Table defining the fields for the attribute table of the owner points feature. It reflects the new table structure OTR adopted in Tax Year 2005 reflecting the systems update to the public release file.

This zip file contains geodatabases with raster mosaic datasets. The raster mosaic datasets consist of georeferenced tiff images of mineral potential maps, their associated metadata, and descriptive information about the images. These images are duplicates of the images found in the georeferenced tiff images zip file. There are four geodatabases containing the raster mosaic datasets, one for each of the four SaMiRA report areas: North-Central Montana; North-Central Idaho; Southwestern and South-Central Wyoming and Bear River Watershed; and Nevada Borderlands. The georeferenced images were clipped to the extent of the map and all explanatory text, gathered from map explanations or report text was imported into the raster mosaic dataset database as ‘Footprint’ layer attributes. The data compiled into the 'Footprint' layer tables contains the figure caption from the original map, online linkage to the source report when available, and information on the assessed commodities according to the legal definition of mineral resources—metallic, non-metallic, leasable non-fuel, leasable fuel, geothermal, paleontological, and saleable. To use the raster mosaic datasets in ArcMap, click on “add data”, double click on the [filename].gdb, and add the item titled [filename]_raster_mosaic. This will add all of the images within the geodatabase as part of the raster mosaic dataset. Once added to ArcMap, the raster mosaic dataset appears as a group of three layers under the mosaic dataset. The first item in the group is the ‘Boundary’, which contains a single polygon representing the extent of all images in the dataset. The second item is the ‘Footprint’, which contains polygons representing the extent of each individual image in the dataset. The ‘Footprint’ layer also contains the attribute table data associated with each of the images. The third item is the ‘Image’ layer and contains the images in the dataset. The images are overlapping and must be selected and locked, or queried in order to be viewed one at a time. Images can be selected from the attribute table, or can be selected using the direct select tool. When using the direct select tool, you will need to deselect the ‘overviews’ after clicking on an image or group of images. To do this, right click on the ‘Footprint’ layer and hover over ‘Selection’, then click ‘Reselect Only Primary Rasters’. To lock a selected image after selecting it, right-click on the ‘Footprint’ layer in the table of contents window and hover over ‘Selection’, then click ‘Lock To Selected Rasters’. Another way to view a single image is to run a definition query on the image. This is done by right clicking on the raster mosaic in the table of contents and opening the layer properties box. Then click on the ‘Definition Query’ tab and create a query for the desired image.

This dataset represents a water shortage vulnerability analysis performed by DWR using modified PLSS sections pulled from the Well Completion Report PLSS Section Summaries. The attribute table includes water shortage vulnerability indicators and scores from an analysis done by CA Department of Water Resources, joined to modified PLSS sections. Several relevant summary statistics from the Well Completion Reports are included in this table as well. This data is from the 2024 analysis.

Water Code Division 6 Part 2.55 Section 8 Chapter 10 (Assembly Bill 1668) effectively requires California Department of Water Resources (DWR), in consultation with other agencies and an advisory group, to identify small water suppliers and “rural communities” that are at risk of drought and water shortage. Following legislation passed in 2021 and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the Water Code Division 6, Section 10609.50 through 10609.80 (Senate Bill 552 of 2021) effectively requires the California Department of Water Resources to update the scoring and tool periodically in partnership with the State Water Board and other state agencies. This document describes the indicators, datasets, and methods used to construct this deliverable.  This is a statewide effort to systematically and holistically consider water shortage vulnerability statewide of rural communities, focusing on domestic wells and state small water systems serving between 4 and 14 connections. The indicators and scoring methodology will be revised as better data become available and stake-holders evaluate the performance of the indicators, datasets used, and aggregation and ranking method used to aggregate and rank vulnerability scores. Additionally, the scoring system should be adaptive, meaning that our understanding of what contributes to risk and vulnerability of drought and water shortage may evolve. This understanding may especially be informed by experiences gained while navigating responses to future droughts.”

A spatial analysis was performed on the 2020 Census Block Groups, modified PLSS sections, and small water system service areas using a variety of input datasets related to drought vulnerability and water shortage risk and vulnerability. These indicator values were subsequently rescaled and summed for a final vulnerability score for the sections and small water system service areas. The 2020 Census Block Groups were joined with ACS data to represent the social vulnerability of communities, which is relevant to drought risk tolerance and resources. These three feature datasets contain the units of analysis (modified PLSS sections, block groups, small water systems service areas) with the model indicators for vulnerability in the attribute table. Model indicators are calculated for each unit of analysis according to the Vulnerability Scoring documents provided by Julia Ekstrom (Division of Regional Assistance).

