This dataset contains a variety of spatial data layers compiled in support of research activities associated with the NAME research program. With a few exception the data layers have each been imported and projected to a common geographic coordinate system into the ESRI ArcGIS geographical information system. This dataset is one large (550 MB) gzipped tar file.

Please Note - We do not distribute election map data. For digital data, please contact the Maryland Department of Planning for more information. In addition to our online maps, we do offer our "2022 Election Map" in PDF format, which is available for free to download. Paper copies are also available for a small fee. For more information, please see "Paper Maps" below. Use this form to order free GIS files of our data for use in mapping applications. To get immediate access to GIS based information use one of our web maps!

GIS data is available on the Forest’s FTP site in the form of “shape files” or layers and is available free for downloading. To utilize these data layers you will need a program that uses the Geographic Information System (GIS) such as ESRI’s ArcMap, ArcView or the free map reading program ArcGIS Explorer. ArcGIS Explorer has tools that let you zoom in/out, print the map, and query data. It also has map tips to identify features, and a help menu. ArcGIS Explorer is available as a free download from the ESRI website. Included is a list of GIS data files available for the Shawnee National Forest. These GIS data files are updated on a continuing basis. It should be noted that this data may have been developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, or incomplete while being created or revised. Overall accuracy, completeness and timeliness may vary. The following geospatial information/data was prepared by the Shawnee National Forests (US Forest Service). The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS data without notification. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Geospatial Data. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/shawnee/landmanagement/gis Information about the geospatial data and a ftp link to download Forest GIS Data Shapefiles.

