The Means of Transportation to Work dataset was compiled using information from December 31, 2023 and updated December 12, 2024 from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The Means of Transportation to Work table from the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates was joined to 2023 tract-level geographies for all 50 States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico provided by the Census Bureau. A new file was created that combines the demographic variables from the former with the cartographic boundaries of the latter. The national level census tract layer contains data on the number and percentage of commuters (workers 16 years and over) that used various transportation modes to get to work.

The establishment of a BES Multi-User Geodatabase (BES-MUG) allows for the storage, management, and distribution of geospatial data associated with the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. At present, BES data is distributed over the internet via the BES website. While having geospatial data available for download is a vast improvement over having the data housed at individual research institutions, it still suffers from some limitations. BES-MUG overcomes these limitations; improving the quality of the geospatial data available to BES researches, thereby leading to more informed decision-making. BES-MUG builds on Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcGIS and ArcSDE technology. ESRI was selected because its geospatial software offers robust capabilities. ArcGIS is implemented agency-wide within the USDA and is the predominant geospatial software package used by collaborating institutions. Commercially available enterprise database packages (DB2, Oracle, SQL) provide an efficient means to store, manage, and share large datasets. However, standard database capabilities are limited with respect to geographic datasets because they lack the ability to deal with complex spatial relationships. By using ESRI's ArcSDE (Spatial Database Engine) in conjunction with database software, geospatial data can be handled much more effectively through the implementation of the Geodatabase model. Through ArcSDE and the Geodatabase model the database's capabilities are expanded, allowing for multiuser editing, intelligent feature types, and the establishment of rules and relationships. ArcSDE also allows users to connect to the database using ArcGIS software without being burdened by the intricacies of the database itself. For an example of how BES-MUG will help improve the quality and timeless of BES geospatial data consider a census block group layer that is in need of updating. Rather than the researcher downloading the dataset, editing it, and resubmitting to through ORS, access rules will allow the authorized user to edit the dataset over the network. Established rules will ensure that the attribute and topological integrity is maintained, so that key fields are not left blank and that the block group boundaries stay within tract boundaries. Metadata will automatically be updated showing who edited the dataset and when they did in the event any questions arise. Currently, a functioning prototype Multi-User Database has been developed for BES at the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab, using Arc SDE and IBM's DB2 Enterprise Database as a back end architecture. This database, which is currently only accessible to those on the UVM campus network, will shortly be migrated to a Linux server where it will be accessible for database connections over the Internet. Passwords can then be handed out to all interested researchers on the project, who will be able to make a database connection through the Geographic Information Systems software interface on their desktop computer. This database will include a very large number of thematic layers. Those layers are currently divided into biophysical, socio-economic and imagery categories. Biophysical includes data on topography, soils, forest cover, habitat areas, hydrology and toxics. Socio-economics includes political and administrative boundaries, transportation and infrastructure networks, property data, census data, household survey data, parks, protected areas, land use/land cover, zoning, public health and historic land use change. Imagery includes a variety of aerial and satellite imagery. See the readme: http://96.56.36.108/geodatabase_SAL/readme.txt See the file listing: http://96.56.36.108/geodatabase_SAL/diroutput.txt

This data release contains the analytical results and evaluated source data files of geospatial analyses for identifying areas in Alaska that may be prospective for different types of lode gold deposits, including orogenic, reduced-intrusion-related, epithermal, and gold-bearing porphyry. The spatial analysis is based on queries of statewide source datasets of aeromagnetic surveys, Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB3), Alaska Resource Data File (ARDF), and Alaska Geologic Map (SIM3340) within areas defined by 12-digit HUCs (subwatersheds) from the National Watershed Boundary dataset. The packages of files available for download are: 1. LodeGold_Results_gdb.zip - The analytical results in geodatabase polygon feature classes which contain the scores for each source dataset layer query, the accumulative score, and a designation for high, medium, or low potential and high, medium, or low certainty for a deposit type within the HUC. The data is described by FGDC metadata. An mxd file, and cartographic feature classes are provided for display of the results in ArcMap. An included README file describes the complete contents of the zip file. 2. LodeGold_Results_shape.zip - Copies of the results from the geodatabase are also provided in shapefile and CSV formats. The included README file describes the complete contents of the zip file. 3. LodeGold_SourceData_gdb.zip - The source datasets in geodatabase and geotiff format. Data layers include aeromagnetic surveys, AGDB3, ARDF, lithology from SIM3340, and HUC subwatersheds. The data is described by FGDC metadata. An mxd file and cartographic feature classes are provided for display of the source data in ArcMap. Also included are the python scripts used to perform the analyses. Users may modify the scripts to design their own analyses. The included README files describe the complete contents of the zip file and explain the usage of the scripts. 4. LodeGold_SourceData_shape.zip - Copies of the geodatabase source dataset derivatives from ARDF and lithology from SIM3340 created for this analysis are also provided in shapefile and CSV formats. The included README file describes the complete contents of the zip file.