All three feature classes are DWR analysis zones that are based off existing GIS datasets. The spatial data for the sections feature class is extracted from the Well Completion Reports PLSS sections to be aligned with the work and analysis that SGMA is doing. These are not true PLSS sections, but a version of the projected section lines in areas where there are gaps in PLSS. The spatial data for the Census block group feature class is downloaded from the Census. ACS (American Communities Survey) data is joined by block group, and statistics calculated by DWR have been added to the attribute table. The spatial data for the small water systems feature class was extracted from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SABL dataset, using a definition query to filter for active water systems with 3000 connections or less. None of these datasets are intended to be the authoritative datasets for representing PLSS sections, Census block groups, or water service areas. The spatial data of these feature classes is used as units of analysis for the spatial analysis performed by DWR.

These datasets are intended to be authoritative datasets of the scoring tools required from DWR according to Senate Bill 552. Please refer to the Drought and Water Shortage Vulnerability Scoring: California's Domestic Wells and State Smalls Systems documentation for more information on indicators and scoring. These estimated indicator scores may sometimes be calculated in several different ways, or may have been calculated from data that has since be updated. Counts of domestic wells may be calculated in different ways. In order to align with DWR SGMO's (State Groundwater Management Office) California Groundwater Live dashboards, domestic wells were calculated using the same query. This includes all domestic wells in the Well Completion Reports dataset that are completed after 12/31/1976, and have a 'RecordType' of 'WellCompletion/New/Production or Monitoring/NA'.

Please refer to the Well Completion Reports metadata for more information. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.4, dated September 14, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees — either expressed or implied— as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data.

DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to GIS@water.ca.gov.

This digital dataset was created as part of a U.S. Geological Survey study, done in cooperation with the Monterey County Water Resource Agency, to conduct a hydrologic resource assessment and develop an integrated numerical hydrologic model of the hydrologic system of Salinas Valley, CA. As part of this larger study, the USGS developed this digital dataset of geologic data and three-dimensional hydrogeologic framework models, referred to here as the Salinas Valley Geological Framework (SVGF), that define the elevation, thickness, extent, and lithology-based texture variations of nine hydrogeologic units in Salinas Valley, CA. The digital dataset includes a geospatial database that contains two main elements as GIS feature datasets: (1) input data to the 3D framework and textural models, within a feature dataset called “ModelInput”; and (2) interpolated elevation, thicknesses, and textural variability of the hydrogeologic units stored as arrays of polygonal cells, within a feature dataset called “ModelGrids”. The model input data in this data release include stratigraphic and lithologic information from water, monitoring, and oil and gas wells, as well as data from selected published cross sections, point data derived from geologic maps and geophysical data, and data sampled from parts of previous framework models. Input surface and subsurface data have been reduced to points that define the elevation of the top of each hydrogeologic units at x,y locations; these point data, stored in a GIS feature class named “ModelInputData”, serve as digital input to the framework models. The location of wells used a sources of subsurface stratigraphic and lithologic information are stored within the GIS feature class “ModelInputData”, but are also provided as separate point feature classes in the geospatial database. Faults that offset hydrogeologic units are provided as a separate line feature class. Borehole data are also released as a set of tables, each of which may be joined or related to well location through a unique well identifier present in each table. Tables are in Excel and ascii comma-separated value (CSV) format and include separate but related tables for well location, stratigraphic information of the depths to top and base of hydrogeologic units intercepted downhole, downhole lithologic information reported at 10-foot intervals, and information on how lithologic descriptors were classed as sediment texture. Two types of geologic frameworks were constructed and released within a GIS feature dataset called “ModelGrids”: a hydrostratigraphic framework where the elevation, thickness, and spatial extent of the nine hydrogeologic units were defined based on interpolation of the input data, and (2) a textural model for each hydrogeologic unit based on interpolation of classed downhole lithologic data. Each framework is stored as an array of polygonal cells: essentially a “flattened”, two-dimensional representation of a digital 3D geologic framework. The elevation and thickness of the hydrogeologic units are contained within a single polygon feature class SVGF_3DHFM, which contains a mesh of polygons that represent model cells that have multiple attributes including XY location, elevation and thickness of each hydrogeologic unit. Textural information for each hydrogeologic unit are stored in a second array of polygonal cells called SVGF_TextureModel. The spatial data are accompanied by non-spatial tables that describe the sources of geologic information, a glossary of terms, a description of model units that describes the nine hydrogeologic units modeled in this study. A data dictionary defines the structure of the dataset, defines all fields in all spatial data attributer tables and all columns in all nonspatial tables, and duplicates the Entity and Attribute information contained in the metadata file. Spatial data are also presented as shapefiles. Downhole data from boreholes are released as a set of tables related by a unique well identifier, tables are in Excel and ascii comma-separated value (CSV) format.