This data provides the geographic location for parcel boundary lines within the jurisdiction of the Carteret County, NC and is based on recorded surveys and deeds. This dataset is maintained by the Carteret County GIS Division. Data is updated on an as needed basis. The description for each field name in the layer is included below.FieldAliasMeaningPIN15Parcel NumberTax Parcel ID Number (PIN4+ PIN5)ROLL_TYPERoll TypeRoll type of property (regularly taxed property or tax-exempt)GISMOTHERMother ParcelMother ParcelGISMAPNUMPIN1First 4 digits of PIN15MAPNAMPIN2PIN1 + 2 digitsGISBLOCKPIN3Digits 7 and 8 of PIN15GISPINPIN4PIN2 +PIN3GISPDOTPIN5Digit numbers 9 to 12 of PIN15CONDO_Condo unit #Condo numberGISPRIDOld Tax IDOld parcel number style based on prior mapping system before NC GRID system mapsOWNERTax Owner 1Tax parcel ownerOWNER2Tax Owner 2Secondary tax parcel ownerSITE_HOUSESite House #Site Address House NumberSITE_DIRSite DirSite Address Street directionalSITE_STSite StreetSite Address Street NameSITE_STTYPSite Street TypeSite Address Street Suffix (e.g., Dr., St., etc.)SITE_APTNOSite AptSite Address UnitSITE_CITYSite CitySite Address City/CommunityPropertyAddressPhysical AddressProperty AddressMAIL_ADDRESS1Mailing address and streetConcatenated mailing addressMAIL_ADDRESS2Mailing unitSecondary mailing addressMAIL_CITYMailing cityMailing address CityMAIL_STATEMailing stateMailing address StateMAIL_ZI4Mailing Zip4Mailing address Zip Code + 4MAIL_ZI5Mailing Zip5Mailing address Zip CodeFullMailingAddressFull Mailing AddressFull mailing address concatenatedDBOOKDeed BookDeed book containing the most recent deed to the propertyDPAGEDeed PageDeed page containing the most recent deed to the propertyDDATEDeed Dateunformatted most recent deed date for the propertyDeedDate_2Formatted Deed DateFormatted most recent deed date for the propertyMapBookPlat Map BookMap BookMapPagePlat Map PageMap PagePLATBOOKPlat BookRecorded Plat BookPLATPAGEPlat PageRecorded Plat PageLEGAL_DESCParcel Legal DescriptionLegal descriptionLegalAcresLegal Acres (new)Deeded or platted acresDeededAcresLegal AcresAcres from recorded deedsCalculatedLandUnitsTaxed AcresTaxed land acreageGISacresCalculated AcresCalculated GIS acresGISacres2Calculated Acres (new)Calculated GIS acresLandCodeTax Land Category CodeLand CodeLandCodeDescriptionTax Land Category DescriptionLand Code DescriptionMUNICIPALITYMunicipality/ETJIf parcel is within the corporate limits or ETJTOWNSHIPTownshipTownship codeRESCUE_DISTTax Rescue DistrictTax rescue district that the parcel is withinFIRE_DISTTax Fire DistrictTax fire district that the parcel is withinJurisdictionTax District CodeTax District CodeNBHDNeighborhood CodeNeighborhood codeNeighborhoodNameNeighborhood NameNeighborhood code descriptionBuildingCount# BuildingsNumber of buildings within the propertyY_BLT_HOUSEYear Built HouseYear house was builtBLT_CONDOYear Built CondoYear condo was builtTOT_SQ_FTTotal Sq FootTotal square footage of structure on propertyHtdSqFtHeated Sq FootHeated square footages of structure on the propertyBldgModelBuilding ModelBuilding ModelBEDROOMS# Bedrooms# BedroomsBATHROOMS# Bathrooms# BathroomsBldgUseBuilding UseBuilding UseConditionBuilding ConditionBuilding ConditionDwellingStyleDescriptionDwelling DescriptionDwelling style descriptionExWllDes1Exterior wall 1Exterior wall type 1 descriptionExWllDes2Exterior wall 2Exterior wall type 2 descriptionExWllTyp1Exterior wall 1 codeExterior wall type 1ExWllTyp2Exterior wall 2 codeExterior wall type 2FondDes1Foundation Description Foundation type 1 descriptionFondTyp1Foundation Description CodeFoundation type 1RCovDes1Roof # 1 Covering DescriptionRoof covering type 1 descriptionRCovDes2Roof # 2 CoveringDescriptionRoof covering type 2 descriptionRCovTyp1Roof # 1 CodeRoof covering type 1RCovTyp2Roof # 2 CodeRoof covering type 2RStrDes1Roof Structure DescriptionRoof structure type 1 descriptionRStrTyp1Roof Structure CodeRoof structure type 1GradeBuilding GradeTax gradeGradeAndCDUBuilding Grade & ConditionBuilding Grade & ConditionHeatDes1Heating/Cooling TypeHeating type 1 descriptionHeatTyp1Heating/Cooling CodeHeating type 1FireplaceCountFireplacesFireplacesSTRUC_VALStructure ValueValue of structure(s) on the propertyLAND_VALUETax Land ValueValue of the land on the propertyOTHER_VALOther Structures ValueOther value of the propertyTotal_EMVTotal Estimated Market ValueTotal estimated tax valueSaleImprovedorVacantSALE_PRICEVacant or Improved SaleRecorded Sale PriceVacant of Improved SaleRecorded sale priceSaleDateRecorded Sale DateRecorded sale dateSubdivision_NameSubdivision NameSubdivision NameSubdivision_Platbk_pagSubdivision Plat Book/PakeSubdivision Plat Book and PageCommissioner_DistrictCommissioner District #Commissioner"s DistrictCommissioner_Name1Commissioner NameCommissioner"s NameCommissioner_InfoCommissioner LinkLink to Commissioner"s contact info Elementary_SchoolElementary DistrictElementary school name/districtMiddle_SchoolMiddle School DistrictMiddle School name/districtHigh_SchoolHigh School DistrictHigh school name/districtIsImprovedProperty ImprovedBuilt on = 1, Vacant = 0IsQualifiedQualified SaleQualified = 1, Not Qualified = 0Use_codeTax Use CodeLand use codeUse_descTax Use Code DescriptionLand use descriptionPerm_De1Permit # 1 DescriptionPermit #1 descriptionPerm_De2Permit # 2 DescriptionPermit #2 descriptionPerm_Is1Permit # 1 Issue DatePermit #1 issue datePerm_Is2Permit # 2 Issue DatePermit #2 issue datePerm_N1Permit # 1 NumberPermit #1Perm_N2Permit #2 NumberPermit #2Perm_Ty1Permit # 1 TypePermit #1 typePerm_Ty2Permit # 2 TypePermit #2 typeACTL_DA1Permit #1 Completion DatePermit #1 - actual completion dateACTL_DA2Permit #2 Completion DatePermit #2 - actual completion dateReviewedDateTax Office Review DateDate ReviewedNoise_lvlBogue Air Field Noise LevelNoise level zones surrounding military air basesRisk_levelBogue Landing Risk LevelRisk level for military air plane accident potential within the AICUZ zonesaicuzBogue Air Field AICUZAir Installation Compatible Use Zone - planning zones pertaining to military air bases and the surrounding real estateOBJECTIDOBJECTIDESRI default unique IDSHAPEShapeESRI default fieldSHAPE.STArea()Shape AreaESRI default fieldSHAPE.STLength()Shape PerimeterESRI default field

In this tutorial, you will be introduced to the basics of the ArcGIS Online Web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) software tool. You will begin by exploring spatial data in the form of map layers that are available on the Web as well as map applications (apps). You will then use the ArcGIS Online Map Viewer to search for content, add features to a map, and save and share your completed map with others.

