Appendix J - Validation Tests
1. About Validation and Testing
The Validation and Testing cell (VAT) in Geoscience Australia tests The National Topographic Database (NTDB), associated derived products (eg digital or hard copy map products) and various custom datasets for compliance to the Technical Specifications. The standard tests are outlined in this Appendix. Other tests may be carried out to ensure compliance to the Specification from time to time.
Testing is carried out using a mixture of computer programs and proprietary GIS packages (such as ArcGIS). Many of the tests are automated, using customised computer programs. These are supported by on-screen graphical checks and, where required, visual inspection of a map product.
Where feature populations are small, or the tests are particularly important, the full population will be tested. Where feature populations are large, or a less stringent tolerance applies, a Statistical Subset or Sample (Area) test may be used. Statistical Subset tests are a random selection of features from the whole population, whereas Sample tests assess features within a selected geographical area.
Statistically acceptable procedures are adopted for tests that require sampling. The sampling procedures adopted are based on the Australian Standard AS1199.1-2003: "Sampling procedures for inspection by attribute".
The Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) is in the range of 0% to 5%. Generally, the AQL is applied to each of the relevant Feature Datasets tested in the database.
The following tables give the appropriate sample size for particular population sizes, and acceptance and rejection numbers for particular sample sizes and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL's).
|Population Size||Sample Size||Ac,Re||Ac,Re||Ac,Re||Ac,Re||Ac,Re|
|2 to 8||2||↓||↓||↓||0,1||↓|
|9 to 15||3||↓||↓||↓||↑||↓|
|16 to 25||5||↓||↓||0,1||↓||1,2|
|26 to 50||8||↓||↓||↑||1,2||2,3|
|51 to 90||13||↓||0,1||↓||2,3||3,4|
|91 to 150||20||0,1||↑||1,2||3,4||5,6|
|151 to 280||32||↑||↓||2,3||4,5||7,8|
|281 to 500||50||↓||1,2||3,4||5,6||10,11|
|501 to 1200||80||1,2||2,3||4,5||8,9||14,15|
|1201 to 3200||125||2,3||3,4||6,7||12,13||21,22|
|3201 to 10000||200||3,4||5,6||8,9||17,18||↑|
|10001 to 35000||315||4,5||7,8||12,13||21,22||↑|
|35001 to 150000||500||6,7||10,11||17,18||↑||↑|
|150001 to 500000||800||8,9||14,15||21,22||↑||↑|
|500001 and over||1250||12,13||21,22||↑||↑||↑|
|Table Application Legend|
|↓||Use the first sampling plan below the arrow. If the sample size equals, or exceeds the population size, carry out 100% inspection|
|↑||Use the first sampling plan above the arrow|
For some tests, no errors (0%) are allowed and the entire population is tested. For other tests, errors within the 0.5% to 5% AQL range are allowed and determined using sampling tests.
Where records indicate that a particular test has passed every time for Work Units submitted by contractors, those tests will be classified into a "spot" class. Spot tests are carried out on a random sample of work units. This procedure continues until the data begins to fail the test. When this happens the test will again be carried out on all Work Units until it can again be classified in the spot class. Where tests are automated or are critical, they are performed for each Work Unit, regardless of the past record.
This testing methodology ensures a 99% confidence that the error rate is less than the AQL.
Where errors are detected but the number of errors detected is less than the rejection number, the test is passed but noted in the "OTHER TEST ERRORS" section of the VAT report. The Work Unit should be re-examined by Producers to ensure that similar errors do not appear in the data prior to resubmission. It is in the interest of producers to ensure that these errors are corrected, given that Validation and Testing will assess different areas at resubmission. Due to this, errors previously reported under the "OTHER TEST ERRORS" section may after re-testing appear in the "FAILED TESTS" section of subsequent reports.
2. Validation tests
The following tables list the Validation Tests used in assessing the compliance of data in The National Topographic Database against the Geoscience Australia Topographic Data and Map Specifications. These tests are also used to assess custom datasets and large-scale data (e.g 1:25 000) in various schema that may potentially be included in the National Topographic Database. The tables list the tests carried out in VAT, together with the relevant Test Type and associated AQL percentage value.