This dataset contains the street centerlines of roadways in Hennepin County in the Metro Regional Centerline (MRCC) standard format. It is primarily used for geocoding purposes. The attribute table includes road names and geocoding ranges for each road feature. The associated street alias table can be joined to this dataset using the UNIQUE_ID field and the JOIN_ID field from the alias table. More recently, the dataset has been enhanced to better support routing, including the conversion of single line segments to dual carriageway for divided highways and boulevards and the addition of access ramps. Speed, elevation, and one way attributes are also provided, allowing this dataset to be built into a routable network dataset

Attribute information is defined by the MRCC standard. Information on the standard, including attribute definitions, is available on the MetroGIS MRCC project site. While this dataset includes only Hennepin County roadways, it is intended to align with neighboring counties to provide a standard, multi-purpose regional street centerline dataset. The full regional dataset is available for download from MN Geospatial Commons website.

Current housing units at a parcel level within Fairfax County as of the VALID_TO date in the attribute table. For methodology and a data dictionary please view the IPLS data dictionary

Residential market value estimates and most recent sales values for owned properties at a parcel level within Fairfax County as of the VALID_TO date in the attribute table.

For methodology and a data dictionary please view the IPLS data dictionary

1 Introduction

The Peatland Decomposition Database (PDD) stores data from published litterbag experiments related to peatlands. Currently, the database focuses on northern peatlands and Sphagnum litter and peat, but it also contains data from some vascular plant litterbag experiments. Currently, the database contains entries from 34 studies, 2,160 litterbag experiments, and 7,297 individual samples with 117,841 measurements for various attributes (e.g. relative mass remaining, N content, holocellulose content, mesh size). The aim is to provide a harmonized data source that can be useful to re-analyse existing data and to plan future litterbag experiments.

The Peatland Productivity and Decomposition Parameter Database (PPDPD) (Bona et al. 2018) is similar to the Peatland Decomposition Database (PDD) in that both contain data from peatland litterbag experiments. The differences are that both databases partly contain different data, that PPDPD additionally contains information on vegetation productivity, which PDD does not, and that PDD provides more information and metadata on litterbag experiments, and also measurement errors.

2 Updates

Compared to version 1.0.0, this version has a new structure for table experimental_design_format, contains additional metadata on the experimental design (these were omitted in version 1.0.0), and contains the scripts that were used to import the data into the database.

3 Methods

3.1 Data collection

Data for the database was collected from published litterbag studies, by extracting published data from figures, tables, or other data sources, and by contacting the authors of the studies to obtain raw data. All data processing was done with R (R version 4.2.0 (2022-04-22)) (R Core Team 2022).

Studies were identified via a Scopus search with search string (TITLE-ABS-KEY ( peat* AND ( "litter bag" OR "decomposition rate" OR "decay rate" OR "mass loss")) AND NOT ("tropic*")) (2022-12-17). These studies were further screened to exclude those which do not contain litterbag data or which recycle data from other studies that have already been considered. Additional studies with litterbag experiments in northern peatlands we were aware of, but which were not identified in the literature search were added to the list of publications. For studies not older than 10 years, authors were contacted to obtain raw data, however this was successful only in few cases. To date, the database focuses on Sphagnum litterbag experiments and not from all studies that were identified by the literature search data have been included yet in the database.

Data from figures were extracted using the package ‘metaDigitise’ (1.0.1) (Pick, Nakagawa, and Noble 2018). Data from tables were extracted manually.

Data from the following studies are currently included: Farrish and Grigal (1985), Bartsch and Moore (1985), Farrish and Grigal (1988), Vitt (1990), Hogg, Lieffers, and Wein (1992), Sanger, Billett, and Cresser (1994), Hiroki and Watanabe (1996), Szumigalski and Bayley (1996), Prevost, Belleau, and Plamondon (1997), Arp, Cooper, and Stednick (1999), Robbert A. Scheffer and Aerts (2000), R. A. Scheffer, Van Logtestijn, and Verhoeven (2001), Limpens and Berendse (2003), Waddington, Rochefort, and Campeau (2003), Asada, Warner, and Banner (2004), Thormann, Bayley, and Currah (2001), Trinder, Johnson, and Artz (2008), Breeuwer et al. (2008), Trinder, Johnson, and Artz (2009), Bragazza and Iacumin (2009), Hoorens, Stroetenga, and Aerts (2010), Straková et al. (2010), Straková et al. (2012), Orwin and Ostle (2012), Lieffers (1988), Manninen et al. (2016), Johnson and Damman (1991), Bengtsson, Rydin, and Hájek (2018a), Bengtsson, Rydin, and Hájek (2018b), Asada and Warner (2005), Bengtsson, Granath, and Rydin (2017), Bengtsson, Granath, and Rydin (2016), Hagemann and Moroni (2015), Hagemann and Moroni (2016), B. Piatkowski et al. (2021), B. T. Piatkowski et al. (2021), Mäkilä et al. (2018), Golovatskaya and Nikonova (2017), Golovatskaya and Nikonova (2017).