The GIS Analytics market is booming, projected to reach $2979.7 million by 2025, with a 5.6% CAGR. Discover key drivers, trends, and restraints shaping this dynamic industry, including cloud adoption, location intelligence, and AI integration. Leading companies and regional market analysis are included.

These are the main layers that were used in the mapping and analysis for the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 26, 2014, and certified by the California Coastal Commission on October 10, 2014. Below are some links to important documents and web mapping applications, as well as a link to the actual GIS data:

Plan Website – This has links to the actual plan, maps, and a link to our online web mapping application known as SMMLCP-NET. Click here for website. Online Web Mapping Application – This is the online web mapping application that shows all the layers associated with the plan. These are the same layers that are available for download below. Click here for the web mapping application. GIS Layers – This is a link to the GIS layers in the form of an ArcGIS Map Package, click here (LINK TO FOLLOW SOON) for ArcGIS Map Package (version 10.3). Also, included are layers in shapefile format. Those are included below.

Below is a list of the GIS Layers provided (shapefile format):

Recreation (Zipped - 5 MB - click here)

Coastal Zone Campground Trails (2012 National Park Service) Backbone Trail Class III Bike Route – Existing Class III Bike Route – Proposed

Scenic Resources (Zipped - 3 MB - click here)

Significant Ridgeline State-Designated Scenic Highway State-Designated Scenic Highway 200-foot buffer Scenic Route Scenic Route 200-foot buffer Scenic Element

Biological Resources (Zipped - 45 MB - click here)

National Hydrography Dataset – Streams H2 Habitat (High Scrutiny) H1 Habitat H1 Habitat 100-foot buffer H1 Habitat Quiet Zone H2 Habitat H3 Habitat

Hazards (Zipped - 8 MB - click here)

FEMA Flood Zone (100-year flood plain) Liquefaction Zone (Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential) Landslide Area (Earthquake-Induced Landslide Potential) Fire Hazard and Responsibility Area

Zoning and Land Use (Zipped - 13 MB - click here)

Malibu LCP – LUP (1986) Malibu LCP – Zoning (1986) Land Use Policy Zoning

Other Layers (Zipped - 38 MB - click here)

Coastal Commission Appeal Jurisdiction Community Names Santa Monica Mountains (SMM) Coastal Zone Boundary Pepperdine University Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Rural Village

Contact the L.A. County Dept. of Regional Planning's GIS Section if you have questions. Send to our email.

This research study considers one such urban technology, namely utilising digital twins in cities. Digital twin city (DTC) technology is investigated to identify the gap in soft infrastructure data inclusion in DTC development. Soft infrastructure data considers the social and economic systems of a city, which leads to the identification of socio-economic security (SES) as the metric of investigation. The study also investigated how GIS mapping of the SES system in the specific context of Hatfield informs a soft infrastructure understanding that contributes to DTC readiness. This research study collected desk-researched secondary data and field-researched primary data in GIS using ArcGIS PRO and the Esri Online Platform using ArcGIS software. To form conclusions, grounded theory qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics analysis of the spatial GIS data schema data sets were performed.

The HUD GIS Boundary Files are intended to supplement boundary files available from the U.S. Census Bureau. The files are for community planners interested in working with census tract and block group data that splits by jurisdiction boundaries (summary levels 080, 090, and 091). The GIS shape files are most helpful when linked with census tract and block group data downloaded from the census standard tabulation data, CDBG low/mod area data (summary level 090), or the CHAS 2000 data (summary levels 080 and 091).

