In Belgium, Luxemburg and France, it’s quite easy to find data about which sites have so called “Seveso risks” (i.e. industrial sites that need to follow the Seveso-III directive. For Germany (in particular the Lander bordering Belgium), I could only find such data for Saarland. It’s my understanding the directive includes an obligation to inform the public, but it seems that responsibility is fractured in Germany. It appears data is very hard to come by.
I also had a look at the seveso
key in OSM in Germany, but it doesn’t appear to be used.
Are you familiar with data sources for this topic? Is there some other key in use in Germany to indicate these facilities
Maybe we Germans are too much used to the phrase “Seveso is everywhere”
A search vor “seveso” in the osm-wiki does not show much results. so it seems unlikely.
The Tag:seveso=seuil bas and Tag:seveso=seuil haut pages of our wiki are pretty useless copy-paste-style documentation.
The english terms can be found at:
or directly at:
Directive - 2012/18 - EN - Seveso III - EUR-Lex
under “Article 3, Definitions”
Looking at the taginfo values for the key “seveso”
OSM key values Google Translate en.WikiPedia
Lagedrempelinrichting Low-threshold facility -> lower-tier
Hogedrempelinrichting High-threshold facility -> upper-tier
seuil bas low threshold -> lower-tier
seuil haut high threshold -> upper-tier
we might want to unify them with the English terms.
Back to your original question, and looking for a source of that info i only found eSPIRS and the copyright note does not look promising:
It also has an excuse for some lack in transparency:
Yes, this is a really big problem for this area. Seveso III is implemented in Germany with the so-called ‘Major Accidents Ordinance’ (Störfallverordnung), an amendment to the Federal Immission Control Act (Bundesimmisionsschutzgesetzes). The federal states are responsible for its implementation.
According to the Federal Environment Agency, there are currently 3,800 so-called “Störfall-Betriebe” throughout Germany. As a rule, the federal states must publish a monitoring plan.
In addition to the eSPIRS already mentioned, I am familiar with the following documentation:
- Baden-Württemberg: Überwachungsprogram - Landesanstalt für Umwelt Baden-Württemberg
- Bayern: -/- Unfortunately, this is very confusing here. As far as I know, the monitoring plans are drawn up by the district authorities even further down the line.
- Berlin: Störfallvorsorge - Berlin.de
- Brandenburg: Betriebsbereiche nach Störfallverordnung | Startseite | LfU
- Bremen: Anlagenüberwachung - Die Senatorin für Umwelt, Klima und Wissenschaft
- Hamburg: Störfallbetriebe
- Hessen: https://landwirtschaft.hessen.de/sites/landwirtschaft.hessen.de/files/2024-03/Überwachungsprogramm%20Hessen%20Stand%20Dezember%202023_.pdf
- Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Inspektionsplan zur Überwachung von Störfallanlagen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - Regierungsportal M-V
- Niedersachsen: Anlagensicherheit | Nds. Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie und Klimaschutz
- Nordrhein-Westfalen: The subordinate district governments are also responsible here.
- Rheinland-Pfalz: https://www.portalu.rlp.de/trefferanzeige?docuuid=981B98D3-5BF0-43F1-8031-F2FF29E6CDBE
- Saarland: https://www.saarland.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/LUA_sonstige_Downloads/Anlagensicherheit/ueberwachungsprogramm.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3
- Sachsen: Betriebsbereiche in Sachsen - Anlagensicherheit und Störfallvorsorge - sachsen.de
- Sachsen-Anhalt: Überwachung von Industrieemissions-Anlagen (IE-Anlagen)
- Schleswig-Holstein: schleswig-holstein.de - Immissionsschutz - Anlagensicherheit und Störfallvorsorge
- Thüringen: Anlagen der Störfallverordnung | Thüringer Landesamt für Umwelt, Bergbau und Naturschutz
Just in case this isn’t obvious; if you have to do extensive online
research to find out whether a certain tag might apply to a given
industrial site then it might not be a tag that should be in OSM at all.
OSM’s strength is that mappers can go out and survey stuff, fix errors
the notice with their own eyes, and so on. That’s why our data quality
is often better than what competitors have. Importing government data
where the government data is authoritative and OSM mappers cannot, ever,
conceivably improve the data, adds “foreign objects” to OSM and should
only be done after extensive consultation in the community.
For Saarland, there’s actually some easy to use open data available (CC BY 4.0)
Here I must clearly disagree.
Seveso III facilities are clearly important for reasons that may also be of importance to the general public at some point. Precisely because it is only through this information that the protection of health, the environment and property can be better guaranteed.
This is precisely why I consider it important that such information can also be presented in qualitative terms via OSM.
In the end, the respective operator must publicly inform about the conditions according to Seveso III (at least in Germany) on their websites and other data.