4 Database records

The database is a ‘MariaDB’ database and the database schema was designed to store data and metadata following the Ecological Metadata Language (EML) (Jones et al. 2019). Descriptions of the tables are shown in Tab. 1.

The database contains general metadata relevant for litterbag experiments (e.g., geographical, temporal, and taxonomic coverage, mesh sizes, experimental design). However, it does not contain a detailed description of sample handling, sample preprocessing methods, site descriptions, because there currently are no discipline-specific metadata and reporting standards. Table 1: Description of the individual tables in the database.

Name Description

attributes Defines the attributes of the database and the values in column attribute_name in table data.

citations Stores bibtex entries for references and data sources.

citations_to_datasets Links entries in table citations with entries in table datasets.

custom_units Stores custom units.

data Stores measured values for samples, for example remaining masses.

datasets Lists the individual datasets.

experimental_design_format Stores information on the experimental design of litterbag experiments.

measurement_scales, measurement_scales_date_time, measurement_scales_interval, measurement_scales_nominal, measurement_scales_ordinal, measurement_scales_ratio Defines data value types.

missing_value_codes Defines how missing values are encoded.

samples Stores information on individual samples.

samples_to_samples Links samples to other samples, for example litter samples collected in the field to litter samples collected during the incubation of the litterbags.

units, unit_types Stores information on measurement units.

5 Attributes Table 2: Definition of attributes in the Peatland Decomposition Database and entries in the column attribute_name in table data.

Name Definition Example value Unit Measurement scale Number type Minimum value Maximum value String format

4_hydroxyacetophenone_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of 4-hydroxyacetophenone, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

4_hydroxyacetophenone_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of 4-hydroxyacetophenone, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g/g ratio real 0 1 NA

4_hydroxybenzaldehyde_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

4_hydroxybenzaldehyde_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g/g ratio real 0 1 NA

4_hydroxybenzoic_acid_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

4_hydroxybenzoic_acid_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g/g ratio real 0 1 NA

abbreviation In table custom_units: A string representing an abbreviation for the custom unit. gC NA nominal NA NA NA NA

acetone_extractives_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of acetone extractives, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

acetone_extractives_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of acetone extractives, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g/g ratio real 0 1 NA

acetosyringone_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of acetosyringone, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

acetosyringone_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of acetosyringone, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g/g ratio real 0 1 NA

acetovanillone_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of acetovanillone, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

acetovanillone_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of acetovanillone, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g/g ratio real 0 1 NA

arabinose_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of arabinose, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

arabinose_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of arabinose, as described in Straková et al. (2010). 0.26 g/g ratio real 0 1 NA

ash_mass_absolute A numeric value representing the content of ash (after burning at 550°C). 4 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

ash_mass_relative_mass A numeric value representing the content of ash (after burning at 550°C). 0.05 g/g ratio real 0 Inf NA

attribute_definition A free text field with a textual description of the meaning of attributes in the dpeatdecomposition database. NA NA nominal NA NA NA NA

attribute_name A string describing the names of the attributes in all tables of the dpeatdecomposition database. attribute_name NA nominal NA NA NA NA

bibtex A string representing the bibtex code used for a literature reference throughout the dpeatdecomposition database. Galka.2021 NA nominal NA NA NA NA

bounds_maximum A numeric value representing the minimum possible value for a numeric attribute. 0 NA interval real Inf Inf NA

bounds_minimum A numeric value representing the maximum possible value for a numeric attribute. INF NA interval real Inf Inf NA

bulk_density A numeric value representing the bulk density of the sample [g cm-3]. 0,2 g/cm^3 ratio real 0 Inf NA

C_absolute The absolute mass of C in the sample. 1 g ratio real 0 Inf NA

C_relative_mass The absolute mass of C in the sample. 1 g/g ratio real 0 Inf NA

C_to_N A numeric value representing the C to N ratio of the sample. 35 g/g ratio real 0 Inf NA

C_to_P A numeric value representing the C to P ratio of the sample. 35 g/g ratio real 0 Inf NA