The Global GIS Mapping Tools Market is poised for significant expansion, projected to reach a substantial market size of $10 billion by 2025, with an anticipated Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 12.5% through 2033. This robust growth trajectory is fueled by the increasing demand for advanced spatial analysis and visualization capabilities across a multitude of sectors. Key drivers include the escalating need for accurate geological exploration to identify and manage natural resources, the critical role of GIS in planning and executing complex water conservancy projects for sustainable water management, and the indispensable application of GIS in urban planning for efficient city development and infrastructure management. Furthermore, the burgeoning adoption of cloud-based and web-based GIS solutions is democratizing access to powerful mapping tools, enabling broader use by organizations of all sizes. The market is also benefiting from advancements in data processing, artificial intelligence integration, and the growing availability of open-source GIS platforms. Despite the optimistic outlook, certain restraints could temper the market's full potential. High initial investment costs for sophisticated GIS software and hardware, coupled with a shortage of skilled GIS professionals in certain regions, may pose challenges. However, the overwhelming benefits of enhanced decision-making, improved operational efficiency, and the ability to gain deep insights from spatial data are compelling organizations to overcome these hurdles. The competitive landscape is dynamic, featuring established players like Esri and Autodesk alongside innovative providers such as Mapbox and CARTO, all vying for market share by offering specialized features, user-friendly interfaces, and integrated solutions. The continuous evolution of GIS technology, driven by the integration of remote sensing data, big data analytics, and real-time information, will continue to shape the market's future. Here's a comprehensive report description on GIS Mapping Tools, incorporating your specified requirements:

This in-depth report provides a panoramic view of the global GIS Mapping Tools market, meticulously analyzing its landscape from the Historical Period (2019-2024) through to the Forecast Period (2025-2033), with 2025 serving as both the Base Year and the Estimated Year. The study period encompasses 2019-2033, offering a robust historical context and forward-looking projections. The market is valued in the millions of US dollars, with detailed segment-specific valuations and growth trajectories. The report is structured to deliver actionable intelligence to stakeholders, covering market concentration, key trends, regional dominance, product insights, and critical industry dynamics. It delves into the intricate interplay of companies such as Esri, Hexagon, Autodesk, CARTO, and Mapbox, alongside emerging players like Geoway and Shenzhen Edraw Software, across diverse applications including Geological Exploration, Water Conservancy Projects, and Urban Planning. The analysis also differentiates between Cloud Based and Web Based GIS solutions, providing a granular understanding of market segmentation.

Some of the highest grade uranium (U) deposits in the United States are hosted by solution-collapse breccia pipes in the Grand Canyon region of northern Arizona. These structures are named for their vertical, pipe-like shape and the broken rock (breccia) that fills them. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these structures exist. Not all of the breccia pipes are mineralized; only a small percentage of the identified breccia pipes are known to contain an economic uranium deposit. An unresolved question is how many undiscovered U-bearing breccia pipes of this type exist in northern Arizona, in the region sometimes referred to as the “Arizona Strip”. Two principal questions remain regarding the breccia pipe U deposits of northern Arizona are: (1) What processes combined to form these unusual structures and their U deposits? and (2) How many undiscovered U deposits hosted by breccia pipes exist in the region? A piece of information required to answer these questions is to define the area where these types of deposits could exist based on available geologic information. In order to determine the regional processes that led to their formation, the regional distribution of U-bearing breccia pipes must be considered. These geospatial datasets were assembled in support of this goal.

These data were compiled to perform analyses of hydrologic change, changes in sediment transport, and channel change within Moenkopi Wash, Arizona. Objective(s) of our study were to quantify the magnitude and timing of changes in hydrology, sediment transport, and channel form within Moenkopi Wash and to determine the downstream effects of those changes on sediment delivery downstream to the Little Colorado River, and the Colorado River. These data represent instantaneous discharge records, suspended-sediment sample records, topographic survey data, historical aerial imagery, and channel polygons and centerlines mapped on the historical imagery. Instantaneous discharge records in this study began in 1926 and extend to 2022 and were collected at 5 different stream gages within Moenkopi Wash. Suspended-sediment samples were collected between 1948 and 2022 at four stream gage locations. Topographic datasets were collected by field surveys between 1940 and 2016 at five stream gage locations. Aerial imagery datasets were collected in the 1930s, 1952, 1968, 1979, 1992, 1997, 2007, 2013, and 2019. The 1968 and 1979 aerial imagery was collected by the U. S. Geological Survey. The 1952 imagery was collected by the U.S. Army Map Service. The 1992 and 1997 imagery were collected by the National Aerial Imagery Program. The 2007, 2013 and 2019 aerial images were collected by the National Agricultural Program. These data can be used to analyze changes in hydrology, sediment transport, and channel change within Moenkopi Wash.