All tests may be conducted where the appropriate Feature Class exists in the relevant schema. Testing of feature interrelationships will be in accordance with those rules stated in Appendix A (Data Dictionary). However, the scope and extent of testing will be at the discretion of Geoscience Australia and may or may not include all of the following tests.
Note: Gaps, in some instances significant, will appear between Test numbers (i.e. they are generally non-consecutive numbers) to allow for additional tests to be added in future where necessary, and also for Specifications maintenance reasons. Where new tests have been introduced or existing test descriptions amalgamated, there has been an intentional effort wherever possible to maintain the same test numbers and descriptions for those tests that have not changed as a result of an upgrade to a new Specification. The Test Numbers listed in the table below and their associated VAT Report Numbers are identical in all cases to allow for easy identification.
2.1 The NATIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC DATABASE
2.1.1 Logical Consistency
Logical consistency is a measure of the degree to which the data are internally consistent and comply with the technical specification in the way they are structured.
|LOGICAL CONSISTENCY CHECK||TEST TYPE||AQL|
|1||Data Format, Spatial Reference, Resolution and Tolerances are correct||Full Population||0%|
|3||Schema structure and components are correct||Full Population||0%|
|4||Global IDs and associated fields have not been corrupted||Full Population||0%|
|5||Related Tables and Relationship Classes have not been corrupted||Full Population||0%|
|9||All features or feature changes must fall within the prescribed Work Unit/Package data extent, where applicable.||Full Population||0%|
|11||Line segments are greater than the minimum length specified||Full Population||5%|
|12||Polygon edge segments are greater than the minimum length specified||Full Population||5%|
|13||Line segments are less than the maximum length specified||Full Population||0.5%|
|14||Polygon edge segments are less than the maximum length specified||Full Population||0.5%|
|15||There are no duplicate coincident features existing within a Feature Class. Exceptions allowed only where documented in Appendix A (eg Wharf Line vs Sea Wall).||Full Population||0%|
|16||There are no features captured in manner which are unrepresentative of the real world scenario.||Full Population||0%|
|17||There are no coincident arc segments in a single line feature, or intersecting arcs without a node||Full Population||0%|
|18||Features have been captured into the correct Feature Class/Feature Type combination||Full Population||0.5%|
|19||Bounding Lines exist around polygons where applicable, and are fully closed||Full Population||0%|
|20||Polygons are correctly formed||Full Population||0%|
|21||There are no illegal Pseudo Nodes existing in Linear Feature Classes||Full Population||2%|
|22||Line Features are Single Part where expected||Full Population||0%|
|23||There are no invalid undershoots existing in Linear Feature Classes||Full Population||1%|
|25||There are no Polygon features that fall below the minimum Inclusion or Data Capture Area criterion (as applicable)||Full Population||5%|
|27||There are no invalid artefacts existing in Linear Feature Classes||Full Population||5%|
|28||There are no invalid artefacts existing in Polygon Feature Classes||Full Population||1%|
|29||There are no Linear features that fall below the minimum Inclusion or Data Capture Length criterion (as applicable)||Full Population||5%|
|31||There are no invalid overshoots existing in Linear Feature Classes||Full Population||1%|
|33||Abutting polygons do not have the same attributes||Full Population||1%|
|36||Attribute field name aliases are correct||Full Population||0%|
|37||The Limit Of Data is shown in its correct spatial position||Full Population||0%|
|38||Feature Geometry is not empty||Full Population||0%|
|40||Linear features are coincident with other Linear features where required||Full Population||1%|
|42||Point features are coincident with Linear features where required||Full Population||1%|
|44||Linear features are correctly cloned and coincident with other Linear features where required||Full Population||1%|
|45||Point features are correctly cloned and coincident with other Point features where required||Full Population||5%|
|46||Linear features do not incorrectly overlap Polygons||Full Population||1%|
|47||Point features do not incorrectly overlap Polygons||Full Population||1%|
