When a supplier sends a GeoJSON or KML file, the first problem is often treated as a compliance problem. In practice, it is usually a data-quality problem first.
A plot file can open in a map viewer and still be unsuitable for the next step. It may contain a self-intersection, a ring that is not closed, an invalid geometry type, the wrong coordinate reference system, or a feature placed hundreds of kilometres from the stated origin. None of those errors tells you whether the land was deforested, whether production was legal, or whether an operator can complete its own due diligence. They do tell you that the file needs attention before those questions can be assessed reliably.
What to check before reviewing the evidence
A useful first pass separates four questions:
- Is the file readable?
- Is the geometry valid?
- Is the location plausible for the declared source?
- Is the corrected file traceable to the original?
These checks are easy to mix together. A repaired polygon is not proof of land-use history. A point inside a country is not proof of origin. A file that passes a geometry validator is not a certification.
For a practical workflow, start by keeping the supplier file unchanged. Work on a copy and record what was inspected. Check the file format, feature types, coordinate reference system and geometry validity. Then inspect the shape on a map. A narrow strip crossing a coastline, a polygon with a spike, or a feature in the wrong hemisphere is often easier to see than to infer from raw coordinates.
Repairs should be visible
Some repairs are mechanical. A geometry can sometimes be closed, normalized, or made valid. Those operations should produce a new file and a clear record of what changed. The original should remain available for comparison.
The important distinction is between a repair preview and a verified fact. A preview can show how a geometry operation would change the shape. It cannot establish that the replacement boundary is the supplier's true plot. That still requires a person with the relevant source information to review it.
The same principle applies to coordinate transformations. Reprojecting a file may make it display correctly, but it does not correct a wrong location. A transformation changes how coordinates are interpreted. It does not create missing provenance.
Keep the handoff simple
A useful handoff package can contain:
- the original file
- the corrected working copy
- a short change log
- the validation result
- the map view used for the visual check
- the source and date of any external reference
- the person responsible for the next review
This is preparation, not a substitute for the operator's own assessment. The final decision about evidence, risk and any formal filing remains with the responsible organization.
I built EUDR Tools around this narrow preparation problem. Its Map Studio lets a user inspect GeoJSON and KML files, see geometry issues, preview selected repairs and export a working copy. The site's HS/CN scope and country-risk pages are separate lookups. They do not certify a product, verify legality or deforestation status, or submit a due diligence statement on someone else's behalf.
That boundary is deliberate. Better files make later review easier, but a clean map is only one part of a much larger evidence chain.
Top comments (0)