Statistical analyses and maps representing mean, high, and low water-level conditions in the surface water and groundwater of Miami-Dade County were made by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, to help inform decisions necessary for urban planning and development. Sixteen maps were created that show contours of (1) the mean of daily water levels at each site during October and May for the 2000-2009 water years; (2) the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the daily water levels at each site during October and May and for all months during 2000-2009; and (3) the differences between mean October and May water levels, as well as the differences in the percentiles of water levels for all months, between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. The 80th, 90th, and 96th percentiles of the annual maximums of daily groundwater levels during 1974-2009 (a 35-year period) were computed to provide an indication of unusually high groundwater-level conditions. These maps and statistics provide a generalized understanding of the variations of water levels in the aquifer, rather than a survey of concurrent water levels. Water-level measurements from 473 sites in Miami-Dade County and surrounding counties were analyzed to generate statistical analyses. The monitored water levels included surface-water levels in canals and wetland areas and groundwater levels in the Biscayne aquifer. Maps were created by importing site coordinates, summary water-level statistics, and completeness of record statistics into a geographic information system, and by interpolating between water levels at monitoring sites in the canals and water levels along the coastline. Raster surfaces were created from these data by using the triangular irregular network interpolation method. The raster surfaces were contoured by using geographic information system software. These contours were imprecise in some areas because the software could not fully evaluate the hydrology given available information; therefore, contours were manually modified where necessary. The ability to evaluate differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 is limited in some areas because most of the monitoring sites did not have 80 percent complete records for one or both of these periods. The quality of the analyses was limited by (1) deficiencies in spatial coverage; (2) the combination of pre- and post-construction water levels in areas where canals, levees, retention basins, detention basins, or water-control structures were installed or removed; (3) an inability to address the potential effects of the vertical hydraulic head gradient on water levels in wells of different depths; and (4) an inability to correct for the differences between daily water-level statistics. Contours are dashed in areas where the locations of contours have been approximated because of the uncertainty caused by these limitations. Although the ability of the maps to depict differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 was limited by missing data, results indicate that near the coast water levels were generally higher in May during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999; and that inland water levels were generally lower during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999. Generally, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of water levels from all months were also higher near the coast and lower inland during 2000–2009 than during 1990-1999. Mean October water levels during 2000-2009 were generally higher than during 1990-1999 in much of western Miami-Dade County, but were lower in a large part of eastern Miami-Dade County.

Statistical analyses and maps representing mean, high, and low water-level conditions in the surface water and groundwater of Miami-Dade County were made by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, to help inform decisions necessary for urban planning and development. Sixteen maps were created that show contours of (1) the mean of daily water levels at each site during October and May for the 2000-2009 water years; (2) the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the daily water levels at each site during October and May and for all months during 2000-2009; and (3) the differences between mean October and May water levels, as well as the differences in the percentiles of water levels for all months, between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. The 80th, 90th, and 96th percentiles of the annual maximums of daily groundwater levels during 1974-2009 (a 35-year period) were computed to provide an indication of unusually high groundwater-level conditions. These maps and statistics provide a generalized understanding of the variations of water levels in the aquifer, rather than a survey of concurrent water levels. Water-level measurements from 473 sites in Miami-Dade County and surrounding counties were analyzed to generate statistical analyses. The monitored water levels included surface-water levels in canals and wetland areas and groundwater levels in the Biscayne aquifer. Maps were created by importing site coordinates, summary water-level statistics, and completeness of record statistics into a geographic information system, and by interpolating between water levels at monitoring sites in the canals and water levels along the coastline. Raster surfaces were created from these data by using the triangular irregular network interpolation method. The raster surfaces were contoured by using geographic information system software. These contours were imprecise in some areas because the software could not fully evaluate the hydrology given available information; therefore, contours were manually modified where necessary. The ability to evaluate differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 is limited in some areas because most of the monitoring sites did not have 80 percent complete records for one or both of these periods. The quality of the analyses was limited by (1) deficiencies in spatial coverage; (2) the combination of pre- and post-construction water levels in areas where canals, levees, retention basins, detention basins, or water-control structures were installed or removed; (3) an inability to address the potential effects of the vertical hydraulic head gradient on water levels in wells of different depths; and (4) an inability to correct for the differences between daily water-level statistics. Contours are dashed in areas where the locations of contours have been approximated because of the uncertainty caused by these limitations. Although the ability of the maps to depict differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 was limited by missing data, results indicate that near the coast water levels were generally higher in May during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999; and that inland water levels were generally lower during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999. Generally, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of water levels from all months were also higher near the coast and lower inland during 2000–2009 than during 1990-1999. Mean October water levels during 2000-2009 were generally higher than during 1990-1999 in much of western Miami-Dade County, but were lower in a large part of eastern Miami-Dade County.