|48||Polygon features do not incorrectly overlap other Polygons||Full Population||1%|
|69||Connectors do not exist outside Waterbodies||Full Population||1%|
|70||Road Connectors have been established correctly to maintain network connectivity only||Full Population||1%|
|75||Spot Elevations, Benchmarks or Horizontal Control Points are consistent with Contours||Full Population||1%|
|79||Limit Of Data features are densified correctly||Full Population||1%|
|81||State Border is consistent with the COAST-100K data||Full Population||0%|
|82||Network connectivity between Linear features is correct||Full Population||5%|
|87||Features are captured as required from revision sources||Statistical Subset||2%|
|88||Existing features have not been revised utilising reference material older than its original designated attribute/spatial reliability date (as applicable)||Full Population||0%|
|89||Features are positioned accurately from revision sources meeting horizontal/vertical accuracy requirements||Statistical Subset||5%|
|95||Feature Type priority for Voids (Defined Holes) and Polygon Boundary Lines between different polygons is correct||Full Population||2%|
|96||Polygon Features are Single Part where expected||Full Population||0%|
|105||Extraneous Void features do not exist||Full Population||5%|
|106||Linear features (other than Cliffs) have correct direction of digitising applied||Full Population||5%|
|107||Cliffs have correct direction of digitising applied||Sample||5%|
|109||Spatial position of features in overlap areas revised correctly where appropriate and in accordance with the Specifications||Full Population||5%|
|111||Positional mismatches do not exist across adjoining Work Units for Linear features||Full Population||1%|
|113||Positional mismatches do not exist across adjoining Work Units for Polygon features||Full Population||1%|
|115||Watercourse Line Flow Direction Arrows are coincident with the downstream node on watercourses and oriented correctly||Sample||5%|
|116||Point Features are Single Part where expected||Full Population||0%|
|117||Related Tables have records populated, where required||Full Population||0%|
2.1.2 Attribute Accuracy
Attribute accuracy is a measure of the degree to which the features and their attributes agree with the information on the source material. For this product, attribute accuracy is a measure of the degree to which the attribute values of a feature agree with the information on the source material.
|ATTRIBUTE CHECK||TEST TYPE||AQL|
|117||Data Attribute Field entries are consistent with the Data Dictionary and related Sections. Attributes are correct for spelling, spacing, casing, data type and are valid entries.||Full Population||2%|
|119||Appropriate Planimetric and Elevation Accuracy values correctly assigned to features||Statistical Subset||1%|
|123||Global Identifiers (GIDs) exist, are valid and unique||Full Population||0%|
|125||Feature Type and Type attribution exists for each entity, are logically consistent and valid||Full Population||0%|
|129||Features are attributed correctly from revision sources||Statistical Subset||2%|
|131||Feature attributes are contiguous where intended||Statistical Subset||2%|
|132||Information regarding restrictions of data use/licencing has been highlighted in the restrictions field, where applicable||Statistical Subset||2%|
|133||Feature Level Metadata is complete, logical and accurate||Sample||0.5%|
|134||Abbreviations have not been included in field entries||Full Population||2%|
|135||StakeholderIDs are correctly associated with Stakeholder Names entries||Statistical Subset||2%|
|136||StakeholderIDs have been retained, where requested||Statistical Subset||2%|
2.2.1 Map proof verification
High quality proofs are used to verify the content and quality of the final NATMAP product prior to final map printing. Note All tests on the quality proof material is mandatory. The PDF files associated with the NATMAP product will be generated to a minimum standard of 400 dots per inch (dpi).
|201||Quality proof is produced from, or compatible with, the submitted data.||0%|
|203||Registration control marks exist and registration is correct on quality proof||0%|
|205||Colour control exists and is correct on quality proof||0%|
|207||Masking of features on quality proof is correct||1%|
|209||Quality proof labelling is correct||0%|
The marginalia is all the information contained in the map surrounds, the area of the map to the left and below the neatline. All tests on the marginalia are mandatory and errors are not acceptable.
