The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is the area where houses meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation. This makes the WUI a focal area for human-environment conflicts such as wildland fires, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and biodiversity decline. Using geographic information systems (GIS), we integrated U.S. Census and USGS National Land Cover Data, to map the Federal Register definition of WUI (Federal Register 66:751, 2001) for the conterminous United States from 1990-2020. These data are useful within a GIS for mapping and analysis at national, state, and local levels. Data are available as a geodatabase and include information such as housing densities for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020; wildland vegetation percentages for 1992, 2001, 2011, and 2019; as well as WUI classes in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020.This WUI feature class is separate from the WUI datasets maintained by individual forest unites, and it is not the authoritative source data of WUI for forest units. This dataset shows change over time in the WUI data up to 2020.Metadata and Downloads

The Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) used aerial lidar to produce a classified point cloud, digital terrain model (DTM), surface model (DSM), and intensity model of land areas in northern Barry Arm, northwest Prince William Sound, Alaska, during near snow-free ground conditions on June 26, 2020. The goal of the survey is to provide high quality, modern topographic data in the recently deglacierized part of Barry Arm where significant landslide hazards exist. Aerial lidar and ground control data were collected on June 26, 2020, and subsequently processed in Terrasolid and ArcGIS. Ground control was collected on June 26, 2020, as well. All files can be downloaded free of charge from the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys website (http://doi.org/10.14509/30589).

This data package contains extracts from open datasets to support
the tutorials available at https://github.com/nismod/snail/

This version of the data goes with v0.1 of the tutorials:

https://github.com/nismod/snail/releases/tag/v0.1

WRI Aqueduct Flood Hazard Maps

`flood_layer` contains data extracted and derived from the Aqueduct
Flood Hazard Maps (version 2, updated October 20, 2020).

See https://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/aqueduct-floods-hazard-maps

These data are shared under the CC-BY Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Citation: Ward, P.J., H.C. Winsemius, S. Kuzma,
M.F.P. Bierkens, A. Bouwman, H. de Moel, A. Díaz Loaiza, et
al. 2020. “Aqueduct Floods Methodology.” Technical Note.
Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Available online at:
www.wri.org/publication/aqueduct-floods-methodology.

Ghana - Subnational Administrative Boundaries

`gha_admbnda_gss_20210308_shp` contains data from Ghana Statistical
Services (GSS) contributed to Humanitarian Data Exchange by the OCHA
Regional Office for West and Central Africa, updated 11 March 2021.

See https://data.humdata.org/m/dataset/ghana-administrative-boundaries

These data are shared under the Creative Commons Attribution for
Intergovernmental Organisations (CC BY-IGO) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/

Ghana OpenStreetMap Extract

`ghana-latest-free.shp` contains data extracted from OpenStreetMap
and downloaded from GeoFabrik.

The files in this archive have been created from OpenStreetMap data
and are licensed under the Open Database 1.0 License. See
www.openstreetmap.org for details about the project.

This file contains OpenStreetMap data as of 2021-03-22T21:21:57Z.

More recent updates will be made available daily here:

http://download.geofabrik.de/africa/ghana-latest-free.shp.zip

A documentation of the layers in this shape file is available here:

http://download.geofabrik.de/osm-data-in-gis-formats-free.pdf

Ghana Road Network

`GHA_OSM_roads.gpkg` contains data derived from the OpenStreetMap
extract above, and can be reproduced by running through nismod/snail
tutorial 01.

These data are shared under the same Open Database 1.0 License. See
www.openstreetmap.org for details about the project.

Natural Earth Country Boundaries

`ne_10m_admin_0_countries` contains Natural Earth 1:10m Cultural Vectors,
Admin ) - Countries version 4.1.0

See https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/10m-admin-0-countries/

These data are declared to be in the public domain, and may be shared
and modified without restriction - https://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/

QGIS project

`overview.qgz` is a QGIS project intended to help preview and explore
the data in this package.

It is shared under the CC-BY Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Please cite it as part of this data package, by Tom Russell (2021).

Results

`results` contains the results of analysis that can be reproduced
by running through all the nismod/snail tutorials.