Introduction

Geographical scale, in terms of spatial extent, provide a basis for other branches of science. This dataset contains newly proposed geographical and geological GIS boundaries for the Pan-Tibetan Highlands (new proposed name for the High Mountain Asia), based on geological and geomorphological features. This region comprises the Tibetan Plateau and three adjacent mountain regions: the Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains and Mountains of Central Asia, and boundaries are also given for each subregion individually. The dataset will benefit quantitative spatial analysis by providing a well-defined geographical scale for other branches of research, aiding cross-disciplinary comparisons and synthesis, as well as reproducibility of research results.

The dataset comprises three subsets, and we provide three data formats (.shp, .geojson and .kmz) for each of them. Shapefile format (.shp) was generated in ArcGIS Pro, and the other two were converted from shapefile, the conversion steps refer to 'Data processing' section below. The following is a description of the three subsets:

(1) The GIS boundaries we newly defined of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands and its four constituent sub-regions, i.e. the Tibetan Plateau, Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains and the Mountains of Central Asia. All files are placed in the "Pan-Tibetan Highlands (Liu et al._2022)" folder.

(2) We also provide GIS boundaries that were applied by other studies (cited in Fig. 3 of our work) in the folder "Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountains (Others’ definitions)". If these data is used, please cite the relevent paper accrodingly. In addition, it is worthy to note that the GIS boundaries of Hengduan Mountains (Li et al. 1987a) and Mountains of Central Asia (Foggin et al. 2021) were newly generated in our study using Georeferencing toolbox in ArcGIS Pro.

(3) Geological assemblages and characters of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands, including Cratons and micro-continental blocks (Fig. S1), plus sutures, faults and thrusts (Fig. 4), are placed in the "Pan-Tibetan Highlands (geological files)" folder.

Note: High Mountain Asia: The name ‘High Mountain Asia’ is the only direct synonym of Pan-Tibetan Highlands, but this term is both grammatically awkward and somewhat misleading, and hence the term ‘Pan-Tibetan Highlands’ is here proposed to replace it. Third Pole: The first use of the term ‘Third Pole’ was in reference to the Himalaya by Kurz & Montandon (1933), but the usage was subsequently broadened to the Tibetan Plateau or the whole of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands. The mainstream scientific literature refer the ‘Third Pole’ to the region encompassing the Tibetan Plateau, Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains, Karakoram, Hindu Kush and Pamir. This definition was surpported by geological strcture (Main Pamir Thrust) in the western part, and generally overlaps with the ‘Tibetan Plateau’ sensu lato defined by some previous studies, but is more specific.

More discussion and reference about names please refer to the paper. The figures (Figs. 3, 4, S1) mentioned above were attached in the end of this document.

Data processing

We provide three data formats. Conversion of shapefile data to kmz format was done in ArcGIS Pro. We used the Layer to KML tool in Conversion Toolbox to convert the shapefile to kmz format. Conversion of shapefile data to geojson format was done in R. We read the data using the shapefile function of the raster package, and wrote it as a geojson file using the geojson_write function in the geojsonio package.

Version

Version 2022.1.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB31010000), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41971071), the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS (ZDBS-LY-7001). We are grateful to our coauthors insightful discussion and comments. We also want to thank professors Jed Kaplan, Yin An, Dai Erfu, Zhang Guoqing, Peter Cawood, Tobias Bolch and Marc Foggin for suggestions and providing GIS files.

Citation

Liu, J., Milne, R. I., Zhu, G. F., Spicer, R. A., Wambulwa, M. C., Wu, Z. Y., Li, D. Z. (2022). Name and scale matters: Clarifying the geography of Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountain regions. Global and Planetary Change, In revision

Jie Liu & Guangfu Zhu. (2022). Geographical and geological GIS boundaries of the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountain regions (Version 2022.1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6432940

Contacts

Dr. Jie LIU: E-mail: liujie@mail.kib.ac.cn;

Mr. Guangfu ZHU: zhuguangfu@mail.kib.ac.cn

Institution: Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Address: 132# Lanhei Road, Heilongtan, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China

