A flood-portal colour is not a hall certificate — cycle-3 maps are planning support

Reading order

Seat the ordinance cycle before any coloured tile. Identification, threat map, risk map and risk-management plan are four different objects. Write the cycle, the map class and the date on one line before you say the hall is safe or blocked.

Then keep the 26-area list on its own row. MSB’s September 2024 paper names a national count for cycle 3. It does not, in the pages used here, publish a hall-by-hall overlay. A town that is not on that list is not automatically dry. A town that is on that list is not automatically a refused campus.

Then keep Boverket’s tillsyn table on its own row. The 1-in-10-000 highest-flow starting point and the 1-in-100 cloudburst starting point are published for länsstyrelsen review of detaljplaner. Boverket says a site-specific assessment is still required. The same authority is rewriting those starting points through July 2027. Do not paste the table onto a groundbreaking slide as a certificate.

Then keep named project rows as geography. Falun in the 2024 paper is a cycle-2 map example. EcoDataCenter’s Falun page is an operator paper. Microsoft, Google Horndal, SWE04 Sollefteå and evroc Arlandastad stay operator papers. This register does not publish a threat-map cell for those cadastral units.

• Identification, maps and the 2028–2033 plan are different objects.
• Twenty-six cycle-3 areas are a national count, not a hall overlay.
• Boverket’s table is tillsyn support under revision.
• A portal colour is planning support, not a certificate.

What a flood map and a tillsyn table actually measure

A threat map measures a modelled inundation under a named scenario. The portal page warns that layers and climate adjustments differ between mappings and that the report for each mapping holds the scenario. A blue tile without that report is an incomplete quote.

A risk map measures consequences inside an identified area. County boards produce those maps. They are not a bygglov and not a reserved feeder.

A risk-management plan measures objectives and measures for 2028–2033 once the county board has decided it. Until 22 December 2027 those cycle-3 plans are still being written. A 2026 groundbreaking slogan cannot sit on a 2028 plan that does not yet exist.

Boverket’s table measures a supervisory starting point for whether a detaljplan may be inappropriate with regard to flood risk. The county board still makes a site-specific assessment. The assignment page records that the starting points are being rewritten because uncertainty grows when horizons pass 2100.

What named primary sources show

Ordinance 2009:956 remains the statutory flood-risk paper. MSB’s September 2024 report remains the dated cycle-3 count, the map split and the Falun cycle-2 example. MCF0026 from January 2026 remains the dated 17-board, two-month-consultation and 22 December 2027 clock. The portal page, last reviewed 26 May 2026, remains the dated map library.

Boverket’s assignment page and the 30 November 2022 tillsyn page remain the dated PBL commentary, including the rewrite through July 2027. Named operator rows remain geography.

No cited source here publishes a project-specific threat-map cell, a decided 2028–2033 plan for a named hall or a reserved hall megawatt created by a portal colour.

A matrix instead of one safe-or-unsafe slogan

Draw one page with object rows and evidence columns. Cycle-3 identification, threat map, risk map, 2028–2033 plan, Boverket tillsyn table and a named campus town are different columns. Empty cells stay empty.

Do not invent a hall flood year or a reserved megawatt from the portal. Those remain planning-support facts from dated MSB, MCF and Boverket pages.

Common misreads

The first misread is to treat a portal colour as a hall certificate. The portal is planning support. The mapping report still names the scenario. The second is to treat the 26-area count as a closed list of wet towns. Identification is one cycle step. The third is to paste Boverket’s 1-in-10-000 or 1-in-100 starting point onto a campus slide while the same authority is rewriting the advice.

The fourth is to treat Falun-the-map-example as EcoDataCenter’s flood class. The fifth is to treat a 2026 groundbreaking as proof that a 2028–2033 plan already exists. The sixth is to invent a hall flood year or a reserved megawatt. The seventh is to collapse this page into the detaljplan hub or the contaminated-land page.

What to ask next

Ask which object anyone is quoting — identification, threat map, risk map, risk-management plan or Boverket tillsyn table — and which mapping report names the scenario. Ask whether the plot sits inside one of the 26 cycle-3 areas, and which dated paper shows that.

Then open the detaljplan hub, the municipal-planning page, the contaminated-land page and the översiktsplan-versus-detaljplan page. If the operator will not name the map class and the date, record the gap. Do not fill it from a blue-tile slide. This page is not legal advice.

1. Is the quote an identification, a threat map, a risk map or a 2028–2033 plan?
2. Which mapping report names the scenario and the climate adjustment?
3. Has Boverket’s tillsyn table been pasted on as a hall certificate?
4. Has Falun-the-map-example been treated as a campus flood class?
5. Has a 2026 groundbreaking been treated as a decided 2028 plan?

What this does and does not prove

This page proves that Sweden already publishes a flood-risk cycle with 26 cycle-3 areas, portal maps from December 2025 and a 22 December 2027 plan clock, and that Boverket’s tillsyn starting points are under rewrite — and that those facts are not a reserved hall megawatt.

It does not prove that a named Swedish hall is safe or blocked. It does not invent a flood year for Horndal or Arlandastad. It does not treat a campus press note as a threat-map cell.

Empty cells stay empty. Until a later primary source names the map class, the scenario and the dated municipal file, the flood clock stays a method, not a census. DataCenterSweden records the method.