These are derived from all the data above, shared under the
combined terms of Open Database 1.0 License and CC-BY licenses as
applicable to derived, extracted and modified data.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS change attribution classes for each year. See additional information about change in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS change, land cover, and land use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: change, land cover, and land use. Change relates specifically to vegetation cover and includes slow loss (not included for PRUSVI), fast loss (which also includes hydrologic changes such as inundation or desiccation), and gain. These values are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual land cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261U.S. Geological Survey. (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAZhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of land cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

Address point data for use with GIS mapping software, databases, and web applications are from Caliper Corporation and contain a point layer of over 48 million addresses in 22 states and the District of Columbia.

Food resources for Hennepin County broken down by Food Shelf, Free Meals, and Free Food Boxes. Created by the Hennepin County GIS Office for a requested interactive web mapping application by Public Health. Data was collected December 2020 and recently updated February 2025.

The IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) provides free online access to summary statistics and GIS files for U.S. censuses and other nationwide surveys from 1790 through the present. NHGIS boundary files are derived primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau's TIGER/Line files with numerous additions to represent historical (1790-1980) boundaries that do not appear in TIGER/Line files. For more recent boundary files (1990 or later), NHGIS typically makes only a few key changes to the TIGER/Line source: (1) we merge files that are available only for individual states or counties to produce new nationwide or statewide files, (2) we project the data into Esri's USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic Projected Coordinate System, (3) add a GISJOIN attribute field, which supplies standard identifiers that correspond to the GISJOIN identifiers in NHGIS data tables, (4) we rename files to use the NHGIS naming style and geographic-level codes, (5) we add NHGIS-specific metadata, and (6) most substantially, we erase coastal water areas to produce polygons that terminate at the U.S. coasts and Great Lakes shores.NHGIS derived this shapefile from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2021 TIGER/Line Shapefiles.

NOTICE TO PROVISIONAL 2023 LAND USE DATA USERS: Please note that on December 6, 2024 the Department of Water Resources (DWR) published the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset. The link for the shapefile format of the data mistakenly linked to the wrong dataset. The link was updated with the appropriate data on January 27, 2025. If you downloaded the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset in shapefile format between December 6, 2024 and January 27, we encourage you to redownload the data. The Map Service and Geodatabase formats were correct as posted on December 06, 2024.

Thank you for your interest in DWR land use datasets.

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been collecting land use data throughout the state and using it to develop agricultural water use estimates for statewide and regional planning purposes, including water use projections, water use efficiency evaluations, groundwater model developments, climate change mitigation and adaptations, and water transfers. These data are essential for regional analysis and decision making, which has become increasingly important as DWR and other state agencies seek to address resource management issues, regulatory compliances, environmental impacts, ecosystem services, urban and economic development, and other issues. Increased availability of digital satellite imagery, aerial photography, and new analytical tools make remote sensing-based land use surveys possible at a field scale that is comparable to that of DWR’s historical on the ground field surveys. Current technologies allow accurate large-scale crop and land use identifications to be performed at desired time increments and make possible more frequent and comprehensive statewide land use information. Responding to this need, DWR sought expertise and support for identifying crop types and other land uses and quantifying crop acreages statewide using remotely sensed imagery and associated analytical techniques. Currently, Statewide Crop Maps are available for the Water Years 2014, 2016, 2018- 2022 and PROVISIONALLY for 2023.

Historic County Land Use Surveys spanning 1986 - 2015 may also be accessed using the CADWR Land Use Data Viewer: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer.

For Regional Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/region-land-use-surveys.

For County Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/county-land-use-surveys.

For a collection of ArcGIS Web Applications that provide information on the DWR Land Use Program and our data products in various formats, visit the DWR Land Use Gallery: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/dd14ceff7d754e85ab9c7ec84fb8790a.

Recommended citation for DWR land use data: California Department of Water Resources. (Water Year for the data). Statewide Crop Mapping—California Natural Resources Agency Open Data. Retrieved “Month Day, YEAR,” from https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/statewide-crop-mapping.

This is a collection of 124 global and free datasets allowing for spatial (and temporal) analyses of floods, droughts and their interactions with human societies. We have structured the datasets into seven categories: hydrographic baseline, hydrological dynamics, hydrological extremes, land cover & agriculture, human presence, water management, and vulnerability. Please refer to Lindersson et al. (accepted february 2020 in WIREs Water) for further information about review methodology.