Copyright

This dataset is available under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses. For more information on the NHDPlus dataset see the NHDPlus v2 User Guide.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Surface waters and related features of the United States and associated territories not including Alaska.Geographic Extent: The United States not including Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and American SamoaProjection: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Visible Scale: Visible at all scales but layer draws best at scales larger than 1:1,000,000Source: EPA and USGSUpdate Frequency: There is new new data since this 2019 version, so no updates planned in the futurePublication Date: March 13, 2019Prior to publication, the NHDPlus network and non-network flowline feature classes were combined into a single flowline layer. Similarly, the NHDPlus Area and Waterbody feature classes were merged under a single schema.Attribute fields were added to the flowline and waterbody layers to simplify symbology and enhance the layer's pop-ups. Fields added include Pop-up Title, Pop-up Subtitle, On or Off Network (flowlines only), Esri Symbology (waterbodies only), and Feature Code Description. All other attributes are from the original NHDPlus dataset. No data values -9999 and -9998 were converted to Null values for many of the flowline fields.What can you do with this layer?Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro.ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer is limited to scales of approximately 1:1,000,000 or larger but a vector tile layer created from the same data can be used at smaller scales to produce a webmap that displays across the full range of scales. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application. Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections. Selections made in the map or table are reflected in the other. Center on selection allows you to zoom to features selected in the map or table and show selected records allows you to view the selected records in the table.Apply filters. For example you can set a filter to show larger streams and rivers using the mean annual flow attribute or the stream order attribute. Change the layer’s style and symbologyAdd labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upUse as an input to the ArcGIS Online analysis tools. This layer works well as a reference layer with the trace downstream and watershed tools. The buffer tool can be used to draw protective boundaries around streams and the extract data tool can be used to create copies of portions of the data.ArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map. Use as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class. Change the symbology and the attribute field used to symbolize the dataOpen table and make interactive selections with the mapModify the pop-upsApply Definition Queries to create sub-sets of the layerThis layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Illinois Center for Transportation and the Illinois Department of Transportation, prepared hydro-conditioned geographic information systems (GIS) layers for use in the Illinois StreamStats application. These data were used to delineate drainage basins and compute basin characteristics for updated peak flow and flow duration regression equations for Illinois. This dataset consists of raster grid files for elevation (dem), flow accumulation (fac), flow direction (fdr), and stream definition (str900) for each 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) area in Illinois merged into a single dataset. There are 51 full or partial HUC 8s represented by this data set: 04040002, 05120108, 05120109, 05120111, 05120112, 05120113, 05120114, 05120115, 05140202, 05140203, 05140204, 05140206, 07060005, 07080101, 07080104, 07090001, 07090002, 07090003, 07090004, 07090005, 07090006, 07090007, 07110001, 07110004, 07110009, 07120001, 07120002, 071200 ...

Bridges on the Old Dominion University Campus

This is the official Street Centerline dataset for the County of Sacramento and the incorporated cities within. The Street Range Index table is a distinct list of street names within the Centerline dataset along with the existing address range for each street by zip code.The Street Name Index table is a distinct list of street names within the Centerline dataset.

Public Open Space Geographic Information System data collection for Perth and Peel Metropolitan Areas

The public open space (POS) dataset contains polygon boundaries of areas defined as publicly available and open. This geographic information system (GIS) dataset was collected in 2011/2012 using ArcGIS software and aerial photography dated from 2010-2011. The data was collected across the Perth Metro and Peel Region.

POS refer to all land reserved for the provision of green space and natural environments (e.g. parks, reserves, bushland) that is freely accessible and intended for use for recreation purposes (active or passive) by the general public. Four types of “green and natural public open spaces” are distinguished: (1) Park; (2) Natural or Conservation Area; (3) School Grounds; and (4) Residual. Areas where the public are not permitted except on payment or which are available to limited and selected numbers by membership (e.g. golf courses and sports centre facilities) or setbacks and buffers required by legislation are not included.

Initially, potential POSs were identified from a combination of existing geographic information system (GIS) spatial data layers to create a generalized representation of ‘green space’ throughout the Perth metropolitan and Peel regions. Base data layers include: cadastral polygons, metropolitan and regional planning scheme polygons, school point locations, and reserve vesting polygons. The ‘green’ space layer was then visually updated and edited to represent the true boundaries of each POS using 2010-2011 aerial photography within the ArcGIS software environment. Each resulting ’green’ polygon was then classified using a decision tree into one of four possible categories: park, natural or conservation area, school grounds, or residual green space.

