These polygons are the boundaries of the Skillman Good Neighborhoods, as of March 2014

This is a polygon data set of the Neighborhood Watch Group boundaries within City of Boise limits. A Neighborhood Watch Group is defined as a neighborhood surveillance program or group in which residents keep watch over one another's houses, patrol the streets, etc., in an attempt to prevent crime. When available Neighborhood Watch Group boundaries are derived from information provided from the Neighborhood Watch Group chairpersons. Where data was not provided, boundaries are estimated using best judgment from the Boise Police Department Neighborhood Watch Group Coordinator.

1930's Neighborhood Redlining Grade (ESRI Living Atlas, 2022). The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red. A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.For more detailed information use this link.

Context

This dataset contains some data to try to answer the question, "What's the best city to live and work in as a Data Scientist?" I include data from the U.S. News & World Report Best Places to Live and Best States Rankings; city scores from Nomad List; rent indices from Zillow; and the number of jobs openings on Indeed.com. All data is publicly available online and manually compiled by myself.

Data Sources

• U.S. News Best Places to Live in the U.S.
• U.S. News Best States Rankings
• Nomad List
• Zillow Research Housing Data
• Wikipedia List of metropolitan statistical areas
• Indeed.com

The U.S. News Best Places and Best States Rankings are updated annually. They were last updated in Dec 2019, so I assume the next update will come in Dec 2020.

Dataset Info

Data from Best Places

For data points from the U.S. News Best Places, drill down into the page for each metro area. I have to manually collect these data points, and not all of them are fully populated. If there's interest, I'll upload a new version with more data filled in.

About Nomad Scores

Nomad List publishes scores for each city that update in real time every 10 mins. These scores are affected by the current weather in each city. Therefore, the scores vary quite a bit seasonally as well as during the day. Learn more here. I've sampled the scores at different times of year and different times of day. Timestamps are in ISO 8601 format. Nomad Scores are not available for all metros in the dataset.

Inspiration

1. Can you combine the data for each metro into an aggregate score (or multiple scores) to determine the best places to live?
2. Should climate be factored into your scores? If so, how?
3. Can you aggregate violent and property crime rates into an aggregate crime rate?
4. Can you combine a quantitative score with a ranking measure to obtain a total score?
5. Can you aggregate all the sampled Nomad Scores to obtain an overall Nomad Score for the metro? How should you weight each score?
6. Should you include the number of Data Scientist job postings in your total score for the metro? If so, how?

Replication Data for: Choosing the Best House in a Bad Neighborhood: Location Strategies of Human rights INGOs in the Non-Western World

