Common Operational Dataset tutorials may be found in the IM Toolbox > Tutorials > Common Operational Database tutorials section.
OCHA routinely evaluates the quality and availability of Common Operational Databases.
IN DEVELOPMENT
Administrative boundary (COD-AB) and population statistics (COD-PS) dashboard
This dashboard documents the quality and availability of the administrative boundary (COD-AB) layers and live services and population statistics (COD-PS) tables on HDX. The dashboard is generally refreshed after any COD-AB or COD-PS is added or updated. The dashboard has four tabs:
Usability Evaluation Overview
Detailed Evaluation
The 'Status and Rating by Country and Region' matrix groups countries by region and 'operational' vs 'preparedness' status, and depicts the attributes in the following groups:
'Administrative Boundary'
- 'ADM1', 'ADM2', 'ADM3', and 'ADM4': Administrative level 1, 2, 3, and 4 boundaries as 'fully usable' (green dot), 'partly usable' (orange dot), 'needs improvement' (red dot), or 'unavailable' (grey dot). The evaluation criteria are described below.
- 'HDX': availability on HDX (green tick) or unavailability (grey dot)
- 'LIVE': availability of live services (green tick) or unavailability (grey dot)
'LINK'
- 'AB-PS': compatibility of P-codes and records allows linkage between Administrative Boundary polygons and Population Statistics records
'Population Statistics'
- 'ADM1', 'ADM2', 'ADM3', and 'ADM4': Administrative level 1, 2, 3, and 4 population statistics as 'fully usable' (green dot), 'partly usable' (orange dot), 'needs improvement' (red dot), or 'unavailable' (grey dot). The evaluation criteria are described below.
- 'HDX': availability on HDX (green tick) or unavailability (grey dot)
ITOS Live Web Services
Frequently Asked Questions
Evaluation criteria
COD-ABs and COD-PSs are evaluated by FIS according to established criteria to maintain standardized levels of quality. Field IMOs are encouraged to use the same criteria for evaluation of candidate CODs and for periodic review of published CODs.
Each administrative level (except level 0 and any level below level 4) is evaluated individually, although some critera apply to entire COD-AB datasets (comprising multiple administrative levels). The evaluated levels are:
- Fully usable: The COD can be used for any purpose
- Partly usable: The COD has some problems that may limit its use
- Needs improvement: The COD is only useful for very limited purposes
Criteria are grouped. Each group has a rule for designation as 'Fully usable', 'Partly usable', or 'Needs improvement'. The evaluation of the entire administrative level is equal to the worst group evaluation.
Country statistics depend on the evaluation of the worst administrative level in the COD dataset.
Some COD-AB and COD-PS criteria are applicable to the entire COD-AB (an HDX 'datatset') or to the individual administrative layer. Evaluations for entire datasets are assigned to every component administrative layer.
COD-AB evaluation criteria | ||||||
Metadata criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HDX upload | Is the COD-AB published on HDX? | Dataset | HDX available CODs | At least nine indicators are satisfied | (not used) | Fewer than nine indicators are satisfied |
| Public availability | Is the data available publicly? | Dataset | Options are 'public', 'private', or 'request data' | |||
| Dataset date | Is the date clearly indicated on HDX? | Dataset | 'Providing Metadata For Your Datasets On HDX' | |||
| Description | Is there a short but complete description of the dataset? | Dataset | ||||
| Source | Is the data source clearly indicated and defined on HDX? | Dataset | ||||
| Methodology or comments | Is any clarifying information provided? | Dataset | ||||
| COD tag | Is the dataset tagged as a 'COD' on HDX for easy discovery? | Dataset | ||||
| Endorsement | Is the dataset endorsed by the IMWG or Humanitarian Coordinator? | Dataset | ||||
| License | Is the correct license specified on HDX? | Dataset | TO BE DISCUSSED WITHIN FIS | |||
| Single dataset | Are all the COD-AB files (HDX resources) grouped into one HDX dataset? | Dataset | Best Practice | |||
| Unique levels | Is there only one file (HDX resource) per file format per administrative level? | Dataset | Exceptions may be made. For instance, the Bangladesh COD-AB features layers with and without inland waters. Equivalent files should not be found elsewhere on HDX. | |||
| CPG file | Is a .cpg file available for each ArcGIS shapefile? | Administrative layer | A .cpg file is an ArcGIS codepage that comes with the other files extensions and that can be used to define the code. CPG file is not mandatory but should be present when needed. | |||
| Metadata file | Is there a metadata file (in .txt format) or gazeteer tab providing further information on data | Dataset | ||||
| Zip file naming | Is the zip naming convention followed? | Administrative layer | Zip file naming convention helps to standardize referencing of files NOTE LINK HAS NOT BEEN MIGRATED FROM TSP | |||
Shapefile nameing | Is the shapefile naming convention followed? | Administrative layer | The SHP files should follow the naming convention (standards). | |||
Attribute criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
| Feature count | Are there the correct number of features? | Administrative layer | Consult reliable sources, particularly COD-PS datasets | Two indicators are satisfied | (not used) | Fewer than two indicators are satisfied |
| Complete feature names | Are there any missing feature names? | Administrative layer | ||||
| Clear field names | Is there any explanation/document about standardization of items? | Administrative layer | Column names must make sense and be clear to prevent any confusion. | |||
| Latin alphabet names | Are the feature names written in the Latin alphabet? | Administrative layer | If names are written in any alphabet which is not Latin, it must be translated into English in another column. (Link to ITOS schema) | |||
| Gazetteer (tabular) file | Are the COD-AB attribute tables for all administrative levels available as an Excel file on HDX? | Administrative layer | Best Practice | |||
| Parentage | Lower levels have higher attributes included | Administrative layer | Lower levels should include higher levels to see the AB unit it falls in. Best Practice | |||