Following the classification process, amenity and other information about each POS was collected for polygons classified as “Park” following a protocol developed at the Centre for the Built Environment and Health (CBEH) called POSDAT (Public Open Space Desktop Auditing Tool). The parks were audited using aerial photography visualized using ArcGIS software. . The presence or absence of amenities such as sporting facilities (e.g. tennis courts, soccer fields, skate parks etc) were audited as well as information on the environmental quality (i.e. presence of water, adjacency to bushland, shade along paths, etc), recreational amenities (e.g. presence of BBQ’, café or kiosks, public access toilets) and information on selected features related to personal safety.

The data is stored in an ArcGIS File Geodatabase Feature Class (size 4MB) and has restricted access.

Data creation methodology, data definitions, and links to publications based on this data, accompany the dataset.

The Bluff GIS Determination Tool is an ArcGIS script that determines if a bluff is present, locates the toe and top of bluff on a map, creates a plot of elevation vs. distance, and produces an Excel spreadsheet showing the data analysis. There are two versions of the tool, one for determining a shoreland bluff (consistent with the shoreland rule bluff definition) and one for determining a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area bluff (consistent with the MRCCA rule bluff definition).

Technical Requirements
The user will need the following to run this tool:
System Requirements:
- ArcGIS Pro
- Spatial Analyst
Input Data Requirements:
- DEM (You can download 1-meter and 3-meter DEMs from MnTOPO: http://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/maps/mntopo )

For step-by-step instructions on how to use the tool, please view Bluff GIS Determination Tool Guide.pptx

Statistical analyses and maps representing mean, high, and low water-level conditions in the surface water and groundwater of Miami-Dade County were made by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, to help inform decisions necessary for urban planning and development. Sixteen maps were created that show contours of (1) the mean of daily water levels at each site during October and May for the 2000-2009 water years; (2) the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the daily water levels at each site during October and May and for all months during 2000-2009; and (3) the differences between mean October and May water levels, as well as the differences in the percentiles of water levels for all months, between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. The 80th, 90th, and 96th percentiles of the annual maximums of daily groundwater levels during 1974-2009 (a 35-year period) were computed to provide an indication of unusually high groundwater-level conditions. These maps and statistics provide a generalized understanding of the variations of water levels in the aquifer, rather than a survey of concurrent water levels. Water-level measurements from 473 sites in Miami-Dade County and surrounding counties were analyzed to generate statistical analyses. The monitored water levels included surface-water levels in canals and wetland areas and groundwater levels in the Biscayne aquifer. Maps were created by importing site coordinates, summary water-level statistics, and completeness of record statistics into a geographic information system, and by interpolating between water levels at monitoring sites in the canals and water levels along the coastline. Raster surfaces were created from these data by using the triangular irregular network interpolation method. The raster surfaces were contoured by using geographic information system software. These contours were imprecise in some areas because the software could not fully evaluate the hydrology given available information; therefore, contours were manually modified where necessary. The ability to evaluate differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 is limited in some areas because most of the monitoring sites did not have 80 percent complete records for one or both of these periods. The quality of the analyses was limited by (1) deficiencies in spatial coverage; (2) the combination of pre- and post-construction water levels in areas where canals, levees, retention basins, detention basins, or water-control structures were installed or removed; (3) an inability to address the potential effects of the vertical hydraulic head gradient on water levels in wells of different depths; and (4) an inability to correct for the differences between daily water-level statistics. Contours are dashed in areas where the locations of contours have been approximated because of the uncertainty caused by these limitations. Although the ability of the maps to depict differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 was limited by missing data, results indicate that near the coast water levels were generally higher in May during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999; and that inland water levels were generally lower during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999. Generally, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of water levels from all months were also higher near the coast and lower inland during 2000–2009 than during 1990-1999. Mean October water levels during 2000-2009 were generally higher than during 1990-1999 in much of western Miami-Dade County, but were lower in a large part of eastern Miami-Dade County.

A feature layer used to store information about demographics at the census tract level.

This dataset consists of summer temperature metrics for Boston, MA. These heat metrics summarize six CAPA Urban Heat Watch program temperature and heat index datasets using geographical boundaries from the Census Tract (CT) layer. Heat datasets were created by Museum of Science, Boston, and the Helmuth Lab at Northeastern University. Heat metrics are presented in the attribute table as mean values of each Heat Watch program dataset for all hexagon features. The six heat values included in this table are July 2019 temperature and heat index in degrees Fahrenheit for each of 3 1-hour periods -- 6 a.m., 3 p.m., and 7 p.m. EDT. The geographic boundaries used to summarize the heat metrics are current as of 2019.

