BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE.

This MrSID Gen 4 file was derived from the 2017 orthogonal imagery produced from nadir images captured by Pictometry International during the Spring of 2017. Automatic aerial triangulation (AAT) was performed. The triangulated frames were rectified to an Oakland County-provided LiDAR derived DEM. Mosaicing was performed using an automatic seaming algorithm and manually edited to eliminate seams through elevated features where possible.

Geospatial data about Farmington, Connecticut Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This feature service is available through CT ECO, a partnership between UConn CLEAR and CT DEEP. It is also available as a map service and a tiled map service. This dataset is a statewide service of municipal parcels (properties) including their geometry (polygon shape) and attributes (tabular information about each parcel). In order to preserve the attributes, each municipality is added individually to the service.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE.The dataset consists of tiled orthogonal imagery produced from nadir images captured by Pictometry International. Automatic aerial triangulation (AAT) was performed. The triangulated frames were rectified to a LiDAR derived DEM. Mosaicking was performed using an automatic seaming algorithm and manually edited to eliminate seams through elevated features where possible.Imagery was captured mainly in the Spring of 2020, with limited areas captured in November 2020.

An ArcGIS "Map Tour" of Historical Landmarks in Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota.

See full Data Guide here. This layer includes polygon features that depict protected open space for towns of the Protected Open Space Mapping (POSM) project, which is administered by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Land Acquisition and Management. Only parcels that meet the criteria of protected open space as defined in the POSM project are in this layer. Protected open space is defined as: (1) Land or interest in land acquired for the permanent protection of natural features of the state's landscape or essential habitat for endangered or threatened species; or (2) Land or an interest in land acquired to permanently support and sustain non-facility-based outdoor recreation, forestry and fishery activities, or other wildlife or natural resource conservation or preservation activities. Includes protected open space data for the towns of Andover, Ansonia, Ashford, Avon, Beacon Falls, Canaan, Clinton, Berlin, Bethany, Bethel, Bethlehem, Bloomfield, Bridgewater, Bolton, Brookfield, Brooklyn, Canterbury, Canton, Chaplin, Cheshire, Colchester, Colebrook, Columbia, Cornwall, Coventry, Cromwell, Danbury, Derby, East Granby, East Haddam, East Hampton, East Hartford, East Windsor, Eastford, Ellington, Enfield, Essex, Farmington, Franklin, Glastonbury, Goshen, Granby, Griswold, Groton, Guilford, Haddam, Hampton, Hartford, Hebron, Kent, Killingworth, Lebanon, Ledyard, Lisbon, Litchfield, Madison, Manchester, Mansfield, Marlborough, Meriden, Middlebury, Middlefield, Middletown, Monroe, Montville, Morris, New Britain, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Milford, New Hartford, Newington, Newtown, Norfolk, North, Norwich, Preston, Ridgefield, Shelton, Stonington, Oxford, Plainfield, Plainville, Pomfret, Portland, Prospect, Putnam, Redding, Rocky Hill, Roxbury, Salem, Salisbury, Scotland, Seymour, Sharon, Sherman, Simsbury, Somers, South Windsor, Southbury, Southington, Sprague, Sterling, Suffield, Thomaston, Thompson, Tolland, Torrington, Union, Vernon, Wallingford, Windham, Warren, Washington, Waterbury, Watertown, West Hartford, Westbrook, Weston, Wethersfield, Willington, Wilton, Windsor, Windsor Locks, Wolcott, Woodbridge, Woodbury, and Woodstock. Additional towns are added to this list as they are completed. The layer is based on information from various sources collected and compiled during the period from March 2005 through the present. These sources include but are not limited to municipal Assessor's records (the Assessor's database, hard copy maps and deeds) and existing digital parcel data. The layer represents conditions as of the date of research at each city or town hall. The Protected Open Space layer includes the parcel shape (geometry), a project-specific parcel ID based on the Town and Town Assessor's lot numbering system, and system-defined (automatically generated) fields. The Protected Open Space layer has an accompanying table containing more detailed information about each feature (parcel). This table is called Protected Open Space Dat, and can be joined to Protected Open Space in ArcMap using the parcel ID (PAR_ID) field. Detailed information in the Protected Open Space Data attribute table includes the Assessor's Map, Block and Lot numbers (the Assessor's parcel identification numbering system), the official name of the parcel (such as the park or forest name if it has one), address and owner information, the deed volume and page numbers, survey information, open space type, the unique parcel ID number (Par_ID), comments collected by researchers during city/town hall visits, and acreage. This layer does not include parcels that do not meet the definition of open space as defined above. Features are stored as polygons that represent the best available locational information, and are "best fit" to the land base available for each. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's (CTDEP) Permanently Protected Open Space Phase Mapping Project Phase 1 (Protected Open Space Phase1) layer