Note: The schema changed in February 2025 - please see below. We will post a roadmap of upcoming changes, but service URLs and schema are now stable. For deployment status of new services beginning in February 2025, see https://gis.data.ca.gov/pages/city-and-county-boundary-data-status. Additional roadmap and status links at the bottom of this metadata.This dataset is regularly updated as the source data from CDTFA is updated, as often as many times a month. If you require unchanging point-in-time data, export a copy for your own use rather than using the service directly in your applications. PurposeCounty boundaries along with third party identifiers used to join in external data. Boundaries are from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). These boundaries are the best available statewide data source in that CDTFA receives changes in incorporation and boundary lines from the Board of Equalization, who receives them from local jurisdictions for tax purposes. Boundary accuracy is not guaranteed, and though CDTFA works to align boundaries based on historical records and local changes, errors will exist. If you require a legal assessment of boundary location, contact a licensed surveyor.This dataset joins in multiple attributes and identifiers from the US Census Bureau and Board on Geographic Names to facilitate adding additional third party data sources. In addition, we attach attributes of our own to ease and reduce common processing needs and questions. Finally, coastal buffers are separated into separate polygons, leaving the land-based portions of jurisdictions and coastal buffers in adjacent polygons. This feature layer is for public use. Related LayersThis dataset is part of a grouping of many datasets:Cities: Only the city boundaries and attributes, without any unincorporated areasWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCounties: Full county boundaries and attributes, including all cities within as a single polygonWith Coastal Buffers (this dataset)Without Coastal BuffersCities and Full Counties: A merge of the other two layers, so polygons overlap within city boundaries. Some customers require this behavior, so we provide it as a separate service.With Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCity and County AbbreviationsUnincorporated Areas (Coming Soon)Census Designated PlacesCartographic CoastlinePolygonLine source (Coming Soon)State BoundaryWith Bay CutsWithout Bay Cuts Working with Coastal Buffers The dataset you are currently viewing includes the coastal buffers for cities and counties that have them in the source data from CDTFA. In the versions where they are included, they remain as a second polygon on cities or counties that have them, with all the same identifiers, and a value in the COASTAL field indicating if it"s an ocean or a bay buffer. If you wish to have a single polygon per jurisdiction that includes the coastal buffers, you can run a Dissolve on the version that has the coastal buffers on all the fields except OFFSHORE and AREA_SQMI to get a version with the correct identifiers. Point of ContactCalifornia Department of Technology, Office of Digital Services, gis@state.ca.gov Field and Abbreviation DefinitionsCDTFA_COUNTY: CDTFA county name. For counties, this will be the name of the polygon itself. For cities, it is the name of the county the city polygon is within.CDTFA_COPRI: county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering system. The boundary data originate with CDTFA's teams managing tax rate information, so this field is preserved and flows into this dataset.CENSUS_GEOID: numeric geographic identifiers from the US Census BureauCENSUS_PLACE_TYPE: City, County, or Town, stripped off the census name for identification purpose.GNIS_PLACE_NAME: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for area names published in the Geographic Name Information SystemGNIS_ID: The numeric identifier from the Board on Geographic Names that can be used to join these boundaries to other datasets utilizing this identifier.CDT_COUNTY_ABBR: Abbreviations of county names - originally derived from CalTrans Division of Local Assistance and now managed by CDT. Abbreviations are 3 characters.CDT_NAME_SHORT: The name of the jurisdiction (city or county) with the word "City" or "County" stripped off the end. Some changes may come to how we process this value to make it more consistent.AREA_SQMI: The area of the administrative unit (city or county) in square miles, calculated in EPSG 3310 California Teale Albers.OFFSHORE: Indicates if the polygon is a coastal buffer. Null for land polygons. Additional values include "ocean" and "bay".PRIMARY_DOMAIN: Currently empty/null for all records. Placeholder field for official URL of the city or countyCENSUS_POPULATION: Currently null for all records. In the future, it will include the most recent US Census population estimate for the jurisdiction.GlobalID: While all of the layers we provide in this dataset include a GlobalID field with unique values, we do not recommend you make any use of it. The GlobalID field exists to support offline sync, but is not persistent, so data keyed to it will be orphaned at our next update. Use one of the other persistent identifiers, such as GNIS_ID or GEOID instead. Boundary AccuracyCounty boundaries were originally derived from a 1:24,000 accuracy dataset, with improvements made in some places to boundary alignments based on research into historical records and boundary changes as CDTFA learns of them. City boundary data are derived from pre-GIS tax maps, digitized at BOE and CDTFA, with adjustments made directly in GIS for new annexations, detachments, and corrections.Boundary accuracy within the dataset varies. While CDTFA strives to correctly include or exclude parcels from jurisdictions for accurate tax assessment, this dataset does not guarantee that a parcel is placed in the correct jurisdiction. When a parcel is in the correct jurisdiction, this dataset cannot guarantee accurate placement of boundary lines within or between parcels or rights of way. This dataset also provides no information on parcel boundaries. For exact jurisdictional or parcel boundary locations, please consult the county assessor's office and a licensed surveyor. CDTFA's data is used as the best available source because BOE and CDTFA receive information about changes in jurisdictions which otherwise need to be collected independently by an agency or company to compile into usable map boundaries. CDTFA maintains the best available statewide boundary information. CDTFA's source data notes the following about accuracy: City boundary changes and county boundary line adjustments filed with the Board of Equalization per Government Code 54900. This GIS layer contains the boundaries of the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the state of California. The initial dataset was created in March of 2015 and was based on the State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates. The boundaries are continuously being revised to align with aerial imagery when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations. Boundary ProcessingThese data make a structural change from the source data. While the full boundaries provided by CDTFA include coastal buffers of varying sizes, many users need boundaries to end at the shoreline of the ocean or a bay. As a result, after examining existing city and county boundary layers, these datasets provide a coastline cut generally along the ocean facing coastline. For county boundaries in northern California, the cut runs near the Golden Gate Bridge, while for cities, we cut along the bay shoreline and into the edge of the Delta at the boundaries of Solano, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties. In the services linked above, the versions that include the coastal buffers contain them as a second (or third) polygon for the city or county, with the value in the COASTAL field set to whether it"s a bay or ocean polygon. These can be processed back into a single polygon by dissolving on all the fields you wish to keep, since the attributes, other than the COASTAL field and geometry attributes (like areas) remain the same between the polygons for this purpose. SliversIn cases where a city or county"s boundary ends near a coastline, our coastline data may cross back and forth many times while roughly paralleling the jurisdiction"s boundary, resulting in many polygon slivers. We post-process the data to remove these slivers using a city/county boundary priority algorithm. That is, when the data run parallel to each other, we discard the coastline cut and keep the CDTFA-provided boundary, even if it extends into the ocean a small amount. This processing supports consistent boundaries for Fort Bragg, Point Arena, San Francisco, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, and Capitola, in addition to others. More information on this algorithm will be provided soon. Coastline CaveatsSome cities have buffers extending into water bodies that we do not cut at the shoreline. These include South Lake Tahoe and Folsom, which extend into neighboring lakes, and San Diego and surrounding cities that extend into San Diego Bay, which our shoreline encloses. If you have feedback on the exclusion of these