The National Hydrography Dataset Plus High Resolution (NHDplus High Resolution) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US Geological Survey, NHDPlus High Resolution provides mean annual flow and velocity estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.For more information on the NHDPlus High Resolution dataset see the User’s Guide for the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) High Resolution.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Surface waters and related features of the United States and associated territoriesGeographic Extent: The Contiguous United States, Hawaii, portions of Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, and American SamoaProjection: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Visible Scale: Visible at all scales but layer draws best at scales larger than 1:1,000,000Source: USGSUpdate Frequency: AnnualPublication Date: July 2022This layer was symbolized in the ArcGIS Map Viewer and while the features will draw in the Classic Map Viewer the advanced symbology will not. Prior to publication, the network and non-network flowline feature classes were combined into a single flowline layer. Similarly, the Area and Waterbody feature classes were merged under a single schema.Attribute fields were added to the flowline and waterbody layers to simplify symbology and enhance the layer's pop-ups. Fields added include Pop-up Title, Pop-up Subtitle, Esri Symbology (waterbodies only), and Feature Code Description. All other attributes are from the original dataset. No data values -9999 and -9998 were converted to Null values.What can you do with this layer?Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro.ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application. Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections. Selections made in the map or table are reflected in the other. Center on selection allows you to zoom to features selected in the map or table and show selected records allows you to view the selected records in the table.Apply filters. For example you can set a filter to show larger streams and rivers using the mean annual flow attribute or the stream order attribute.Change the layer’s style and symbologyAdd labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upUse as an input to the ArcGIS Online analysis tools. This layer works well as a reference layer with the trace downstream and watershed tools. The buffer tool can be used to draw protective boundaries around streams and the extract data tool can be used to create copies of portions of the data.ArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map.Use as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class.Change the symbology and the attribute field used to symbolize the dataOpen table and make interactive selections with the mapModify the pop-upsApply Definition Queries to create sub-sets of the layerThis layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Buildings_BACI File Geodatabase Feature Class Thumbnail Not Available Tags Buildings, structures, ruins, storage tanks, silos, water towers, Baltimore City Planimetric, Biophysical Resources, Land, Socio-Economic Resources, Capital Summary This data was created as a landbase feature as part of the planimetric data. Description This dataset represents photogrammetrically captured Building footprints => 100sq. ft. including storage tanks, silos, water towers, power plants, substations, and structures under construction and ruins. Feature capture rules: Buildings - Outline edge of roofline. All buildings shall be captured as polygons. In commercial areas especially, it is important that the plotted building represent the face of the building where it meets the sidewalk. Polygons shall be created for the outer boundary of the building when a partywall exists. Does not include sheds and small temporary structures. Attached garages shall be represented as part of the building structure. Large structures such as stadiums shall also be represented. Structures under construction or demolition - Delineate the rooflines of all buildings under construction as interpreted from aerial photography. If roofline is not visible compile visible foundation or walls Ruins - Delineate old overgrown areas of old structures that have been demolished or are in disrepair. Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype. Storage tanks, silos, and water towers - Outlines of all storage tanks, silos and water towers. . Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype. Power plants and substations - Outline of power plant and substation structure. . Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype. Credits There are no credits for this item. Use limitations Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of these data. The City of Baltimore, Maryland makes no representations nor warranties, either express or implied, regarding the accuracy of this information or its suitability for any particular purpose whatsoever. The data is licensed "as is" and the City of Baltimore will not be liable for its use or misuse by any party. Reliance of these data is at the risk of the user. Extent West -76.714715 East -76.525355 North 39.375162 South 39.193953 Scale Range There is no scale range for this item.

This is an Allegheny County extract of the 2016 US Census Block Groups downloaded from the following website: https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-cart-boundary.html.

This dataset was previously harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal (http://openac.alcogis.opendata.arcgis.com/). The full metadata record for this dataset can also be found on Allegheny County’s GIS portal, at https://openac-alcogis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/AlCoGIS::public-wifi-locations/explore.

Department: Geographic Information Systems Group; Department of Administrative Services

Data Dictionary

See https://www.census.gov/geo/about/contact.html for more information.

Shows the size and shape of the nine Allegheny County parks.

If viewing this description on the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center’s open data portal (http://www.wprdc.org), this dataset is harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal (http://openac.alcogis.opendata.arcgis.com/). The full metadata record for this dataset can also be found on Allegheny County’s GIS portal. You can access the metadata record and other resources on the GIS portal by clicking on the “Explore” button (and choosing the “Go to resource” option) to the right of the “ArcGIS Open Dataset” text below.