|211||Commonwealth Copyright Printing Date||Date appears and is correct||0%|
|212||Creative Commons||Logo and Attribution phrasing is correct||0%|
|213||Map Reliability||Date appears and is correct||0%|
|215||Commonwealth Coat of Arms||Coat of Arms appears and is correct||0%|
|217||Map Scale||Scale appears and is correct||0%|
|219||GEOCAT Number||Number appears and is correct||0%|
|220||Bar Code||Bar Code appears and scans correctly||0%|
|221||GDA Logo||Logo appears and is correct||0%|
|223||Map Names||Name spelling, font and position is correct||0%|
|225||Map Numbers||Number identifier, font and position is correct||0%|
|227||Map Edition Numbers||Edition identifier, font and position is correct||0%|
|229||State Names||Name, font and position is correct||0%|
|231||Map of Australia Location box||Appears and is correct||0%|
|233||Index to Adjoining Maps box||Appears and is correct||0%|
|235||Text panels||No textual or typographical errors in marginalia||0%|
|237||Datum Information||Panel appears and value accuracy and interval is correct||0%|
|239||North Point Diagram||Diagram appears and relevant values are correct||0%|
|241||Grid Reference Point||Sample Reference Point exists and is correct and consistent with the map||0%|
|243||100 000 Metre Square Identification panel||Panel appears and the layout and letters are correct||0%|
|245||Climate Graph||Graph appears and the lines and values for the stated Locality are correct||0%|
|247||Legend||Symbology is the same as appears on the map and is consistent with the Specifications||0%|
|249||Geographical values||Values and position are correct for the map||0%|
|251||Grid values||Internal and external values, position and offset are correct||0%|
|253||Road Destinations Arrows and text||Arrows, Distances, Text and angle are correct||0%|
|255||Scale Bar||Appears in the correct position and is represented in kilometres only||0%|
2.2.3 Internal Type Selection and Placement
|257||Feature names are uncluttered and positioned unambiguously||Sample||5%|
|259||Feature names do not clash with other map detail||Sample||2%|
|261||Feature name abbreviations comply with the Specifications||Sample||2%|
|263||All internal type is shown in the correct alignment||Full Population||1%|
|265||Administration Area names are spelt correctly and avoid other detail||Full Population||2%|
|267||Descriptive notes are wholly in lower case italics||Sample||5%|
|269||Named features or other type do not straddle the map trim edge||Full Population||1%|
|271||Named features are completed within the map bleed area||Full Population||1%|
|273||Named features or labels have the correct font and point size||Sample||5%|
|275||Named features or labels are shown in the correct case||Sample||2%|
|277||Road names are correct for continuity and point size||Sample||5%|
|279||Railway names are correct for continuity and point size||Sample||5%|
|281||Road Distance values between pins are correct||Sample||2%|
|283||Kilometric Distance Indicator pins exist, are clearly visible and positioned correctly||Sample||2%|
|285||National and State Route Marker values and position are correct||Sample||2%|
|287||Horizontal Control Point identification is correct||Sample||2%|
|289||Spot Height identification is correct||Sample||2%|
|291||Spelling (and name order) of major and well-known features, such as major Roads, Rivers and Localities is correct||Full Population||0%|
|293||Spelling (and name order) of lesser known features is correct||Sample||5%|
|295||No extraneous type (not associated with a feature or incomplete) has been shown||Full Population||0%|
|297||Positioning of type conforms to the type placement principles||Sample||5%|
|299||Names of Rivers and Creeks are correct for spelling, font, continuity, position and type size (internally and to adjoining sheets)||Sample||5%|
|301||Names of Lakes and other waterbodies are correct for spelling, font, type size and position||Sample||5%|
|303||Names of Oceans and Seas are correct for spelling, font, type size and position||Sample||5%|
|305||Full Grid values are shown at the south-west corner of the sheet and are correct||Full Population||0%|
|307||Internal laddered Grid values appear and are correct||Full Population||0%|
|309||100 000 Metre Square identification letters (Internal and External) are correct and are positioned correctly||Full Population||0%|