The GIS-based Time model of Gothenburg aims to map the process of urban development in Gothenburg since 1960 and in particular to document the changes in the spatial form of the city - streets, buildings and plots - through time. Major steps have in recent decades been taken when it comes to understanding how cities work. Essential is the change from understanding cities as locations to understanding them as flows (Batty 2013)1. In principle this means that we need to understand locations (or places) as defined by flows (or different forms of traffic), rather than locations only served by flows. This implies that we need to understand the built form and spatial structure of cities as a system, that by shaping flows creates a series of places with very specific relations to all other places in the city, which also give them very specific performative potentials. It also implies the rather fascinating notion that what happens in one place is dependent on its relation to all other places (Hillier 1996)2. Hence, to understand the individual place, we need a model of the city as a whole.

Extensive research in this direction has taken place in recent years, that has also spilled over to urban design practice, not least in Sweden, where the idea that to understand the part you need to understand the whole is starting to be established. With the GIS-based Time model for Gothenburg that we present here, we address the next challenge. Place is not only something defined by its spatial relation to all other places in its system, but also by its history, or its evolution over time. Since the built form of the city changes over time, often by cities growing but at times also by cities shrinking, the spatial relation between places changes over time. If cities tend to grow, and most often by extending their periphery, it means that most places get a more central location over time. If this is a general tendency, it does not mean that all places increase their centrality to an equal degree. Depending on the structure of the individual city’s spatial form, different places become more centrally located to different degrees as well as their relative distance to other places changes to different degrees. The even more fascinating notion then becomes apparent; places move over time! To capture, study and understand this, we need a "time model".