Category: Recreation

Organization: Allegheny County

Department: Parks Department

Temporal Coverage: current

Data Notes:

Coordinate System: Pennsylvania State Plane South Zone 3702; U.S. Survey Foot

Development Notes: none

Other: none

Related Document(s): Data Dictionary: none

Frequency - Data Change: As needed

Frequency - Publishing: As needed

Data Steward Name: Eli Thomas

Data Steward Email: gishelp@alleghenycounty.us

description: The Geopspatial Fabric provides a consistent, documented, and topologically connected set of spatial features that create an abstracted stream/basin network of features useful for hydrologic modeling.The GIS vector features contained in this Geospatial Fabric (GF) data set cover the lower 48 U.S. states, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Four GIS feature classes are provided for each Region: 1) the Region outline ("one"), 2) Points of Interest ("POIs"), 3) a routing network ("nsegment"), and 4) Hydrologic Response Units ("nhru"). A graphic showing the boundaries for all Regions is provided at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.5066/F7542KMD. These Regions are identical to those used to organize the NHDPlus v.1 dataset (US EPA and US Geological Survey, 2005). Although the GF Feature data set has been derived from NHDPlus v.1, it is an entirely new data set that has been designed to generically support regional and national scale applications of hydrologic models. Definition of each type of feature class and its derivation is provided within the

This was developed for a forthcoming paper. A reference will be posted here when it is published.

This database supports the work of the Digital Elevation Model Intercomparison eXperiment (DEMIX) working group (Strobl and others, 2021; Guth and others, 2021; Bielski and others, 2024). The four files have the database tables in CSV format.

• Difference distributions for elevation, slope, and surface roughness. The provides continuity with \cite{BielskiOthers2024, GuthOthers2024}; for readers who want, it has the statistics like RMSE and LE90 for elevation and two LSPs, as well as the signed mean and median differences.
• FUV for a mixed suite of LSPs chosen to sample the full range of LSPs calculated from DEMs. These provide a better rankings of the test DEMs, and provides an estimate of the robustness of LSPs and suggest that some should be used with caution.
• FUV for the partial derivatives used for slope, aspect, and curvature.
• FUV for the suite of integrated curvature measures (Minar and others, 2020.

This version adds to CopDEM, ALOS AW3D30, and FABDEM:

• FathomDEM (Uhe and others, 2025)
• EDTM 1.1 (https://s3.eu-central-1.wasabisys.com/openlandmap/dtm/dtm.bareearth_ensemble_p10_30m_s_2018_go_epsg4326_v20230221.tif, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7676373)
• GEDTM 1.2—this is the best version of 1.2 (there are at least two others,which have no scaling for the elevations) (https://s3.opengeohub.org/global/dtm/v1.2/gedtm_rf_m_30m_s_20060101_20151231_go_epsg.4326.3855_v1.2.tif
• GEDTM 1.1—this has 0.9” spacing https://s3.opengeohub.org/global/edtm/gedtm_rf_m_30m_s_20060101_20151231_go_epsg.4326.3855_v20250611.tif, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15689805
• GEDTM v 0—this has 0.9” spacing https://s3.opengeohub.org/global/edtm/legendtm_rf_30m_m_s_20000101_20231231_go_epsg.4326_v20250130.tif, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14900181

The database contains 1381 tiles, about 10x10 km, in 140 areas. The tiles are based on the local projected grid, a change from earlier versions of the DEMIX database which used geographic outlines.

It does not consider the low altitude coastal DEMs; for those use version 3 (https://zenodo.org/records/13331458 ).

References:

Bielski, C.; López-Vázquez, C.; Grohmann, C.H.; Guth. P.L.; Hawker, L.; Gesch, D.; Trevisani, S.; Herrera-Cruz, V.; Riazanoff, S.; Corseaux, A.; Reuter, H.; Strobl, P., 2024. Novel approach for ranking DEMs: Copernicus DEM improves one arc second open global topography. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience & Remote Sensing. vol. 62, pp. 1-22, 2024, Art no. 4503922, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2024.3368015

Guth, P.L.; Trevisani, S.; Grohmann, C.H.; Lindsay, J.; Gesch, D.; Hawker, L.; Bielski, C. Ranking of 10 Global One-Arc-Second DEMs Reveals Limitations in Terrain Morphology Representation. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 3273. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16173273

Guth, P.L.; Van Niekerk, A.; Grohmann, C.H.; Muller, J.-P.; Hawker, L.; Florinsky, I.V.; Gesch, D.; Reuter, H.I.; Herrera-Cruz, V.; Riazanoff, S.; López-Vázquez, C.; Carabajal, C.C.; Albinet, C.; Strobl, P. Digital Elevation Models: Terminology and Definitions. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3581. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13183581