| Unique feature names | Do any features have duplicate names (within the same higher administrative levels)? | Administrative layer | Duplicates attributes check tutorial | |||
| P-code criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
| P-codes constructed | Do the P-codes incorporate values from higher levels? | Administrative level | Pcodes guidelines | Both criteria are satisfied | (not used) | Neither criteria is satisfied |
| Unique P-codes | Are the P-codes unique? | Administrative level | Duplicates attributes check tutorial | |||
| Parentage criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
| P-code parentage | Is the P-code hierarchy the same between levels? | Administrative level | Parentage check tutorial | Both criteria are satisfied | (not used) | Neither criteria is satisfied |
| Name parentage | Is the unit names hierarchy the same between levels? | Administrative level | Parentage check tutorial | |||
| Spatial criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully suable | Party usable | Needs improvement |
| Features are polygons | Are all administrative boundaries represented as closed polygons? | Administrative level | How to convert polylines to polygons tutorial | All criteria are satisfied. | All criteria except 'Correct topology' are satisfied | Some criteria, apart from 'Correct topology' are not satisfied |
| Consistent coordinate systems | Is the coordinate system WGS1984 or at least consistent? | Dataset | ||||
| Geometric nesting | Is the geometric nesting clean? | Dataset | Nesting error tutorial | |||
| Correct topology | Are there topological gaps and overlaps? | Administrative level | Topology check tutorial | |||
| Country coverage | Are there unjustified gaps in the country coverage? | Administrative level | ||||
COD-PS evaluation criteria | ||||||
Metadata criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
| HDX upload | Is the COD-PS published on HDX? | Dataset | HDX available CODs | At least one indicator is satisfied CONFIRM | (not used) | No indicators are satisfied |
| Public availability | Is the data available publicly? | Dataset | Options are 'public', 'private', or 'request data' | |||
| Dataset date | Is the date clearly indicated on HDX? | Dataset | 'Providing Metadata For Your Datasets On HDX' | |||
| Description | Is there a short but complete description of the dataset? | Dataset | ||||
| Source | Is the data source clearly indicated and defined on HDX? | Dataset | ||||
| Methodology or comments | Is any clarifying information provided? | Dataset | ||||
| COD tag | Is the dataset tagged as a 'COD' on HDX for easy discovery? | Dataset | ||||
| Endorsement | Is the dataset endorsed by the IMWG or Humanitarian Coordinator? | Dataset | ||||
| License | Is the correct license specified on HDX? | Dataset | ||||
| Single dataset | Are all the COD-AB files (HDX resources) grouped into one HDX dataset? | Dataset | Best Practice | |||
| Unique levels | Is there only one file (HDX resource) per file format per administrative level? | Dataset | Equivalent files should not be found elsewhere on HDX. | |||
| Excel file | Is there an Excel file? | Dataset | ||||
| CSV files | Are there CSV files for each administrative level? | Dataset | ||||
| CSV files zipped | Are all the CSV files zipped together? | Dataset | ||||
| Metadata file | Is there a metadata file (in .txt format) or gazeteer tab providing further information on data | Dataset | ||||
| File encoded | Is the file encoded in UTF-8? | Dataset | ||||
| Zip file naming | Is the zip naming convention followed? | Dataset | ||||
| Table file naming | Is the CSV and Excel naming convention followed ? | Dataset | ||||
Attribute criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
| Clear field names | Is there any explanation/document about standardization of items? | Administrative layer | Column names must make sense and be clear to prevent any confusion. | |||
| Latin alphabet names | Are the feature names written in the Latin alphabet? | Administrative layer | If names are written in any alphabet which is not Latin, it must be translated into English in another column. (Link to ITOS schema) | |||
| Metadata tab | Does the Excel table have a metadata tab? | Dataset | ||||
| No merged cells | Are any cells merged? | Administrative layer | In order to facilitate the use/reading of the tables, no cell must be merged | |||
| Top row | Does the top row contain only item names? | Administrative layer | ||||
| One tab per administrative level | Do the administrative levels have their own tabs? | Dataset | ||||
| Unique feature names | Do any features have duplicate names (within the same higher administrative levels)? | Administrative layer | ||||
| Higher level attributes | Do lower administrative levels have the higher level names and P-Codes? | Administrative layer | ||||
| Blank cells | Do all cells contain data? | Administrative layer | No cell should be. If there is a no data the cell must contain "NA" | |||
| Integer data | Are all data integer? | Administrative layer | No decimal values are permitted | |||
| Totals | Are there totals columns? | Administrative layer | Best practice | |||
| Individual cell values | Do any cells contain more than one peice of information or a range of values? | Administrative layer | ||||
| P-code criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
| Unique P-codes | Are the P-codes unique? | Administrative layer | ||||
| Parentage criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Needs improvement | |
| P-code parentage | Does each admin level have upper level P-codes? Is the hierarchy the same between levels? | Administrative layer | forthcoming | |||
| Name parentage | Does each admin level have upper level feature names? Is the hierarchy the same between levels? | Administrative layer | ||||
| Sex and age dissagregation criteria group | ||||||
| Criterion | Description | Applicability | Guidance | Fully usable | Partly usable | Needs improvement |
| Sex disaggregation | Are the statistics disaggreggated by sex ? | Administrative layer | There must be integrated age-sex disaggregation with sex disaggregation for every age cohort. | There is overall sex and / or age disaggregation without sex disaggregation for every age cohort. | Neither sex nor age dissaggregation is available. | |
| Age disaggregation | Are the statistics disaggreggated by age ? | Administrative layer | ||||