The GIS-based time model of Gothenburg consists of: • 12 GIS-layers of the street network, from 1960 to 2015, in 5-year intervals • 12 GIS-layers of the buildings from 1960 to 2015, in 5-year intervals - Please note that this dataset has been moved to a separate catalog post (https://doi.org/10.5878/t8s9-6y15) and unpublished due to licensing restrictions on its source dataset. • 12 GIS- layers of the plots from1960 to 2015, in 5-year intervals

In the GIS-based Time model, for every time-frame, the combination of the three fundamental components of spatial form, that is streets, plots and buildings, provides a consistent description of the built environment at that particular time. The evolution of three components can be studied individually, where one could for example analyze the changing patterns of street centrality over time by focusing on the street network; or, the densification processes by focusing on the buildings; or, the expansion of the city by way of occupying more buildable land, by focusing on plots. The combined snapshots of street centrality, density and land division can provide insightful observations about the spatial form of the city at each time-frame; for example, the patterns of spatial segregation, the distribution of urban density or the patterns of sprawl. The observation of how the interrelated layers of spatial form together evolved and transformed through time can provide a more complete image of the patterns of urban growth in the city.

The Time model was created following the principles of the model of spatial form of the city, as developed by the Spatial Morphology Group (SMoG) at Chalmers University of Technology, within the three-year research project ‘International Spatial Morphology Lab (SMoL)’.

The project is funded by Älvstranden Utveckling AB in the framework of a larger cooperation project called Fusion Point Gothenburg. The data is shared via SND to create a research infrastructure that is open to new study initiatives.

1. Batty, M. (2013), The New Science of Cities, Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Hillier, B., (1996), Space Is the Machine. Cambridge: University of Cambridge

• 12 GIS-layers of the street network in Gothenburg, from 1960 to 2015, in 5-year intervals. File format: shapefile (.shp), MapinfoTAB (.TAB). The coordinate system used is SWEREF 99TM, EPSG:3006.

• 12 GIS-layers of plots in Gothenburg, from 1960 to 2015, in 5-year intervals. Only built upon plots (plots with buildings) are included. File format: shapefile (.shp), MapinfoTAB (.TAB). The coordinate system used is SWEREF 99TM, EPSG:3006.

See the attached Technical Documentation for the description and further details on the production of the datasets. See the attached Report for the description of the related research project.

Collection of Feature Layers for early Broadband Initiative Work. 9-1-1 systems and telecommunications infrastructure also including mobile broadband deployment by technology type and by carrier.Non-DCRA data - collected by MatSu Borough from other Sources for very early Broadband Initiative research July 2021. Original Source as NotedPublic Safety Answering Points: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/Public_Safety_Answering_Points/FeatureServer (Phone and email survey July 2020)Call Routing: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/FINAL_Call_Routing/FeatureServer (ATA Call Routing Survey 2020)Telecommunication Towers from FCC: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/Cell_Towers_from_FCC/FeatureServer (8/3/2020 FCC Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) download Circa Jan 2024 see https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/systems-utilities/antenna-structure-registration. This may be already distributed in GIS form by the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) Portal (broken into various layers) see https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/Wireless Coverage 4G LTE: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/Alaska_4GLTE_Wireless_Coverage/FeatureServer (FCC Form 477 data for Alaska using combined carriers delivering technology code 83)Wireless Coverage 3G 4G: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/Alaska_3G_4G_Wireless_Coverage/FeatureServer (FCC Form 477 data for Alaska using combined carriers delivering technology code 81, HSPA+)Wireless Coverage 3G: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/Alaska_3G_Wireless_Coverage/FeatureServer (Geographic extent of 3G wireless technology in Alaska compiled from all providers. Data from FCC Form 477 current as of June 2019)Wireless Coverage Analog: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/Alaska_Analog_Wireless_Coverage/FeatureServer (Geographic extent of analog wireless technology in Alaska compiled from all providers. Data from FCC Form 477 current as of June 2019)Wireless Coverage 2G: https://services.arcgis.com/fX5IGselyy1TirdY/ArcGIS/rest/services/Alaska_2G_Wireless_Coverage/FeatureServer (Geographic extent of 2G wireless technology in Alaska compiled from all providers. Data from FCC Form 477 current as of June 2019)State Trooper Detachments (other than North Slope): https://services3.arcgis.com/3NvWZvRqANiCzqqd/ArcGIS/rest/services/AST_Detachments/FeatureServer (Alaska State Trooper Jurisdictions and Operational Area by Detachment. Revised 9/2020)This data has been visualized in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) format and is provided as a service in the DCRA Information Portal by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Community and Regional Affairs (SOA DCCED DCRA), Research and Analysis section and was last posted on July 1, 2021. SOA DCCED DCRA Research and Analysis is not the authoritative source for this data. For more information and for questions about this data, see: Mat-Su Open Data