Minár, J., Ian S. Evans, Marián Jenčo, 2020, A comprehensive system of definitions of land surface (topographic) curvatures, with implications for their application in geoscience modelling and prediction, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 211, 103414, ISSN 0012-8252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103414

Strobl, P.A.; Bielski, C.; Guth, P.L.; Grohmann, C.H.; Muller, J.P.; López-Vázquez, C.; Gesch, D.B.; Amatulli, G.; Riazanoff, S.; Carabajal, C. The Digital Elevation Model Intercomparison eXperiment DEMIX, a community based approach at global DEM benchmarking. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2021, XLIII-B4-2021, 395–400. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B4-2021-395-2021

Uhe, P., Lucas, C., Hawker, L., Brine, M., Wilkinson, H., Cooper, A., & Sampson, C. (2025). FathomDEM: an improved global terrain map using a hybrid vision transformer model. Environmental Research Letters, 20(3), 034002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ada972

Axe et noms des voies

USGS is assessing the feasibility of map projections and grid systems for lunar surface operations. We propose developing a new Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM), the Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS), and the Lunar Grid Reference Systems (LGRS). We have also designed additional grids designed to NASA requirements for astronaut navigation, referred to as LGRS in Artemis Condensed Coordinates (ACC), but this is not released here. LTM, LPS, and LGRS are similar in design and use to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Universal Polar Stereographic (LPS), and Military Grid Reference System (MGRS), but adhere to NASA requirements. LGRS ACC format is similar in design and structure to historic Army Mapping Service Apollo orthotopophoto charts for navigation. The Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM) projection system is a globalized set of lunar map projections that divides the Moon into zones to provide a uniform coordinate system for accurate spatial representation. It uses a transverse Mercator projection, which maps the Moon into 45 transverse Mercator strips, each 8°, longitude, wide. These transverse Mercator strips are subdivided at the lunar equator for a total of 90 zones. Forty-five in the northern hemisphere and forty-five in the south. LTM specifies a topocentric, rectangular, coordinate system (easting and northing coordinates) for spatial referencing. This projection is commonly used in GIS and surveying for its ability to represent large areas with high positional accuracy while maintaining consistent scale. The Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS) projection system contains projection specifications for the Moon’s polar regions. It uses a polar stereographic projection, which maps the polar regions onto an azimuthal plane. The LPS system contains 2 zones, each zone is located at the northern and southern poles and is referred to as the LPS northern or LPS southern zone. LPS, like is equatorial counterpart LTM, specifies a topocentric, rectangular, coordinate system (easting and northing coordinates) for spatial referencing. This projection is commonly used in GIS and surveying for its ability to represent large polar areas with high positional accuracy, while maintaining consistent scale across the map region. LGRS is a globalized grid system for lunar navigation supported by the LTM and LPS projections. LGRS provides an alphanumeric grid coordinate structure for both the LTM and LPS systems. This labeling structure is utilized in a similar manner to MGRS. LGRS defines a global area grid based on latitude and longitude and a 25×25 km grid based on LTM and LPS coordinate values. Two implementations of LGRS are used as polar areas require a LPS projection and equatorial areas a transverse Mercator. We describe the difference in the techniques and methods report associated with this data release. Request McClernan et. al. (in-press) for more information. ACC is a method of simplifying LGRS coordinates and is similar in use to the Army Mapping Service Apollo orthotopophoto charts for navigation. These data will be released at a later date. Two versions of the shape files are provided in this data release, PCRS and Display only. See LTM_LPS_LGRS_Shapefiles.zip file. PCRS are limited to a single zone and are projected in either LTM or LPS with topocentric coordinates formatted in Eastings and Northings. Display only shapefiles are formatted in lunar planetocentric latitude and longitude, a Mercator or Equirectangular projection is best for these grids. A description of each grid is provided below: Equatorial (Display Only) Grids: Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM) Grids: LTM zone borders for each LTM zone Merged LTM zone borders Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS) Grids: North LPS zone border South LPS zone border Lunar Grid Reference System (LGRS) Grids: Global Areas for North and South LPS zones Merged Global Areas (8°×8° and 8°×10° extended area) for all LTM zones Merged 25km grid for all LTM zones PCRS Shapefiles:` Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM) Grids: LTM zone borders for each LTM