|311||100 000m UTM Grid Zone designation note values are correct, offset and aligned correctly to the Graticule (250K only)||Full Population||0%|
|313||Spot Elevations and Horizontal Control Point values agree with Contours and Depression Contours||Sample||2%|
|315||Contour values are correct, of sufficient density and read uphill||Sample||1%|
|317||The highest elevation (including bleed area) has been shown and is correct (1:250K only)||Full Population||0%|
2.2.4 Black Detail (Internal)
Internal Black detail includes all the map features that are to be depicted with Black symbology
|319||Features meet the neatline where appropriate||Sample||1%|
|321||The final text is not cluttered or ambiguous of content||Sample||5%|
|323||Features that appear on the previous edition appear on the map as specified||Sample||2%|
|325||All source materials have been used to ensure revision has been carried out correctly and accuracy requirements are met||Sample||1%|
|327||Symbology is correct for all features and appears only where appropriate||Sample||1%|
|329||Symbols do not clash with type or other symbols||Sample||5%|
|331||Annotations are missing symbols or symbols are missing annotation||Sample||5%|
|333||Railway Lines are correct||Full Population||1%|
|335||Railway Stations are correct||Full Population||5%|
|337||Railway Stations and Bridges are coincident with Railway Lines||Full Population||5%|
|339||Correct Railway Line Gauge is shown||Full Population||5%|
|341||Symbology is correct for all Railway Line and Point features||Full Population||1%|
|343||Railway Lines are displaced for hydrographic features||Sample||5%|
|Aerodromes and Landing Grounds|
|345||All registered Airports and Aerodromes are correctly shown and labelled in accordance with the approved sources||Full Population||1%|
|347||Direction of runways for Aerodromes and Landing Grounds is correct||Sample||5%|
|349||Symbology is correct for line weight, pattern and colour||Sample||1%|
|351||Horizontal Control Point symbols are correctly orientated||Sample||2%|
|353||Horizontal Control Points and Spot Elevations are positioned accurately in relationship to adjacent Contours||Sample||2%|
|355||Only permanently marked and monumented Horizontal Control Points are shown||Sample||2%|
|357||Coastline is broken (symbolised to NoDraw or Masked) on the map where coincident with Cliffs||Sample||5%|
|359||Contours are broken (symbolised to NoDraw or Masked) on the map where coincident with Cliffs||Sample||5%|
|361||Cuttings and Embankments are correctly aligned to Roads and Railways||Full Population||5%|
|363||Symbology for the Graticule is correct||Full Population||0%|
2.2.5 General Cultural Detail
|365||Buildings and Homesteads do not fall on Roads and Railways, or within Waterbodies, Sea or Watercourse Areas||Sample||5%|
|367||Bridges are coincident with Roads or Railways, and traverse Streams||Sample||5%|
|369||Fences do not run through Vehicular Tracks||Sample||5%|
|371||Fences, Bores, Tanks, Windpumps and Wells only appear within specified areas, in accordance with Appendix C||Full Population||0%|
|373||Fences are labelled where appropriate eg. dog proof fence||Sample||5%|
|375||Gates and Grids are correctly aligned to Fences and centred on Roads||Sample||5%|
|377||Fences do not continue through symbolised Yards, Gates and Stock Grids||Sample||5%|
|379||Fences are contiguous where intended (i.e. no invalid gaps appear)||Sample||5%|
|381||Locks are aligned correctly and centred on Streams||Full Population||5%|
|385||Powerlines do not incorrectly appear through Built Up Areas||Sample||5%|
|387||Windpumps and Mines have correct orientation||Sample||1%|
|389||Wharves are parallel to the coast||Full Population||5%|
|391||Orientation of Tunnels and linear features disappearing under ground is correct||Full Population||5%|
|393||Features that appear on the previous edition map appear on the new map where appropriate and as specified||Sample||2%|
|395||Ferry Routes are shown and labelled||Full Population||2%|
|397||Large Buildings are shown to scale||Full Population||5%|
|399||Homestead names are correct||Sample||5%|
|401||Buildings or other cultural features do not fall in Built Up Areas||Sample||5%|
2.2.6 Red Detail (Internal)
Internal Red detail includes all map features that are to be depicted with Red symbology.