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.

This dataset includes all 7 metro counties that have made their parcel data freely available without a license or fees.

This dataset is a compilation of tax parcel polygon and point layers assembled into a common coordinate system from Twin Cities, Minnesota metropolitan area counties. No attempt has been made to edgematch or rubbersheet between counties. A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. The attributes are the same for the polygon and points layers. Not all attributes are populated for all counties.

NOTICE: The standard set of attributes changed to the MN Parcel Data Transfer Standard on 1/1/2019.
https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

See section 5 of the metadata for an attribute summary.

Detailed information about the attributes can be found in the Metro Regional Parcel Attributes document.

The polygon layer contains one record for each real estate/tax parcel polygon within each county's parcel dataset. Some counties have polygons for each individual condominium, and others do not. (See Completeness in Section 2 of the metadata for more information.) The points layer includes the same attribute fields as the polygon dataset. The points are intended to provide information in situations where multiple tax parcels are represented by a single polygon. One primary example of this is the condominium, though some counties stacked polygons for condos. Condominiums, by definition, are legally owned as individual, taxed real estate units. Records for condominiums may not show up in the polygon dataset. The points for the point dataset often will be randomly placed or stacked within the parcel polygon with which they are associated.

The polygon layer is broken into individual county shape files. The points layer is provided as both individual county files and as one file for the entire metro area.

In many places a one-to-one relationship does not exist between these parcel polygons or points and the actual buildings or occupancy units that lie within them. There may be many buildings on one parcel and there may be many occupancy units (e.g. apartments, stores or offices) within each building. Additionally, no information exists within this dataset about residents of parcels. Parcel owner and taxpayer information exists for many, but not all counties.

This is a MetroGIS Regionally Endorsed dataset.

Additional information may be available from each county at the links listed below. Also, any questions or comments about suspected errors or omissions in this dataset can be addressed to the contact person at each individual county.

Anoka = http://www.anokacounty.us/315/GIS
Caver = http://www.co.carver.mn.us/GIS
Dakota = http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/homeproperty/propertymaps/pages/default.aspx
Hennepin = https://gis-hennepin.hub.arcgis.com/pages/open-data
Ramsey = https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/open-government/research-data
Scott = http://opendata.gis.co.scott.mn.us/
Washington: http://www.co.washington.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=1606

The Hydrology Feature Dataset contains photogrammetrically compiled water drainage features and structures including rivers, streams, drainage canals, locks, dams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs and mooring cells. Lakes are large standing bodies of water greater than 5 acres in size. Ponds are large standing bodies of water greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres in size. Polygons are created from Stream edges and River Edges. The Ohio River, Monongahela River and Allegheny River are coded as Major River polygons. All other River and Stream polygons are coded as River. A Drainage Canal is a manmade or channelized hydrographic feature. Drainage Canals are differentiated from streams in that drainage canals have had the sides and/or bottom stabilized to prevent erosion for the predominant length of the feature. Streams may have had some stabilization done, but are primarily in a natural state. Lakes are large standing bodies of water greater than five acres in size. Ponds are large standing bodies of water greater than one acre in size and less than five acres in size. Reservoirs are manmade embankments of water. Included in this definition are both covered and uncovered water tanks. Reservoirs that are greater than one acre in size are digitized. Hidden Streams, Hidden Rivers and Hidden Drainage Canal or Culverts are those areas of drainage where the water flows through a manmade facility such as a culvert. Hydrology Annotation is not being updated but will be preserved. If a drainage feature has been removed, as apparent on the aerial photography, the associated drainage name annotation will be removed. A Mooring Cell is a structure to which tows can tie off while awaiting lockage. They are normally constructed of concrete and steel and are anchored to the river bottom by means of gravity or sheet piling. Mooring Cells do not currently exist in the Allegheny County dataset but will be added. Locks are devices that are used to control flow or access to a hydrologic feature. The edges of the Lock are captured. Dams are devices that are used to hold or delay the natural flow of water. The edges of the Dam are shown.