The collection is a descriptive list, holding the following information for each dataset:

• Category - as structured in Lindersson et al. (in preparation).
• Sub-category- as structured in Lindersson et al. (in preparation).
• Abbreviation - official or as specified in Lindersson et al. (in preparation).
• Title - full title of dataset.
• Product(s) - type of product(s) offered by the dataset.
• Period - time period covered by the dataset, not defined for all datasets.
• Temporal resolution - not defined for static datasets.
• Angular spatial resolution - only defined for gridded datasets.
• Metric spatial resolution - only defined for gridded datasets.
• Map scale
• Extent - geographic coverage of dataset given in latitude limits.
• Description
• Creating institute(s)
• Data type - raster, vector or tabular.
• File format
• Primary EO type - specifies if the product primarily is based on remote sensing, ground-based data, or a hybrid between remote sensing and ground-based data.
• Data sources - lists the data sources behind the dataset, to the extent this is feasible.
• Data sources also in this table - data sources that are also included as datasets in this collection.
• Intentionally compatible with - defines other datasets in this collection that the dataset is intentinoally compatible with.
• Citation - dataset reference or credit.
• Documentation - dataset documentation.
• Web address - dataset access link.

NOTE: Carefully consult the data usage licenses as given by the data providers, to assure that the exact permissions and restrictions are followed.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It supplies LCMS Change classes for each year that are a refinement of the modeled LCMS Change classes (Slow Loss, Fast Loss, and Gain) and provide information on the cause of landscape change. See additional information about Change in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

To access parcel information:Enter an address or zoom in by using the +/- tools or your mouse scroll wheel. Parcels will draw when zoomed in.Click on a parcel to display a popup with information about that parcel.Click the "Basemap" button to display background aerial imagery.From the "Layers" button you can turn map features on and off.Complete Help (PDF)Parcel Legend:Full Map LegendAbout this ViewerThis viewer displays land property boundaries from assessor parcel maps across Massachusetts. Each parcel is linked to selected descriptive information from assessor databases. Data for all 351 cities and towns are the standardized "Level 3" tax parcels served by MassGIS. More details ...Read about and download parcel dataUpdatesV 1.1: Added 'Layers' tab. (2018)V 1.2: Reformatted popup to use HTML table for columns and made address larger. (Jan 2019)V 1.3: Added 'Download Parcel Data by City/Town' option to list of layers. This box is checked off by default but when activated a user can identify anywhere and download data for that entire city/town, except Boston. (March 14, 2019)V 1.4: Data for Boston is included in the "Level 3" standardized parcels layer. (August 10, 2020)V 1.4 MassGIS, EOTSS 2021

The Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) used aerial lidar to produce a classified point cloud and high-resolution digital terrain model (DTM), digital surface model (DSM), and intensity model of the Barry Arm landslide, northwest Prince William Sound, Alaska, during near snow-free ground conditions on June 26, 2020. The survey's goal is to provide high quality and high resolution (0.10 m) elevation data to assess potential landslide movement. Aerial lidar and ground control data were collected on June 26, 2020, and subsequently processed in Terrasolid and ArcGIS. Ground control was collected on June 26, 2020, as well. This data collection is released as a Raw Data File with an open end-user license. All files can be downloaded free of charge from the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys website (http://doi.org/10.14509/30593).

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS modeled Land Cover classes for each year. See additional information about Land Cover in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

Notice - Replacement of the English and French Web services (WMS and ESRI REST) with a bilingual one. The NRN product is distributed in the form of thirteen provincial or territorial datasets and consists of two linear entities (Road Segment and Ferry Connection Segment) and three punctual entities (Junction, Blocked Passage, Toll Point) with which is associated a series of descriptive attributes such as, among others: First House Number, Last House Number, Street Name Body, Place Name, Functional Road Class, Pavement Status, Number Of Lanes, Structure Type, Route Number, Route Name, Exit Number. The development of the NRN was realized by means of individual meetings and national workshops with interested data providers from the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments. In 2005, the NRN edition 2.0 was alternately adopted by members from the Inter-Agency Committee on Geomatics (IACG) and the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG). The NRN content largely conforms to the ISO 14825 from ISO/TC 204.

Publication Date: February 2020. Updated as needed. Current as of the Publication Date.

A vector polygon layer of all city and town boundaries in New York State. The source data was originally a compilation of U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale digital vector files and NYS Department of Transportation 1:24,000-scale and 1:75,000-scale digital vector files. Boundaries were revised to 1:24,000-scale positional accuracy and selectively updated based on municipal boundary reviews, court decisions and NYS Department of State Local Law filings for annexations, dissolutions, and incorporations. Currently, boundary changes are made based on NYS Department of State Local Law filings (http://locallaws.dos.ny.gov/). Additional updates and corrections are made as needed in partnership with municipalities.