zone Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS) Grids: North LPS zone border South LPS zone border Lunar Grid Reference System (LGRS) Grids: Global Areas for North and South LPS zones 25km Gird for North and South LPS zones Global Areas (8°×8° and 8°×10° extended area) for each LTM zone 25km grid for each LTM zone The rasters in this data release detail the linear distortions associated with the LTM and LPS system projections. For these products, we utilize the same definitions of distortion as the U.S. State Plane Coordinate System. Scale Factor, k - The scale factor is a ratio that communicates the difference in distances when measured on a map and the distance reported on the reference surface. Symbolically this is the ratio between the maps grid distance and distance on the lunar reference sphere. This value can be precisely calculated and is provided in their defining publication. See Snyder (1987) for derivation of the LPS scale factor. This scale factor is unitless and typically increases from the central scale factor k_0, a projection-defining parameter. For each LPS projection. Request McClernan et. al., (in-press) for more information. Scale Error, (k-1) - Scale-Error, is simply the scale factor differenced from 1. Is a unitless positive or negative value from 0 that is used to express the scale factor’s impact on position values on a map. Distance on the reference surface are expended when (k-1) is positive and contracted when (k-1) is negative. Height Factor, h_F - The Height Factor is used to correct for the difference in distance caused between the lunar surface curvature expressed at different elevations. It is expressed as a ratio between the radius of the lunar reference sphere and elevations measured from the center of the reference sphere. For this work, we utilized a radial distance of 1,737,400 m as recommended by the IAU working group of Rotational Elements (Archinal et. al., 2008). For this calculation, height factor values were derived from a LOLA DEM 118 m v1, Digital Elevation Model (LOLA Science Team, 2021). Combined Factor, C_F – The combined factor is utilized to “Scale-To-Ground” and is used to adjust the distance expressed on the map surface and convert to the position on the actual ground surface. This value is the product of the map scale factor and the height factor, ensuring the positioning measurements can be correctly placed on a map and on the ground. The combined factor is similar to linear distortion in that it is evaluated at the ground, but, as discussed in the next section, differs numerically. Often C_F is scrutinized for map projection optimization. Linear distortion, δ - In keeping with the design definitions of SPCS2022 (Dennis 2023), we refer to scale error when discussing the lunar reference sphere and linear distortion, δ, when discussing the topographic surface. Linear distortion is calculated using C_F simply by subtracting 1. Distances are expended on the topographic surface when δ is positive and compressed when δ is negative. The relevant files associated with the expressed LTM distortion are as follows. The scale factor for the 90 LTM projections: LUNAR_LTM_GLOBAL_PLOT_HEMISPHERES_distortion_K_grid_scale_factor.tif Height Factor for the LTM portion of the Moon: LUNAR_LTM_GLOBAL_PLOT_HEMISPHERES_distortion_EF_elevation_factor.tif Combined Factor in LTM portion of the Moon LUNAR_LTM_GLOBAL_PLOT_HEMISPHERES_distortion_CF_combined_factor.tif The relevant files associated with the expressed LPS distortion are as follows. Lunar North Pole The scale factor for the northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_NP_PLOT_LPS_K_grid_scale_factor.tif Height Factor for the north pole of the Moon: LUNAR_LGRS_NP_PLOT_LPS_EF_elevation_factor.tif Combined Factor for northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_NP_PLOT_LPS_CF_combined_factor.tif Lunar South Pole Scale factor for the northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_SP_PLOT_LPS_K_grid_scale_factor.tif Height Factor for the south pole of the Moon: LUNAR_LGRS_SP_PLOT_LPS_EF_elevation_factor.tif Combined Factor for northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_SP_PLOT_LPS_CF_combined_factor.tif For GIS utilization of grid shapefiles projected in Lunar Latitude and Longitude, referred to as “Display Only”, please utilize a registered lunar geographic coordinate system (GCS) such as IAU_2015:30100 or ESRI:104903. LTM, LPS, and LGRS PCRS shapefiles utilize either a custom transverse Mercator or polar Stereographic projection. For PCRS grids the LTM and LPS projections are recommended for all LTM, LPS, and LGRS grid sizes. See McClernan et. al. (in-press) for such projections. Raster data was calculated using planetocentric latitude and longitude. A LTM and LPS projection or a registered lunar GCS may be utilized to display this data. Note: All data, shapefiles and rasters, require a specific projection and datum. The projection is recommended as LTM and LPS or, when needed, IAU_2015:30100 or ESRI:104903. The datum utilized must be the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Development Ephemeris (DE) 421 in the Mean Earth (ME) Principal Axis Orientation as recommended by the International Astronomy Union (IAU) (Archinal et. al., 2008).