databases, indexes, 3D visualizations and animations (French geoportal); 15. Topographic maps, thematic maps, cadastral maps, orthoimagery, databases, indexes, 3D visualizations (German and Italian geoportals).

The major factors affecting opportunities and constraints of development of national geoportals in Europe The carried analyses, as well as results of the previous works on NSDI (Dukaczewski, 2008) allowed us to observe that one of the main factor affecting considerably the mainstreams of development of national geoportals are organizational and functional models of National Spatial Data Infrastructures. Obviously, the European directives (especially: 2003/4/WE, 2003/98/WE, 2007/2/WE, 2007/60/WE, 2000/60/WE), national law regulations concerning the publishing of spatial data has played a significant role. However, it to mention, that development of national geoportals was significantly faster in countries, where existed laws on data exchange (i.e. Finland, France), as well as law regulations on status of official reference and thematic datasets (case of Spain), which are fundamental for data harmonization.

Conclusions The significant development of national geoportals during 2000 – 2010 period has contribute to the improvement of spatial data accessibility, especially in the case of reference data. During last few years it is possible to observe the improvement of accessibility of thematic data. However, it to mention, that in many countries still exists the limitations to the part spatial data, arosing due to the law regulations on state secrets (i.e. in Greece, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, France, Poland), data publishing, copyrights, protection of personal details (i.e. Finland, Norway, Latvia, Slovakia). It is to emphasize that till now the ‘sensitive’ social, health, security data are published very rarely. The thematic scope of metadata available through analysed geoportals meets in few points the INSPIRE recommendations, but till now isn’t in full conformity with them. The substantive level if data available through national geoportals is in majority of cases high, and its portrayal is (in general) methodologically correct (however, seems to be a good idea to improve the control of employment of cartographic presentation methods). It is also necessary to perfect the data harmonization procedures. During last few years the considerable progress of functionality of national geoportals was observed. The state of art in the case of development of navigation, discovery and query services is (generally) satisfactory. It seems to be necessary to develop the analytical functions and services.

255 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273. Bibliography

1. Bielecka, E., Dukaczewski, D., 2009, Web Mapping Errors and Their Typology, Proceedings of the 24th. International Cartographic Conference ACI/ICA 2009, The World’s Geo-Spatial Solutions, Santiago de , 15th to 21st. of November 2009, Instituto Geogràfico Militar, 12 p.; 2. Dukaczewski, D., 2008, Rozwiązania prawne i organizacyjne narodowych infrastruktur informacji przestrzennej w krajach Unii Europejskiej i Europejskiego Obszaru Gospodarczego, Roczniki Geomatyki, vol. VI, z. 6, p 47-66; 3. Dyrektywa 2007/2/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 14 marca 2007 r. ustanawiająca infrastrukturę informacji przestrzennej we Wspólnocie Europejskiej (INSPIRE), L108/1; 4. Kronborg Mazzoli U., 2009, Creating Synergy Between INSPIRE and E-Government in Denmark, Proceedings of GSDI 11 Word Conference Spatial Data Infrastructure Convergence: Builing SDI Bridges to address Global Changes, Rotterdam, 15-19 June 2009; 5. Rannestig E., 2009, The Swedish National Geodata Strategy and the Geodata Project, Proceedings of GSDI 11 Word Conference Spatial Data Infrastructure Convergence: Builing SDI Bridges to address Global Changes, Rotterdam, 15-19 June 2009; 6. Rodriguez A., Abad P., Alonso J.A., Sanchez A., Gonzalez C., Mas S., Diez E., Soteres C., Potti H., 2009, Data and Services Availability in Spanish NSDI, GSDI 11 Word Conference Spatial Data Infrastructure Convergence: Building SDI Bridges to address Global Changes, Rotterdam, 15-19 June 2009;

256 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

Appendix 1. Thematic scope of spatial data available through national geoportals. State in June 2010.

Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

258 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

259 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

260 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

261 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

262 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

263 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

264 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273. Appendix 2. Functions of national geoportals. State in June 2010.

265 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

266 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

267 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

268 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

269 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

270 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

271 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

272 Dukaczewski D., Bielecka E. (2010). Geoportals - the Gateway to National Geoinformation Resources - European Case Study. In: D. Kereković (ed.). Space, Heritage & Future. Croatian Information Technology Association – GIS Forum, University of Silesia, Zagreb, 247-273.

273