What inputs LEVEE requires

Option one. Full study data under an open licence.

Where a council publishes flood study outputs under Creative Commons Attribution, LEVEE ingests them in full. They appear across Map and Pro with the modelling parameters shown alongside. Several NSW councils and the NSW Reconstruction Authority already do this through the NSW Flood Data Portal.

Option two. Polygons only.

Where full publication is not possible, a council can supply GIS polygons alone:

• the 1% AEP extent
• the probable maximum flood extent
• the flood planning area

Nothing else. No model results. No reports. No levels.

These appear on the simple Map view only. It is the same level of detail a council already publishes through its own online mapping, and every layer links back to that council's flood information or certificate process.

Option two asks for nothing a council does not already show the public. What changes is that it sits in the same place and the same language as every other council's mapping.

No model files are required. Not now and not later.

The platform does not ask for your results, your models, your reports, or anything a third party could use to reconstruct your work.

A consultant contribution displays:

• a GIS polygon of the catchment or model domain
• the study date
• the approval pathway and application number
• approval status

The catchment or model domain is the minimum a listing requires. Without that polygon there is nothing to list against. The polygon is a boundary, not an output. It shows that a study exists and where it applies.

How your listing appears. Two ways, depending on the mapping behind it. Where your study modified a council's catchment wide model, and especially where that model is licensed under restricted terms, the listing shows the council study's catchment and you are listed alongside every consultant with access to that study. Your own extent is not drawn, so nothing about the licensed model or your changes to it is disclosed. Via Pro, LEVEE also displays the input parameters and assumptions of that council study, transcribed from the public report, beside the catchment your listing stands on. Where a council holds no flood mapping for an area, your study area's boundary is shown on its own. That is still the boundary and not your flood extent: the absence of a council model removes one encumbrance, not all of them, and the extent is still an output of your work.

Named only with your consent. In either case, you appear on LEVEE only with your consent. Approval records are public, but a curated list of firms on a platform like this is a different thing from a development application register.

Reviewed before publication. Nothing appears automatically. You see how your entry will look before it goes live and you can withdraw it at any time.

Your data stays yours. LEVEE is exploring an API key arrangement so linked data remains in the possession of the consultant or their client, is displayed on LEVEE only, and can be withdrawn at any time.

What you get in return. The Pro map puts the modelling behind the council studies LEVEE holds in one place. Software, grid, design rainfall, roughness, blockage and the filters applied before mapping are transcribed from the public study reports and shown beside the mapping they produced, cited to report, table and page, at the point you click. Assembling that today means finding each report and reading it cover to cover. Where a report does not state a parameter, Pro says so and points at the report rather than guessing.

Why it matters. Site specific studies commissioned by landowners are the largest body of flood information in New South Wales that nobody can find. A homeowner two doors down has no way of knowing a study covering their street exists. Showing that it exists, and who prepared it, costs a consultant nothing and saves the next owner paying for the same work again.

Several replies have identified the same barriers. They are worth as much to this project as data is.

Named so far: intellectual property terms in consulting engagements, confidentiality obligations and non disclosure agreements, licence agreements with councils that prohibit sharing base model data with third parties, and council positions against issuing study wide results externally.

The barrier is rarely willingness. It is historical or structural.

Perennial is seeking meetings with councils and consultancies to document these constraints properly. The purpose is to record current practice and the real barriers to change, not to argue with any organisation's position or to press for an exception.

Equivalent platforms in other jurisdictions meet the same wall. Nobody has yet written down where it sits in New South Wales or what it costs the industry.

If your organisation cannot contribute data, that conversation is still worth having.

Contact: levee@perennialengineers.com.au