Ca_absolute The

Overview The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.4 (published 24 February 2025). The 11.4 release contains updated boundary lines and data refinements designed to extend the functionality of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control. National Geospatial Data Asset This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDAID 194) managed by the Department of State. It is a part of the International Boundaries Theme created by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Dataset Source Details Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions, as well as national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process includes analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground. Cartographic Visualization The LSIB is a geospatial dataset that, when used for cartographic purposes, requires additional styling. The LSIB download package contains example style files for commonly used software applications. The attribute table also contains embedded information to guide the cartographic representation. Additional discussion of these considerations can be found in the Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization section below. Additional cartographic information pertaining to the depiction and description of international boundaries or areas of special sovereignty can be found in Guidance Bulletins published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues: https://data.geodata.state.gov/guidance/index.html Contact Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov. Direct download: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zip Attribute Structure The dataset uses the following attributes divided into two categories: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | Core CC1_GENC3 | Extension CC1_WPID | Extension COUNTRY1 | Core CC2 | Core CC2_GENC3 | Extension CC2_WPID | Extension COUNTRY2 | Core RANK | Core LABEL | Core STATUS | Core NOTES | Core LSIB_ID | Extension ANTECIDS | Extension PREVIDS | Extension PARENTID | Extension PARENTSEG | Extension These attributes have external data sources that update separately from the LSIB: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | GENC CC1_GENC3 | GENC CC1_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY1 | DoS Lists CC2 | GENC CC2_GENC3 | GENC CC2_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY2 | DoS Lists LSIB_ID | BASE ANTECIDS | BASE PREVIDS | BASE PARENTID | BASE PARENTSEG | BASE The core attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset. Removal of core attributes from the dataset will change the meaning of the lines. An attribute status of “Extension” represents a field containing data interoperability information. Other attributes not listed above include “FID”, “Shape_length” and “Shape.” These are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB. Core Attributes The eight core attributes listed above contain unique information which, when combined with the line geometry, comprise the LSIB dataset. These Core Attributes are further divided into Country Code and Name Fields and Descriptive Fields. County Code and Country Name Fields “CC1” and “CC2” fields are machine readable fields that contain political entity codes. These are two-character codes derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC), Edition 3 Update 18. “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC3” fields contain the corresponding three-character GENC codes and are extension attributes discussed below. The codes “Q2” or “QX2” denote a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with areas not contained within the GENC standard. The “COUNTRY1” and “COUNTRY2” fields contain the names of corresponding political entities. These fields contain names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the ‘"Independent States in the World" and "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" lists maintained by the Department of State. To ensure maximum compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using common cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code "Q2" are descriptive and not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS denote independent states. Names rendered in normal text represent dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user. Descriptive Fields The following text fields are a part of the core attributes of the LSIB dataset and do not update from external sources. They provide additional information about each of the lines and are as follows: ATTRIBUTE NAME | CONTAINS NULLS RANK | No STATUS | No LABEL | Yes NOTES | Yes Neither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" fields contain null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do. The "RANK" field is a numeric expression of the "STATUS" field. Combined with the line geometry, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line. ATTRIBUTE NAME | | VALUE | RANK | 1 | 2 | 3 STATUS | International Boundary | Other Line of International Separation | Special Line A value of “1” in the “RANK” field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the “STATUS” field. Values of ”2” and “3” correspond to “Other Line of International Separation” and “Special Line,” respectively. The “LABEL” field contains required text to describe the line segment on all finished cartographic products, including but not limited to print and interactive maps. The “NOTES” field contains an explanation of special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line. Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization Several of the Core Attributes provide information required for the proper cartographic representation of the LSIB dataset. The cartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundary lines. Specifically, this differentiation must be between: International Boundaries (Rank 1); Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and Special Lines (Rank 3). Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Please consult the style files in the download package for examples of this depiction. The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on cartographic products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product, a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field contains the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when they are incorporated into a map legend but is otherwise not to be used for labeling. Use of the “CC1,” “CC1_GENC3,” “CC2,” “CC2_GENC3,” “RANK,” or “NOTES” fields for cartographic labeling purposes is prohibited. Extension Attributes Certain elements of the attributes within the LSIB dataset extend data functionality to make the data more interoperable or to provide clearer linkages to other datasets. The fields “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC” contain the corresponding three-character GENC code to the “CC1” and “CC2” attributes. The code “QX2” is the three-character counterpart of the code “Q2,” which denotes a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with a geographic area not contained within the GENC standard. To allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and World Polygons dataset, the “CC1_WPID” and “CC2_WPID” fields contain a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), version 4, which provides a stable description of each geographic entity in a boundary pair relationship. Each UUID corresponds to a geographic entity listed in the World Polygons dataset. These fields allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and the overall World Polygons dataset. Five additional fields in the LSIB expand on the UUID concept and either describe features that have changed across space and time or indicate relationships between previous versions of the feature. The “LSIB_ID” attribute is a UUID value that defines a specific instance of a feature. Any change to the feature in a lineset requires a new “LSIB_ID.” The “ANTECIDS,” or antecedent ID, is a UUID that references line geometries from which a given line is descended in time. It is used when there is a feature that is entirely new, not when there is a new version of a previous feature. This is generally used to reference countries that have dissolved. The “PREVIDS,” or Previous ID, is a UUID field that contains old versions of a line. This is an additive field, that houses all Previous IDs. A new version of a feature is defined by any change to the