|403||Road classifications are correct||Sample||5%|
|405||Intersections between different Road classifications are clear of artefacts and undershoots||Sample||5%|
|407||Major Roads continue through Built Up Areas, Minor Roads are represented correctly within Built Up Areas and Road generalisation is consistent with the Specification||Sample||5%|
|409||Roads are correctly abutting Administration Area boundaries where applicable||Sample||5%|
|411||Roads are correctly abutting Built Up Area boundaries where applicable||Sample||5%|
|413||Road Distance markers appear for, and are consistent with, Road Distance values||Sample||1%|
|415||Roads are displaced for Railways, Rivers etc.||Sample||5%|
|417||National and State Route Markers are cleared of all other detail||Sample||1%|
|419||Roads that appear on the previous edition map appear on the new map where appropriate and as specified||Sample||2%|
|421||All source materials have been used to ensure revision has been carried out and accuracy requirements have been met||Sample||1%|
|423||Symbology is correct for all Road line and point features||Sample||1%|
|Built Up Areas|
|425||Boundaries do not overlap into other polygons, including Waterbodies, Vegetation Areas, Relief Areas and Offshore Areas etc.||Full Population||1%|
|427||Polygon boundaries are coincident with Roads where applicable||Sample||5%|
|429||Polygon boundaries are coincident with Roads where necessary and applicable||Sample||5%|
|431||Features that appear on the previous edition map appear on the new map where appropriate and as specified||Sample||2%|
|433||All source materials have been used to ensure revision has been carried out and accuracy requirements have been met||Sample||1%|
|435||Symbology is correct for all Built Up Areas and Populated Places||Full Population||1%|
2.2.7 Blue Detail (Internal)
Internal Blue detail includes all map features that are to be depicted with Blue symbology.
|437||The Grid meets the neatline and fits the Graticule||Full Population||0%|
|439||Waterbodies do not overlap other area features eg. Built Up Areas||Sample||5%|
|441||Orientation of Flow Arrow heads is correct||Sample||5%|
|443||Orientation of Rapids symbols are correct||Sample||5%|
|445||Minor Streams and Channels have a correction relationship (fit with) the Road pattern||Sample||5%|
|447||Features that appear on the previous edition map appear on the new map where appropriate and as specified||Sample||2%|
|449||All source materials have been used to ensure revision has been carried out and accuracy requirements have been met||Sample||1%|
|451||Symbology is correct for all features and appears only where appropriate||Sample||1%|
|453||Symbology of Waterbodies is correct with relation to Perenniality||Sample||5%|
|455||Reef polygons are contained completely within the Sea||Full Population||1%|
|457||Reefs are named where appropriate||Sample||2%|
|463||Symbology of Offshore Area and Point features is correct||Sample||1%|
|465||Correct symbology for Grid Lines (10 000m and 100 000m)||Full Population||0%|
2.2.8 Brown Detail (Internal)
Internal Brown detail includes all map features that are to be depicted with Brown symbology.
|467||Sand does not appear in vegetated areas, waterbodies and braided watercourses||Full Population||5%|
|469||Sand Ridges are identified by Descriptive Notes and Average Heights where available||Sample||5%|
|471||Sand Ridges do not cross Streams||Sample||1%|
|473||Sand Ridges do not enter Lakes||Sample||1%|
|479||Symbology for Sand, Sand Dunes, Foreshore Flats and Sand Ridges is correct||Sample||1%|
|481||Index Contours exist and are drawn with the correct symbology||Sample||1%|
|483||Depression Contours and associated depression ticks are orientated correctly||Sample||5%|
|485||Contours do not incorrectly appear through double-line perennial Watercourses, Lakes, Water Storages, Open Cut Mines and Cliffs||Sample||5%|
|491||Symbology is correct for Contours||Sample||1%|
2.2.9 Green Detail (Internal)
Internal Green detail includes all map features that are to be depicted with Green symbology.