The CalFish Abundance Database contains a comprehensive collection of anadromous fisheries abundance information. Beginning in 1998, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, began a cooperative project aimed at collecting, archiving, and entering into standardized electronic formats, the wealth of information generated by fisheries resource management agencies and tribes throughout California.Extensive data are currently available for chinook, coho, and steelhead. Major data categories include adult abundance population estimates, actual fish and/or carcass counts, counts of fish collected at dams, weirs, or traps, and redd counts. Harvest data has been compiled for many streams, and hatchery return data has been compiled for the states mitigation facilities. A draft format has been developed for juvenile abundance and awaits final approval. This CalFish Abundance Database shapefile was generated from fully routed 1:100,000 hydrography. In a few cases streams had to be added to the hydrography dataset in order to provide a means to create shapefiles to represent abundance data associated with them. Streams added were digitized at no more than 1:24,000 scale based on stream line images portrayed in 1:24,000 Digital Raster Graphics (DRG).These features generally represent abundance counts resulting from stream surveys. The linear features in this layer typically represent the location for which abundance data records apply. This would be the reach or length of stream surveyed, or the stream sections for which a given population estimate applies. In some cases the actual stream section surveyed was not specified and linear features represent the entire stream. In many cases there are multiple datasets associated with the same length of stream, and so, linear features overlap. Please view the associated datasets for detail regarding specific features. In CalFish these are accessed through the "link" that is visible when performing an identify or query operation. A URL string is provided with each feature in the downloadable data which can also be used to access the underlying datasets.The coho data that is available via the CalFish website is actually linked directly to the StreamNet website where the database's tabular data is currently stored. Additional information about StreamNet may be downloaded at http://www.streamnet.org. Complete documentation for the StreamNet database may be accessed at http://http://www.streamnet.org/def.html

This dataset is a compilation of address point data for the City of Tempe. The dataset contains a point location, the official address (as defined by The Building Safety Division of Community Development) for all occupiable units and any other official addresses in the City. There are several additional attributes that may be populated for an address, but they may not be populated for every address. Contact: Lynn Flaaen-Hanna, Development Services Specialist Contact E-mail Link: Map that Lets You Explore and Export Address Data Data Source: The initial dataset was created by combining several datasets and then reviewing the information to remove duplicates and identify errors. This published dataset is the system of record for Tempe addresses going forward, with the address information being created and maintained by The Building Safety Division of Community Development.Data Source Type: ESRI ArcGIS Enterprise GeodatabasePreparation Method: N/APublish Frequency: WeeklyPublish Method: AutomaticData Dictionary

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 "GIS Boundary Information" dataset provides the SPEN licence area boundaries for our SP Distribution (SPD), SP Manweb (SPM) and SP Transmission (SPT) licence areas. Please note that the SPT licence area is essentially the same as the SPD licence area so is not included as a separate feature in the dataset.Licence Areas: SPD: Licenced Distribution Network Operator (DNO) for Central Belt and South of Scotland up to and including the 33kV network.SPM: Licenced Distribution Network Operator (DNO) for North Wales, Merseyside, Cheshire and North Shropshire up to and including the 132kV network.SPT: Licenced Transmission Network Owner (TNO) for the Central Belt and South of Scotland for network operating greater than or equal too 132kV.For additional information on column definitions, please click on the Dataset schema link below.Download dataset metadata (JSON)If you wish to provide feedback at a dataset or row level, please click on the “Feedback” tab above. Data Triage:As part of our commitment to enhancing the transparency, and accessibility of the data we share, we publish the results of our Data Triage process.Our Data Triage documentation includes our Risk Assessments; detailing any controls we have implemented to prevent exposure of sensitive information. Click here to access the Data Triage documentation for the GIS Boundary Information dataset.To access our full suite of Data Triage documentation, visit the SP Energy Networks Data & Information page.

This dataset is a compilation of tax parcel polygon and point layers from the seven Twin Cities, Minnesota metropolitan area counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. The seven counties were assembled into a common coordinate system. No attempt has been made to edgematch or rubbersheet between counties. A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. (See section 5 of the metadata). The attributes are the same for the polygon and points layers. Not all attributes are populated for all counties.

The polygon layer contains one record for each real estate/tax parcel polygon within each county's parcel dataset. Some counties will polygons for each individual condominium, and others do not. (See Completeness in Section 2 of the metadata for more information.) The points layer includes the same attribute fields as the polygon dataset. The points are intended to provide information in situations where multiple tax parcels are represented by a single polygon. The primary example of this is the condominium. Condominiums, by definition, are legally owned as individual, taxed real estate units. Records for condominiums may not show up in the polygon dataset. The points for the point dataset often will be randomly placed or stacked within the parcel polygon with which they are associated.

The polygon layer is broken into individual county shape files. The points layer is one file for the entire metro area.

In many places a one-to-one relationship does not exist between these parcel polygons or points and the actual buildings or occupancy units that lie within them. There may be many buildings on one parcel and there may be many occupancy units (e.g. apartments, stores or offices) within each building. Additionally, no information exists within this dataset about residents of parcels. Parcel owner and taxpayer information exists for many, but not all counties.