These datasets represent a systematic collection of harmonized data concerning geological events. GIS layers display data on the Portal at a resolution of 1:100,000 and 1:250,000 scale concerning earthquakes, submarine landslides, volcanoes, tsunamis, fluid emissions and Quaternary tectonics, subdivided according to their geometry (polygons, points and lines). They provide information on the type of events which have taken place in the past and might potentially occur again. Where available, details include dimensions, state of activity, morphological type and lithology. The elaboration of guidelines to compile GIS layers was aimed at identifying parameters to be used to thoroughly characterize each event. Particular attention has been devoted to the definition of the Attribute tables in order to achieve the best degree of harmonization and standardization complying with the European INSPIRE Directive. Shapefiles can be downloaded from the Portal and used locally in order to browse through the details of the different features, consulting their Attribute tables. Information contained therein provide an inventory of available data which can be fruitfully applied in the management of coastal areas and support planning of further surveys. By combining the diverse information contained in the different layers, it might be possible to elaborate additional thematic maps which could support further research. Moreover, they potentially represent a useful tool to increase awareness of the hazards which might affect coastal areas. Data sources include detailed information held by the Project Partners plus any further publicly available third-party data (last update Sep. 2021). All products delivered by Partners have been collated, verified and validated in order to achieve the best degree of harmonization and INSPIRE compliance. Each layer is complemented by an Attribute table which provides, in addition to the location, type of geological event and its references (mandatory), further information for each occurrence (where available). Since features considered within WP6 have a scattered distribution, the additional layer “Geological events distribution” provides basic information on areas of occurrences, no occurrences and no data for the marine areas surrounding European countries.

A compilation of data definition for the Global Knowledge Base for Underutilised Crops.

30-year household forecasts at a parcel level within Fairfax County developed on the VALID_TO date in the attribute table.

For methodology and a data dictionary please view the IPLS data dictionary

This data release provides a generalized lithology look-up table for the lithogeochemical classification of Vermont's bedrock geologic map units. The table is defined from the mapped bedrock geologic units published by Ratcliffe and others (2011) and the generalized lithology of rock group A and rock group B for lithogeochemical classification as defined by Robinson and Kapo (2003). The 2003 classification was created fro all six New England states and Vermont's geologic units were based on an older, less detailed, bedrock map of Vermont by Doll and others (1961). The new data table in this data release is designed to be joined with the published attribute table from the 2011 map database, as part of the bedrock geologic map unit polygons. The join attribute is the item called "Lith" in the 2011 map database. The data table is non-interpretive and the 2011 map data were not modified. The data release contains two files, including one metadata file and one comma-delimited (CSV) file: VTcontax_attrib_lithology.csv. References: Doll, C.G., Cady, W.M., Thompson, J.B., and Billings, M.P., 1961, Centennial geologic map of Vermont: Vermont Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map MISCMAP-01, scale 1:250,000. Ratcliffe, N.M., Stanley, R.S., Gale, M.H., Thompson, P.J., and Walsh, G.J., 2011, Bedrock geologic map of Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3184, 3 sheets, scale 1:100,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3184/ Robinson, G.R., Jr., and Kapo, K.E., 2003, Generalized lithology and lithogeochemical character of near-surface bedrock in the New England region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-225, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-225/

Current households at a parcel level within Fairfax County as of the VALID_TO date in the attribute table.

For methodology and a data dictionary please view the IPLS data dictionary

30-year population forecasts at a parcel level within Fairfax County developed on the VALID_TO date in the attribute table. For methodology and a data dictionary please view the IPLS data dictionary

Current population at a parcel level within Fairfax County as of the VALID_TO date in the attribute table.