Additional metadata, including field descriptions, can be found at the NYS GIS Clearinghouse: http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=927.

Spatial Reference of Source Data: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N. Spatial Reference of Map Service: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere. This map service is available to the public.

The State of New York, acting through the New York State Office of Information Technology Services, makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use of or reliance on the Data provided. The User accepts the Data provided “as is” with no guarantees that it is error free, complete, accurate, current or fit for any particular purpose and assumes all risks associated with its use. The State disclaims any responsibility or legal liability to Users for damages of any kind, relating to the providing of the Data or the use of it. Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this Data was created.Credit: NYS Office of Information Technology Services GIS Program Office (GPO). Primary Contact: GPO, GISBoundaries@its.ny.gov, 518-242-5029.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS modeled Land Cover classes for each year. See additional information about Land Cover in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wild Fish Health Survey Database (NWFHSDb) has been available to the public since September 2001. The database contains data on pathogen occurrence in free-ranging (wild) populations of fish. This data is collected via the National Wild Fish Health Survey, initiated in 1996 as a collaborative effort among natural resource agencies. The survey is maintained and managed by the seven USFWS National Fish Health Centers. The database is part of an effort to create an information system that will be a valuable tool for the management, protection, and recovery of aquatic ecosystems. The NWFHSDb consists of two distinct components: an internal database maintained and utilized by the Fish Health Centers for entering, tracking, and reporting data, and this publicly accessible web layer. Data from each Fish Health Center is available on this layer for display and download. The NWFHSDb displays pathogen distribution information and is based on the spatial data generated by the Fish Health Centers. The NWFHSDb itself is a geographic information system (GIS) designed to be accessed via a web browser. It offers users the ability to obtain maps of NWFHS data based on user-defined queries. Individual case reports are available for each record and search results may be downloaded in several formats for further analysis. This database contains the National Wild Fish Health Survey from 1996 to 2020. Majority of data in this feature layer was recorded and stored prior to the implementation of the Laboratory information systems (LIMS) database on October 1, 2018.

August 2025

SafeGraph is just a data company. That's all we do.SafeGraph Places for ArcGIS is a subset of SafeGraph Places. SafeGraph Places is a points-of-interest (POI) dataset with business listing, building footprint, visitor insights, & foot-traffic data for every place people spend money in the U.S.The complete SafeGraph Places dataset has ~ 5.4 million points-of-interest in the USA and is updated monthly (to reflect store openings & closings).Here, for free on this listing, SafeGraph offers a subset of attributes from SafeGraph Places: POI business listing information and POI locations (building centroids).Columns in this dataset:safegraph_place_idparent_safegraph_place_idlocation_namesafegraph_brand_idsbrandstop_categorystreet_addresscitystatezip_codeNAICS codeGeometry Point data. Latitude and longitude of building centroid.For data definitions and complete documentation visit SafeGraph Developer and Data Scientist Docs.For statistics on the dataset, see SafeGraph Places Summary Statistics.Data is available as a hosted Feature Service to easily integrate with all ESRI products in the ArcGIS ecosystem.Want More? Want this POI data for use outside of ArcGIS Online? Want POI data for Canada? Want POI building footprints (Geometry)?Want more detailed category information (Core Places)?Want phone numbers or operating hours (Core Places)?Want POI visitor insights & foot-traffic data (Places Patterns)?To see more, preview & download all SafeGraph Places, Patterns, & Geometry data from SafeGraph’s Data Bar.Or drop us a line! Your data needs are our data delights. Contact: support-esri@safegraph.comView Terms of Use