Hydrographic and Impairment Statistics (HIS) is a National Park Service (NPS) Water Resources Division (WRD) project established to track certain goals created in response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). One water resources management goal established by the Department of the Interior under GRPA requires NPS to track the percent of its managed surface waters that are meeting Clean Water Act (CWA) water quality standards. This goal requires an accurate inventory that spatially quantifies the surface water hydrography that each bureau manages and a procedure to determine and track which waterbodies are or are not meeting water quality standards as outlined by Section 303(d) of the CWA. This project helps meet this DOI GRPA goal by inventorying and monitoring in a geographic information system for the NPS: (1) CWA 303(d) quality impaired waters and causes; and (2) hydrographic statistics based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Hydrographic and 303(d) impairment statistics were evaluated based on a combination of 1:24,000 (NHD) and finer scale data (frequently provided by state GIS layers).

Geospatial data about Dakota County, Minnesota Fairgrounds. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE.Tornado paths and starting/touchdown points in Oakland County, Michigan circa 1953-2015. Data provided by NOAA, OCIT, and Matt Malone of Farmington Hills GIS. Originally published with the April 2017 Map of the Month: Tornadoes in Oakland County.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. A spatial representation of generalized Oakland County community master plans. These polygons were digitized from each of Oakland's 62 community's future land use map in their master plan. The data was completed in March of 2006 and will be updated as each community amends their plan. The key attribute is Composite Plan representing generalized, countywide future land uses.This data depicts a future land use based on each community's master plan as currently adopted. The data will be updated each time a community amends their master plan. Below is a list recording the master plan and date of adoption that was used to digitize each community. Township of Addison Addison Township Land Use Master Plan - 7/9/2002 City of Auburn Hills City of Auburn Hills Master Land Use Plan - 11/7/2002 Auburn Hills Opkyke Road Corridor Study - 2/1/2007 Auburn Hills Collier Road Area Land Use Study - 1/3/2008 City of Berkley City of Berkley, Michigan Master Plan Update - 1/23/2007 Village of Beverly Hills Village of Beverly Hills Master Plan - 3/28/2007 Village of Bingham Farms Village of Bingham Farms Master Plan - 9/13/2004 City of Birmingham The Birmingham Plan - 1/1/1979 Township of Bloomfield Charter Township of Bloomfield Master Plan Update - 3/26/2007 City of Bloomfield Hills Master Plan of Land Use City of Bloomfield Hills - 8/11/1987 Township of Brandon Brandon Township Land Use Plan Update - 3/14/2000 City of the Village of Clarkston Master Plan City of the Village of Clarkston - 8/4/1997City of Clawson Downtown Clawson Framework Urban Design Plan - 11/1/2004 Master Plan City of Clawson - 1/23/1990 Township of Commerce Commerce Charter Township Master Plan 2003 - 6/28/2004 Commerce Charter Township Master Plan Amendment - 11/27/2006 City of Farmington Master Plan City of Farmington - 2/1/1998 City of Farmington Hills Master Plan for Future Land Use City of Farmington Hills - 3/28/1996 City of Fenton Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 (Used the Holly Township Master Plan because Fenton's was unavailable) City of Ferndale City of Ferndale Land Use Plan - 6/1/1998 Village of Franklin Franklin Village Master Plan Update - 10/15/1997 Township of Groveland Master Plan for Future Land Use - 5/9/2005 City of Hazel Park Master Plan, Hazel Park Michigan - 3/21/2000 Township of Highland Highland Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2000-2020 - 7/6/2000 South Milford Road Corridor Micro-Area Analysis - 4/13/2005 East Highland Commercial District Micro Area Analysis - 12/19/2002 West Highland Micro-Area Analysis - 8/2/2001 North Hickory Ridge Road Micro-Area Analysis - 12/7/2006 Township of Holly Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 Village of Holly Village of Holly