For methodology and a data dictionary please view the IPLS data dictionary

A current, accurate spatial representation of all historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places is of interest to Federal agencies, the National Park Service, State Historic and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, local government and certified local governments, consultants, academia, and the interested public. This interest stems from the regulatory processes of managing cultural resources that are consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act as Amended (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act as Amended, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other laws related to cultural resources. The regulations promulgating these laws require the use of spatial data in support of various decisions and actions related to cultural resource management.The information contained in the feature attribute tables for this dataset is not descriptive. Rather the tables document how the data was created, where it came from, who created the data, what map parameters were used e.g. source scale, source accuracy, source coordinate system etc. Also included is information on the name of the resource, status of the resource i.e. does it still exist, is it restricted and what if any constraints are associated with the resource. Please note that each historic property listed on the National Register has its own nominating history and therefore location information collected in the nominating process is different from one property to another. Therefore metadata has been created for each listed historic property to inform the potential user of the history or lineage of the spatial information associated with the historic property. Locations associated with restricted National Register of Historic Places properties are not included in this GeoDatabase and must be requested from the National Park Service, National Register Program.The metadata in the feature attribute table are compliant with the National Park Serviceâ s Cultural Resource Spatial Data Transfer Standards. These standards were created to facilitate the exchange of spatial data within a variety of contexts, particularly Sections 106 and 110 of NHPA as well as in the context of disaster recovery events. Often locations of National Register listed properties are needed in these situations. The National Register Geo-spatial dataset is organized as a geo-database with feature class definitions based on the National Registerâ s Resource Type designations i.e. historic buildings, historic districts, historic structures, historic objects, and historic sites. The definitions of these types can be found in National Register Bulletin 16A and in the metadata statements for each feature class.

Hydro 24K - Value Added 2014 MetadataABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE DATABASE:Attribute Info - a large table that lists all water feature attributes (columns) in the database. Most will use this database to explore different water feature characteristics (e.g. drainage area, upstream land cover composition). This table can also be used to look up whether a specific water feature characteristic is in the database.Hydro 24K VA Schematic Diagram - a database schematic diagram showing the various feature classes and tables in the database, and the various IDs that relate to each other.HOW THE DATABASE WAS CREATED:Hydro 24K VA Documentation - Describes how the database was created from watershed creation to feature attribution.Attribute Reclassification - a large lookup table referred to in Hydro 24K VA Documentation.Data Sources - a table that lists the original data sources that were used to create the value-added attributes in the database.DOCUMENTATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL ATTRIBUTES:Flow Temperature Definitions - A table of column names and associated descriptions for the table: WD_HYDRO_VA_NC_FLOW_TEMP_REF. This table contains a variety of modeled flow and temperature estimates. These flow and temperature estimates were used to estimate each stream natural community, also included in the table.

The data notes the total number of operational herd keepers within each electoral ward area of Northern Ireland. The attribute table notes both the name of the ward and the total number of operational herd keepers located within each defined area. The herd keepers have been plotted based on the address of the herd keepers as registered with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD).

Users outside of the Spatial NI Portal please use Resource Locator 2.