|493||Vegetation does not overlap into perennial Waterbodies, Built Up Areas, Relief Areas etc.||Full Population||5%|
|495||Windbreaks do not cross Roads or perennial Waterbodies||Full Population||1%|
|497||Vegetation has been updated and captured in sufficient detail||Sample||5%|
|503||Symbology is correct for all vegetation features||Sample||1%|
|505||Boundaries are abutting Roads and other boundaries where appropriate||Sample||5%|
|507||The State Border is labelled correctly on both sides||Full Population||1%|
|509||The verge falls on the correct side of Administration Area boundaries||Sample||2%|
|515||Symbology for all Administration Area boundaries are correct||Sample||1%|
|517||Administration Area Boundary symbolisation is correctly aligned to, or offset from, other linear features where required||Sample||5%|
2.2.10 Screens / Patterns
A number of area features are represented by screens and/or patterns. Checks will be carried out against the appropriate specification.
|519||Area features made up of screens and/or patterns are correct eg. Forests, Rainforest, Parks, Mangroves, Orchards & Plantations etc.||Sample||0%|
3.Submission of Data to Geoscience Australia
3.1 Material and Format
The following information, data and products will accompany the submission of a completed Work Unit to Geoscience Australia.
- the Work Unit name *
- the Work Unit number *
- the relevant NTMS / Map Edition Number (where applicable)
- the Technical Specification Version used
- the Submission date
- the Producer / Company name
- the Producer / Company Contact name and number
- the Submission Sequence status and number
- a listing of the themes (or Feature Datasets) revised, as per the Project Instructions
- one hard copy quality proof of the revised map product (where applicable)
- Submission of data in one of the following formats, at the appropriate scale for the project;
- NTDB Enterprise Geodatabase (disconnected edit version)- GDA94 Geographic Coordinate system
- NTDB File Geodatabase - GDA94 Geographic Coordinate system
- NTDB Shape (.shp) files - GDA94 Geographic Coordinate system
- All digital Reference Data supplied to Producers by Geoscience Australia for use in revising existing base data or for new capture e.g. GA Roads Data, Mines data etc. Note: This requirement does NOT include Imagery or Orthophotography. Producers may retain any supplied imagery or orthophotography until such time as the Work Unit/s has been accepted
- All scanned (digital) map data sourced from published maps and supplied by Geoscience Australia to Producers as reference material
- supply of encapsulated postscript (.eps) files for generation of the map product
- a scanning transformation RMS error report(s) for all newly scanned data (where applicable)
- A completed delivery record, indicating all supplied allocation materials have been returned to Geoscience Australia (where applicable)
- a listing of all Action Requests relevant to the Work Unit in production, in either hard copy or digital format, chronologically ordered on the Appendix J "Listing of Action Requests" form
* Note: the NTDB Work Unit number may not necessarily relate to numbers shown in the NTDB MapIndexes Feature Dataset, and may be designated according to non-standard geographical extents, in accordance with the Project File instruction. Work Units/Packages may be named on a regional area or thematic basis, and differ to those already existing in the MapIndex Feature Dataset.
A Validation and Testing (VAT) Submission Form (Attachment J) should be used when submitting these details. This VAT Submission Form, showing typical expected entries and listing the above requirements, can be found below under "5. Forms for VAT Submission."
After the Work Unit has passed Validation and Testing (VAT), all NTDB and map specific source and reference material (including imagery and orthophotography) supplied to, and remaining with the Producer, will be returned to Geoscience Australia.
3.2 Impact of Specification Changes
These Technical Specifications are subject to continuous improvement. Amendments made may impact on the map and/or the NTDB Geodatabase representation. Where such amendments occur, the changes must be implemented for Work Units allocated after the amendment comes into effect. In addition, amendments may be applied to Work Units allocated prior to the amendment dates, as it could be beneficial to the producer to do so, but it is not required.