Master Plan - 1/24/2007 City of Huntington Woods Huntington Woods Master Plan - 12/17/2007 Township of Independence Independence Township Vision 2020 Master Plan - 12/9/1999 City of Keego Harbor City of Keego Harbor Comprehensive Master Plan - 9/5/2002 City of Lake Angelus City of Lake Angelus Master Plan - 7/25/1994 Village of Lake Orion Master Plan 2002-2022 - 1/6/2003 Amendment #1 to Lake Orion Master Plan - 3/3/2008 City of Lathrup Village The Lathrup Village Plan - 1/1/1981 Village of Leonard Master Plan Village of Leonard - 10/17/1991 Township of Lyon Charter Township of Lyon Master Plan - 3/27/2006 City of Madison Heights Madison Heights Master Plan: 1990, 2000, 2010 - 10/16/1990 Madison Heights Future Land Use Plan Amendment - 5/15/2007 Township of Milford Charter Township of Milford Land Use Plan Update - 5/27/1999 Village of Milford Village of Milford Master Plan - 3/1/1998 City of Northville City of Northville Master Plan - 2/22/2000 City of Novi City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use 2004 - 12/1/2004 City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use Amendments - 4/16/2008 Township of Novi None (Does not have a Master Plan, assumed to be Single Family Residential) City of Oak Park City of Oak Park Master Plan - 9/9/1996 City of Oak Park Master Plan Addition - Unknown Township of Oakland Oakland Charter Township A Community Master Plan - 1/4/2005 City of Orchard Lake Village Master Plan City of Orchard Lake Village - 6/6/2006 Township of Orion Orion Township Master Plan - 5/7/2003 Lapeer Road Master Plan Update - 4/19/2006 Village of Ortonville The Ortonville Plan - 1/1/1980 Township of Oxford Charter Township of Oxford Master Plan - 7/14/2005 Village of Oxford Village of Oxford Master Plan - 5/10/2005 City of Pleasant Ridge City of Pleasant Ridge Community Master Plan - 9/1/1999 City of Pontiac Pontiac 2010 A New Reality - 12/4/1991 City of Rochester Master Plan: 2000 City of Rochester - 6/3/2000 Downtown Development Area MP amendment - 5/2/2005 City of Rochester Hills Rochester Hills Master Land Use Plan 2007 - 2/6/2007 Township of Rose Master Plan Rose Township - 7/7/2005 City of Royal Oak Master Plan City of Royal Oak - 8/24/1999 Township of Royal Oak A Vision for the Year 2010 Master Plan 1996 Update - 12/11/1996 City of South Lyon Master Plan of Future Land Use City of South Lyon - 1/10/2002 City of Southfield Southfield Master Plan - 1/1/1988 Township of Southfield Southfield Township Master Plan - 11/25/2002 Township of Springfield Springfield Township Master Plan - 3/7/2002 City of Sylvan Lake Sylvan Lake Master Plan 2005 - 4/10/2007 City of Troy City of Troy Future Land Use Plan - 1/8/2002 City of Walled Lake City of Walled Lake Master Plan - 8/1/2002 Township of Waterford Waterford Master Plan 2003-2023 - 1/2/2003 Township of West Bloomfield West Bloomfield Township 2005 Master Land Use Plan Update - 7/26/2005 Township of White Lake White Lake Township Master Plan - 10/6/2006 City of Wixom City of Wixom Master Plan - 8/9/2005 Village of Wolverine Lake Village of Wolverine Lake Land Use Plan - 12/4/1985 Every category identified on the future land use map within each master plan was translated into a composite value. For example, one community may have two commercial districts- Local Commerical and General Commercial. Another community may have three commercial districts- Neighborhood Commercial, Hi-Tech Office, and Retail Commercial. A wide range of uses could be included in these categories, but for the purpose of this feature class, they are all translated into "Commercial/Office." In some cases a category on community's future land use map could not be translated into a single composite category. When this occurred, areas were manually translated into the appropriate generalized category. For example, a Public Lands class on a community's map would be manually translated into the Public/Institutional and Recreation/Conservation composite categories.

UTA FrontRunner Commuter Rail Stations - 16 In Service and 1 Out of Service include: Ogden Central, Clearfield, Layton, Woods Cross, Farmington, Roy, Lehi, American Fork, Orem Central, Provo Central, Murray Central, South Jordan, Draper, Salt Lake Central, North Temple, Pleasant View (Out of Service) and Vineyard.