Dataset description-br /- This dataset is a recalculation of the Copernicus 2015 high resolution layer (HRL) of imperviousness density data (IMD) at different spatial/territorial scales for the case studies of Barcelona and Milan. The selected spatial/territorial scales are the following: * a) Barcelona city boundaries * b) Barcelona metropolitan area, Àrea Metropolitana de Barcelona (AMB) * c) Barcelona greater city (Urban Atlas) * d) Barcelona functional urban area (Urban Atlas) * e) Milan city boundaries * f) Milan metropolitan area, Piano Intercomunale Milanese (PIM) * g) Milan greater city (Urban Atlas) * h) Milan functional urban area (Urban Atlas)-br /- In each of the spatial/territorial scales listed above, the number of 20x20mt cells corresponding to each of the 101 values of imperviousness (0-100% soil sealing: 0% means fully non-sealed area; 100% means fully sealed area) is provided, as well as the converted measure into squared kilometres (km2). -br /- -br /- -br /- Dataset composition-br /- The dataset is provided in .csv format and is composed of: -br /- _IMD15_BCN_MI_Sources.csv_: Information on data sources -br /- _IMD15_BCN.csv_: This file refers to the 2015 high resolution layer of imperviousness density (IMD) for the selected territorial/spatial scales in Barcelona: * a) Barcelona city boundaries (label: bcn_city) * b) Barcelona metropolitan area, Àrea metropolitana de Barcelona (AMB) (label: bcn_amb) * c) Barcelona greater city (Urban Atlas) (label: bcn_grc) * d) Barcelona functional urban area (Urban Atlas) (label: bcn_fua)-br /- _IMD15_MI.csv_: This file refers to the 2015 high resolution layer of imperviousness density (IMD) for the selected territorial/spatial scales in Milan: * e) Milan city boundaries (label: mi_city) * f) Milan metropolitan area, Piano intercomunale milanese (PIM) (label: mi_pim) * g) Milan greater city (Urban Atlas) (label: mi_grc) * h) Milan functional urban area (Urban Atlas) (label: mi_fua)-br /- _IMD15_BCN_MI.mpk_: the shareable project in Esri ArcGIS format including the HRL IMD data in raster format for each of the territorial boundaries as specified in letter a)-h). -br /- Regarding the territorial scale as per letter f), the list of municipalities included in the Milan metropolitan area in 2016 was provided to me in 2016 from a person working at the PIM. -br /- In the IMD15_BCN.csv and IMD15_MI.csv, the following columns are included: * Level: the territorial level as defined above (a)-d) for Barcelona and e)-h) for Milan); * Value: the 101 values of imperviousness density expressed as a percentage of soil sealing (0-100%: 0% means fully non-sealed area; 100% means fully sealed area); * Count: the number of 20x20mt cells corresponding to a certain percentage of soil sealing or imperviousness; * Km2: the conversion of the 20x20mt cells into squared kilometres (km2) to facilitate the use of the dataset.-br /- -br /- -br /- Further information on the Dataset-br /- This dataset is the result of a combination between different databases of different types and that have been downloaded from different sources. Below, I describe the main steps in data management that resulted in the production of the dataset in an Esri ArcGIS (ArcMap, Version 10.7) project.-br /- 1. The high resolution layer (HRL) of the imperviousness density data (IMD) for 2015 has been downloaded from the official website of Copernicus. At the time of producing the dataset (April/May 2021), the 2018 version of the IMD HRL database was not yet validated, so the 2015 version was chosen instead. The type of this dataset is raster. 2. For both Barcelona and Milan, shapefiles of their administrative boundaries have been downloaded from official sources, i.e. the ISTAT (Italian National Statistical Institute) and the ICGC (Catalan Institute for Cartography and Geology). These files have been reprojected to match the IMD HRL projection, i.e. ETRS 1989 LAEA. 3. Urban Atlas (UA) boundaries for the Greater Cities (GRC) and Functional Urban Areas (FUA) of Barcelona and Milan have been checked and reconstructed in Esri ArcGIS from the administrative boundaries files by using a Eurostat correspondence table. This is because at the time of the dataset creation (April/May 2021), the 2018 Urban Atlas shapefiles for these two cities were not fully updated or validated on the Copernicus Urban Atlas website. Therefore, I had to re-create the GRC and FUA boundaries by using the Eurostat correspondence table as an alternative (but still official) data source. The use of the Eurostat correspondence table with the codes and names of municipalities was also useful to detect discrepancies, basically stemming from changes in municipality names and codes and that created inconsistent spatial features. When detected, these discrepancies have been checked with the ISTAT and ICGC offices in charge of producing Urban Atlas data before the final GRC and FUA boundaries were defined.-br /- Steps 2) and 3) were the most time consuming, because they required other tools to be used in Esri ArcGIS, like spatial joins and geoprocessing tools for shapefiles (in particular dissolve and area re-calculator in editing sessions) for each of the spatial/territorial scales as indicated in letters a)-h). -br /- Once the databases for both Barcelona and Milan as described in points 2) and 3) were ready (uploaded in Esri ArcGIS, reprojected and their correctness checked), they have been ‘crossed’ (i.e. clipped) with the IMD HRL as described in point 1) and a specific raster for each territorial level has been calculated. The procedure in Esri ArcGIS was the following: * Clipping: Arctoolbox - Data management tools - Raster - Raster Processing - Clip. The ‘input’ file is the HRL IMD raster file as described in point 1) and the ‘output’ file is each of the spatial/territorial files. The option "Use Input Features for Clipping Geometry (optional)” was selected for each of the clipping. * Delete and create raster attribute table: Once the clipping has been done, the raster has to be recalculated first through Arctoolbox - Data management tools - Raster - Raster properties - Delete Raster Attribute Table and then through Arctoolbox - Data management tools - Raster - Raster properties - Build Raster Attribute Table; the "overwrite" option has been selected. -br /- -br /- Other tools used for the raster files in Esri ArcGIS have been the spatial analyst tools (in particular, Zonal - Zonal Statistics). As an additional check, the colour scheme of each of the newly created raster for each of the spatial/territorial attributes as per letters a)-h) above has been changed to check the consistency of its overlay with the original HRL IMD file. However, a perfect match between the shapefiles as per letters a)-h) and the raster files could not be achieved since the raster files are composed of 20x20mt cells.-br /- The newly created attribute tables of each of the raster files have been exported and saved as .txt files. These .txt files have then been copied in the excel corresponding to the final published dataset.