Notice: this is not the latest Heat Island Severity image service.This layer contains the relative heat severity for every pixel for every city in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Heat Severity is a reclassified version of Heat Anomalies raster which is also published on this site. This data is generated from 30-meter Landsat 8 imagery band 10 (ground-level thermal sensor) from the summer of 2023.To explore previous versions of the data, visit the links below:Heat Severity - USA 2022Heat Severity - USA 2021Heat Severity - USA 2020Heat Severity - USA 2019Federal statistics over a 30-year period show extreme heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States. Extreme heat exacerbated by urban heat islands can lead to increased respiratory difficulties, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. These heat impacts significantly affect the most vulnerable—children, the elderly, and those with preexisting conditions.The purpose of this layer is to show where certain areas of cities are hotter than the average temperature for that same city as a whole. Severity is measured on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a relatively mild heat area (slightly above the mean for the city), and 5 being a severe heat area (significantly above the mean for the city). The absolute heat above mean values are classified into these 5 classes using the Jenks Natural Breaks classification method, which seeks to reduce the variance within classes and maximize the variance between classes. Knowing where areas of high heat are located can help a city government plan for mitigation strategies.This dataset represents a snapshot in time. It will be updated yearly, but is static between updates. It does not take into account changes in heat during a single day, for example, from building shadows moving. The thermal readings detected by the Landsat 8 sensor are surface-level, whether that surface is the ground or the top of a building. Although there is strong correlation between surface temperature and air temperature, they are not the same. We believe that this is useful at the national level, and for cities that don’t have the ability to conduct their own hyper local temperature survey. Where local data is available, it may be more accurate than this dataset. Dataset SummaryThis dataset was developed using proprietary Python code developed at Trust for Public Land, running on the Descartes Labs platform through the Descartes Labs API for Python. The Descartes Labs platform allows for extremely fast retrieval and processing of imagery, which makes it possible to produce heat island data for all cities in the United States in a relatively short amount of time.What can you do with this layer?This layer has query, identify, and export image services available. Since it is served as an image service, it is not necessary to download the data; the service itself is data that can be used directly in any Esri geoprocessing tool that accepts raster data as input.In order to click on the image service and see the raw pixel values in a map viewer, you must be signed in to ArcGIS Online, then Enable Pop-Ups and Configure Pop-Ups.Using the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Image ServicesThe data is made available as an image service. There is a processing template applied that supplies the yellow-to-red or blue-to-red color ramp, but once this processing template is removed (you can do this in ArcGIS Pro or ArcGIS Desktop, or in QGIS), the actual data values come through the service and can be used directly in a geoprocessing tool (for example, to extract an area of interest). Following are instructions for doing this in Pro.In ArcGIS Pro, in a Map view, in the Catalog window, click on Portal. In the Portal window, click on the far-right icon representing Living Atlas. Search on the acronyms “tpl” and “uhi”. The results returned will be the UHI image services. Right click on a result and select “Add to current map” from the context menu. When the image service is added to the map, right-click on it in the map view, and select Properties. In the Properties window, select Processing Templates. On the drop-down menu at the top of the window, the default Processing Template is either a yellow-to-red ramp or a blue-to-red ramp. Click the drop-down, and select “None”, then “OK”. Now you will have the actual pixel values displayed in the map, and available to any geoprocessing tool that takes a raster as input. Below is a screenshot of ArcGIS Pro with a UHI image service loaded, color ramp removed, and symbology changed back to a yellow-to-red ramp (a classified renderer can also be used): A typical operation at this point is to clip out your area of interest. To do this, add your polygon shapefile or feature class to the map view, and use the Clip Raster tool to export your area of interest as a geoTIFF raster (file extension ".tif"). In the environments tab for the Clip Raster tool, click the dropdown for "Extent" and select "Same as Layer:", and select the name of your polygon. If you then need to convert the output raster to a polygon shapefile or feature class, run the Raster to Polygon tool, and select "Value" as the field.Other Sources of Heat Island InformationPlease see these websites for valuable information on heat islands and to learn about exciting new heat island research being led by scientists across the country:EPA’s Heat Island Resource CenterDr. Ladd Keith, University of ArizonaDr. Ben McMahan, University of Arizona Dr. Jeremy Hoffman, Science Museum of Virginia Dr. Hunter Jones, NOAA Daphne Lundi, Senior Policy Advisor, NYC Mayor's Office of Recovery and ResiliencyDisclaimer/FeedbackWith nearly 14,000 cities represented, checking each city's heat island raster for quality assurance would be prohibitively time-consuming, so Trust for Public Land checked a statistically significant sample size for data quality. The sample passed all quality checks, with about 98.5% of the output cities error-free, but there could be instances where the user finds errors in the data. These errors will most likely take the form of a line of discontinuity where there is no city boundary; this type of error is caused by large temperature differences in two adjacent Landsat scenes, so the discontinuity occurs along scene boundaries (see figure below). Trust for Public Land would appreciate feedback on these errors so that version 2 of the national UHI dataset can be improved. Contact Dale.Watt@tpl.org with feedback.