Analysis of ‘StormEvents details ftp v1 All Oakland’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/69ec0737-3924-44cd-9f6b-f85829fcd024 on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Contour1ft_033055

Last update: April 4, 2023Added the Mammoth address system in Juab county. Additional minor edits to account for annexations in Utah (Springville, Lehi) and Box Elder (Willard, Garland) counties, April 2023.Added several address grids in Beaver county (Elk Meadows, Ponderosa, Greenville, Adamsville, Sulphurdale). Made major updates to grids in Utah, Cache, Tooele, and Box Elder Counties. Renamed 'NSL' to 'North Salt Lake' and 'East Carbon City' to 'East Carbon', December 2022. Minor adjustment to quadrants in Bluff.Added Rocky Ridge address grid in northern Juab county, August 2022.Updates were made near Elsinore/Central Valley/Monroe corners due to recent Elsinore annexation and inputs from Sevier County, September 2021.Improvements were made to Brigham City, Millville, Logan, and Providence, February 2016.Improvements were made to the Heber, Hyde Park, Logan, and Woodland address system boundaries; updated the American Fork, Fielding, Payson, and Saratoga Springs address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, January 2016Improvements were made to the Hyde Park and Logan address system boundary, November 2015Improvements were made to the Hyrum and Logan address system boundary, November 2015Updated the American Fork address system boundary to reflect recent annexations, October 2015Improvements were made to the Brigham City, Fishlake, Fremont, Garland, Loa, Lyman, Mantua, Tremonton, and Willard address system boundaries; updated the Lehi and Santa Clara address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, August 2015Improvements were made to the Price and Wellington address system boundaries; updated the Lehi and Provo address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, July 2015Improvements were made to the Layton and HAFB address system boundaries; updated the Provo and Spanish Fork address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, June 2015Updated address system boundaries to reflect annexations in Lehi, Lewiston, and Snowville, May 2015Improvements were made to the Orderville address system boundary to match the municipal boundary, February 2015Updated address system boundaries to match annexations in American Fork, Farmington, Elk Ridge, Grantsville, Lehi, Mendon, Mount Pleasant, Payson, Provo, Spanish Fork, and Washington, January 2015 Improvements were made to the Elmo and Cleveland address system boundaries, December 2014Improvements were made to the Wellington address system boundaries, July 2014Improvements were made to the NSL (North Salt Lake) and Bountiful address system boundaries, June 2014.Changed address system name East Carbon-Sunnyside to East Carbon City, May 2014Updated address system boundaries to match annexations in northern Utah County; misc improvements in Davis County; adjusted Laketown/Garden City boundary, April 2014Merged East Carbon and Sunnyside to create the East Carbon-Sunnyside address system, February 2014.Improvements were made to the Iron County address system quadrant boundaries and topological errors were corrected statewide, January 2014. Improvements were made to Garfield County and Washington County address system quadrant boundaries, August 2013.More information can be found on the UGRC data page for this layer:https://gis.utah.gov/data/location/address-data/

A standardized mapping of natural drainage basins in Connecticut was completed in 1981 by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). This drainage basin system divided Connecticut into 8 major basins, 45 regional basins, 337 subregional basins, 2,898 local basins, and 7,067 small drainage basin areas. The statewide mapping of natural drainage basins established a hierarchical system of basins based on drainage area size with large major basins subdivided into regional basins, regional basins subdivided into subregional basins, subregional basins subdivided into local basins, and local basins subdivided into smaller and more numerous drainage basin areas. It includes watersheds for Connecticut rivers, streams, brooks, lakes, reservoirs and ponds included on 1:24,000-scale 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) between 1969 and 1984. These basin units include smaller watersheds that drain into many of the small streams and ponds in Connecticut. These basin areas are the building blocks for the larger local, subregional, regional and major drainage basins defined by DEP.

Connecticut Subregional Drainage Basins includes 337 drainage basin areas, the majority of which range from 5 to 70 square miles in size and make up, in order of increasing size the larger regional and major drainage basin areas. The subregional basin number (SBAS_NO) uniquely identifies individual subregional drainage basins and is 4 characters in length. There are 335 unique subregional basin numbers. Examples include 6000 for the Housatonic River Main Stem Subregional Basin, 4300 for the Farmington River Subregional Basin, and 6002 for the Schenob Brook Subregional Basin. The first digit (column 1) designates the major basin, the first two digits (columns 1-2) designate the regional basin, and the first 4 digits (columns 1-4) designate the subregional basin. Note, there are slightly more subregional basin areas delineated (374) than unique subregional basin numbers (335) primarily due to a few stream confluences that split the same local basin into two areas. Refer to the Connecticut Subregional Drainage Basin GIS metadata for more information about drainage basin numbers.

Included with the subregional drainage basin boundaries are Subregional Drainage Basins Direction arrows that depict the general direction of surface water flow towards indivicual subregional drainage basin outlets. Theses arrows are meant to indicate where one basin drains into another and are intended aid in visualizing the network of subregional drainage basins in Connecticut. They do not depict the exact location of basin outlets.

These basin boundaries are the digital equivalent of the major, regional and subregional drainage basin boundaries published on the 1:125,000-scale state map entitled Natural Drainage Basins in Connecticut, McElroy, 1981.