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-cadastre/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g. 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The PAD-US geodatabase maps and describes areas using thirty-six attributes and five separate feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. An additional Combined feature class includes the full PAD-US inventory to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the Combined layer allows users to extract data types as needed. A Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) facilitates the extraction of authoritative federal data provided or recommended by managing agencies from the Combined PAD-US inventory. This PAD-US Version 3.0 dataset includes a variety of updates from the previous Version 2.1 dataset (USGS, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT ), achieving goals to: 1) Annually update and improve spatial data representing the federal estate for PAD-US applications; 2) Update state and local lands data as state data-steward and PAD-US Team resources allow; and 3) Automate data translation efforts to increase PAD-US update efficiency. The following list summarizes the integration of "best available" spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented in the PAD-US (other data were transferred from PAD-US 2.1). Federal updates - The USGS remains committed to updating federal fee owned lands data and major designation changes in annual PAD-US updates, where authoritative data provided directly by managing agencies are available or alternative data sources are recommended. The following is a list of updates or revisions associated with the federal estate: 1) Major update of the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, and management designations where available), including authoritative data from 8 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/ ). 2) Improved the representation (boundaries and attributes) of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, in collaboration with agency data-stewards, in response to feedback from the PAD-US Team and stakeholders. 3) Added a Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) to the PAD-US 3.0 geodatabase to facilitate the extraction (by Data Provider, Dataset Name, and/or Aggregator Source) of authoritative data provided directly (or recommended) by federal managing agencies from the full PAD-US inventory. A summary of the number of records (Frequency) and calculated GIS Acres (vs Documented Acres) associated with features provided by each Aggregator Source is included; however, the number of records may vary from source data as the "State Name" standard is applied to national files. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the table and geodatabase describe the data type to highlight overlapping features in the full inventory (e.g. Designation features often overlap Fee features) and to assist users in building queries for applications as needed. 4) Scripted the translation of the Department of Defense, Census Bureau, and Natural Resource Conservation Service source data into the PAD-US format to increase update efficiency. 5) Revised conservation measures (GAP Status Code, IUCN Category) to more accurately represent protected and conserved areas. For example, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Waterfowl Production Area Wetland Easements changed from GAP Status Code 2 to 4 as spatial data currently represents the complete parcel (about 10.54 million acres primarily in North Dakota and South Dakota). Only aliquot parts of these parcels are documented under wetland easement (1.64 million acres). These acreages are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are referenced in the PAD-US geodatabase Easement feature class 'Comments' field. State updates - The USGS is committed to building capacity in the state data-steward network and the PAD-US Team to increase the frequency of state land updates, as resources allow. The USGS supported efforts to significantly increase state inventory completeness with the integration of local parks data in the PAD-US 2.1, and developed a state-to-PAD-US data translation script during PAD-US 3.0 development to pilot in future updates. Additional efforts are in progress to support the technical and organizational strategies needed to increase the frequency of state updates. The PAD-US 3.0 included major updates to the following three states: 1) California - added or updated state, regional, local, and nonprofit lands data from the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), managed by GreenInfo Network, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review coordinated by the data-steward with state managing agencies. Developed a data translation Python script (see Process Step 2 Source Data Documentation) in collaboration with the data-steward to increase the accuracy and efficiency of future PAD-US updates from CPAD. 2) Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data (and removed legacy data) from the Virginia Conservation Lands Database, provided by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Heritage Program, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review by the data-steward. 3) West Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data provided by the West Virginia University, GIS Technical Center. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/gapanalysis/PAD-US/. For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-history for more information): 1) First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 2) Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 3) Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 4) Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD 5) Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ 6) Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE 7) Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT 8) Revised - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.

The map is designed to be used as a basemap by marine GIS professionals and as a reference map by anyone interested in ocean data. The basemap focuses on bathymetry. It also includes inland waters and roads, overlaid on land cover and shaded relief imagery.The Ocean Base map currently provides coverage for the world down to a scale of ~1:577k; coverage down to ~1:72k in United States coastal areas and various other areas; and coverage down to ~1:9k in limited regional areas.The World Ocean Reference is designed to be drawn on top of this map and provides selected city labels throughout the world. This web map lets you view the World Ocean Base with the Reference service drawn on top. Article in the Fall 2011 ArcUser about this basemap: "A Foundation for Ocean GIS".The map was compiled from a variety of best available sources from several data providers, including General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans GEBCO_08 Grid version 20100927 and IHO-IOC GEBCO Gazetteer of Undersea Feature Names August 2010 version (https://www.gebco.net), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Geographic for the oceans; and Garmin, and Esri for topographic content. You can contribute your bathymetric data to this service and have it served by Esri for the benefit of the Ocean GIS community. For details on the users who contributed bathymetric data for this map via the Community Maps Program, view the list of Contributors for the Ocean Basemap. The basemap was designed and developed by Esri. The GEBCO_08 Grid is largely based on a database of ship-track soundings with interpolation between soundings guided by satellite-derived gravity data. In some areas, data from existing grids are included. The GEBCO_08 Grid does not contain detailed information in shallower water areas, information concerning the generation of the grid can be found on GEBCO's website: https://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data/. The GEBCO_08 Grid is accompanied by a Source Identifier (SID) Grid which indicates which cells in the GEBCO_08 Grid are based on soundings or existing grids and which have been interpolated. The latest version of both grids and accompanying documentation is available to download, on behalf of GEBCO, from the British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC) https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/online_delivery/gebco/.The names of the IHO (International Hydrographic Organization), IOC (intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission), GEBCO (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans), NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) or BODC (British Oceanographic Data Centre) may not be used in any way to imply, directly or otherwise, endorsement or support of either the Licensee or their mapping system.Tip: Here are some famous oceanic locations as they appear this map. Each URL launches this map at a particular location via parameters specified in the URL: Challenger Deep, Galapagos Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Maldive Islands, Mariana Trench, Tahiti, Queen Charlotte Sound, Notre Dame Bay, Labrador Trough, New York Bight, Massachusetts Bay, Mississippi Sound