The Version number of the Specification used for production must be shown at the "Technical Specification Version" line of the VAT Submission form (Attachment J).
The procedure for suggesting changes or improvements to the Specification is described in Distribution and Suggestions for Change, at the front of this Specification.
4. Post-production Validation and Testing
A brief description of the testing process conducted by Validation and Testing is outlined below.
4.1 Results of Tests and Resubmitting Failed Work Units
On completion of the VAT tests a summary test report is generated. The report lists the tests that have been failed, and any other errors which, by themselves, do not cause the Work Unit to fail. The details of each error are briefly described. When possible the GID (or approximate coordinate position) of each feature, or example features in error, is included. The report summarises whether the Work Unit passes or fails.
The VAT Report is comprised of three sections, and it is important that Producers understand the significance of each section in terms of the AQL (Acceptable Quality Limit) criteria. A brief description of each section is included below;
Those tests for which data or map errors exceed the maximum allowable AQL percentage (%) error tolerance. For example, if the AQL for a particular test is 5%, an error percentage of 5.6% for that test would see it reported under this category.
"OTHER TEST ERRORS"
Those tests for which data or map errors exist, yet fall within the maximum allowable AQL percentage (%) error tolerance. These do not constitute a "FAIL" result for that particular test. For example, if the AQL for a particular test is 2%, an error percentage of 1.3% or 2% for that test would see it reported under this category.
Information that has been supplied by Validation and Testing (VAT) for either the Producer and/or Geoscience Australia, and which does not constitute or count as an error on the part of the Producer. This section is intended to include such example information as - Advice on erroneous or conflicting source material, subsequent additional source information not originally supplied to the Producer, suggestions for improvement not allowed for in current versions of the Specifications etc. This section acknowledges that each of these situations is outside the control of the Producer, and is provided for information purposes only, and in this way differs significantly from the "FAILED TESTS" and "OTHER TEST ERRORS" sections described above.
The following document is a sample extract from a typical Validation and Testing VAT Report.
- Sample VAT Report - Portable Document Format (PDF), [21 kb]
A Work Unit fails VAT when any of the AQL tolerances for any of the tests on any of the Feature Dataset/Feature Classes or products are exceeded. When a Work Unit fails VAT a copy of the above report is sent to the producer. Producers correcting data as a result of FAILED TESTS or OTHER TEST ERRORS should ensure that they make all corrections. VAT staff are forbidden from editing or correcting the data. The producer will correct the data. The producers should not only correct the errors listed in the summary report but search the untested parts of the data, correcting similar errors. It is possible that tests reported under the "OTHER TEST ERRORS" category may, on subsequent re-submission, be found to exceed the maximum tolerances and be recorded as "FAILED TESTS" on re-testing, due to sample densities or additional errors etc.
When they are satisfied that all errors are corrected, the producer will resubmit the Work Unit to Geoscience Australia's VAT cell. Re-submission follows the process outlined in Chapter 3 "Submission of Data to Geoscience Australia." Any corrections made as a result of VAT testing must render the NTDB data files and map (where applicable) consistent with each other where expected, and the hard copy map quality proof must be regenerated from that data prior to re-submission to VAT. Resubmitted data will be fully tested again, using a different sampling area. If the Work Unit fails again it will be returned to the producer for correction and subsequent re-submission.
When the data and associated products pass VAT, the summary report will be sent to the producer stating that the data and associated products have passed VAT.
5. Forms for VAT Submission
The following links will provide access to the VAT Submission and miscellaneous forms required for the submission of NTDB products, in PDF format. These forms will be completed by producers and submitted to VAT with all the specified material. These forms are provided as templates only - it is permissible, and may be necessary, to expand these forms facilitate the inclusion of all the necessary details against the relevant sections.
"VAT SUBMISSION" FORM
- Portable Document Format (PDF), [204 kb], For use with all scales
"LISTING OF ACTION REQUESTS" FORM
- Portable Document Format (PDF), [45 kb]
Topic contact: email@example.com Last updated: January 20, 2012