This geodatabase reflects the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) ongoing commitment to its mission of understanding the nature and distribution of global mineral commodity supply chains by updating and publishing the georeferenced locations of mineral commodity production and processing facilities, mineral exploration and development sites, and mineral commodity exporting ports in Africa. The geodatabase and geospatial data layers serve to create a new geographic information product in the form of a geospatial portable document format (PDF) map. The geodatabase contains data layers from USGS, foreign governmental, and open-source sources as follows: (1) mineral production and processing facilities, (2) mineral exploration and development sites, (3) mineral occurrence sites and deposits, (4) undiscovered mineral resource tracts for Gabon and Mauritania, (5) undiscovered mineral resource tracts for potash, platinum-group elements, and copper, (6) coal occurrence areas, (7) electric power generating facilities, (8) electric power transmission lines, (9) liquefied natural gas terminals, (10) oil and gas pipelines, (11) undiscovered, technically recoverable conventional and continuous hydrocarbon resources (by USGS geologic/petroleum province), (12) cumulative production, and recoverable conventional resources (by oil- and gas-producing nation), (13) major mineral exporting maritime ports, (14) railroads, (15) major roads, (16) major cities, (17) major lakes, (18) major river systems, (19) first-level administrative division (ADM1) boundaries for all countries in Africa, and (20) international boundaries for all countries in Africa.

The GIS house number retained in Taichung City in 2015, fields (county code, administrative district code, administrative district name, village, neighborhood, street name, area, lane, alley, house number, floor, full name, X coordinate, Y coordinate)

This mapping tool provides a representation of the general watershed boundaries for stream systems declared fully appropriated by the State Water Board. The boundaries were created by Division of Water Rights staff by delineating FASS critical reaches and consolidating HUC 12 sub-watersheds to form FASS Watershed boundaries. As such, the boundaries are in most cases conservative with respect to the associated stream system. However, users should check neighboring FASS Watersheds to ensure the stream system of interest is not restricted by other FASS listings. For more information regarding the Declaration of Fully Appropriated Stream Systems, visit the Division of Water Rights’ Fully Appropriated Streams webpage. How to Use the Interactive Mapping Tool: If it is your first time viewing the map, you will need to click the “OK” box on the splash screen and agree to the disclaimer before continuing. Navigate to your point of interest by either using the search bar or by zooming in on the map. You may enter a stream name, street address, or watershed ID in the search bar. Click on the map to identify the location of interest and one or more pop-up boxes may appear with information about the fully appropriated stream systems within the general watershed boundaries of the identified location. The information provided in the pop-up box may include: (a) stream name, (b) tributary, (c) season declared fully appropriated, (d) Board Decisions/Water Right Orders, and/or (e) court references/adjudications. You may toggle the FAS Streams reference layer on and off to find representative critical reaches associated with the FASS Watershed layer. Please note that this layer is for general reference purposes only and ultimately the critical reach listed in Appendix A of Water Rights Order 98-08 and Appendix A together with any associated footnotes controls. Note: A separate FAS Watershed boundary layer was created for the Bay-Delta Watershed. The Bay-Delta Watershed layer should be toggled on to check if the area of interest is fully appropriated under State Water Board Decision 1594.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

This file contains the 65 cities and towns in Massachusetts for which MBTA bus or rapid transit service is provided. This data is based off of the 2010 census. The legislative intent for some boundaries could not be mapped. Boundaries where that is true are identified in the attribute information. Name Description Data Type Example town_name Full name for the MA town or city identification. String Boston town_id MassGIS Town-ID Code (alphabetical, 1-351) Numeric 34 sum_acres Area covered by the town or city in acres. Double 31304.22 sum_square Area covered by the town or city in square miles. Double 48.91 Use constraints: This data set, like all other cartographic products may contain inherent aberrations in geography or thematical errors. The boundaries included in this data set were developed using accepted GIS methodology. Cartographic products can never truly represent real-world conditions due to several factors. These factors can include, but are not limited to: human error upon digitizing, computational tolerance of the computer, or the distortion of map symbology. Because of these factors MassGIS cannot be held legally responsible for personal or property damages resulting from any type of use of the data set. These boundaries are suitable for map display and planning purposes. They cannot be used as a substitute for the work of a professional land surveyor.MassDOT/MBTA shall not be held liable for any errors in this data. This includes errors of omission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data, and relative and positional accuracy of the data. This data cannot be construed to be a legal document. Primary sources from which this data was compiled must be consulted for verification of information contained in this data.