Polygon and point counts for each county are as follows (based on the January, 2007 dataset):

Anoka = 129,392 polygons, 129,392 points
Carver = 37,021 polygons, 37,021 points
Dakota = 135,586 polygons, 148,952 points
Hennepin = 358,064 polygons, 419,736 points
Ramsey = 148,967 polygons, 166,280 points
Scott = 54,741 polygons, 54,741 points
Washington = 97,922 polygons, 102,309 points

This is a MetroGIS Regionally Endorsed dataset.

Each of the seven Metro Area counties has entered into a multiparty agreement with the Metropolitan Council to assemble and distribute the parcel data for each county as a regional (seven county) parcel dataset.

A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. The attributes are identical for the point and polygon datasets. Not all attributes fields are populated by each county. Detailed information about the attributes can be found in the MetroGIS Regional Parcels Attributes 2006 document.

Additional information may be available in the individual metadata for each county at the links listed below. Also, any questions or comments about suspected errors or omissions in this dataset can be addressed to the contact person listed in the individual county metadata.

Anoka = http://www.anokacounty.us/315/GIS

Caver = http://www.co.carver.mn.us/GIS

Dakota = http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/homeproperty/propertymaps/pages/default.aspx

Hennepin: http://www.hennepin.us/gisopendata

Ramsey = https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/open-government/research-data

Scott = http://www.scottcountymn.gov/1183/GIS-Data-and-Maps

Washington = http://www.co.washington.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=1606

The dataset and the validation are fully described in a Nature Scientific Data Descriptor https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0265-5

If you want to use this dataset in an interactive environment, then use this link https://mybinder.org/v2/gh/GeographerAtLarge/TravelTime/HEAD

The following text is a summary of the information in the above Data Descriptor.

The dataset is a suite of global travel-time accessibility indicators for the year 2015, at approximately one-kilometre spatial resolution for the entire globe. The indicators show an estimated (and validated), land-based travel time to the nearest city and nearest port for a range of city and port sizes.

The datasets are in GeoTIFF format and are suitable for use in Geographic Information Systems and statistical packages for mapping access to cities and ports and for spatial and statistical analysis of the inequalities in access by different segments of the population.

These maps represent a unique global representation of physical access to essential services offered by cities and ports.

The datasets travel_time_to_cities_x.tif (where x has values from 1 to 12) The value of each pixel is the estimated travel time in minutes to the nearest urban area in 2015. There are 12 data layers based on different sets of urban areas, defined by their population in year 2015 (see PDF report).

travel_time_to_ports_x (x ranges from 1 to 5)

The value of each pixel is the estimated travel time to the nearest port in 2015. There are 5 data layers based on different port sizes.

Format Raster Dataset, GeoTIFF, LZW compressed Unit Minutes

Data type Byte (16 bit Unsigned Integer)

No data value 65535

Flags None

Spatial resolution 30 arc seconds

Spatial extent

Upper left -180, 85

Lower left -180, -60 Upper right 180, 85 Lower right 180, -60 Spatial Reference System (SRS) EPSG:4326 - WGS84 - Geographic Coordinate System (lat/long)

Temporal resolution 2015

Temporal extent Updates may follow for future years, but these are dependent on the availability of updated inputs on travel times and city locations and populations.

Methodology Travel time to the nearest city or port was estimated using an accumulated cost function (accCost) in the gdistance R package (van Etten, 2018). This function requires two input datasets: (i) a set of locations to estimate travel time to and (ii) a transition matrix that represents the cost or time to travel across a surface.

The set of locations were based on populated urban areas in the 2016 version of the Joint Research Centre’s Global Human Settlement Layers (GHSL) datasets (Pesaresi and Freire, 2016) that represent low density (LDC) urban clusters and high density (HDC) urban areas (https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datasets.php). These urban areas were represented by points, spaced at 1km distance around the perimeter of each urban area.

Marine ports were extracted from the 26th edition of the World Port Index (NGA, 2017) which contains the location and physical characteristics of approximately 3,700 major ports and terminals. Ports are represented as single points

The transition matrix was based on the friction surface (https://map.ox.ac.uk/research-project/accessibility_to_cities) from the 2015 global accessibility map (Weiss et al, 2018).

Code The R code used to generate the 12 travel time maps is included in the zip file that can be downloaded with these data layers. The processing zones are also available.

Validation The underlying friction surface was validated by comparing travel times between 47,893 pairs of locations against journey times from a Google API. Our estimated journey times were generally shorter than those from the Google API. Across the tiles, the median journey time from our estimates was 88 minutes within an interquartile range of 48 to 143 minutes while the median journey time estimated by the Google API was 106 minutes within an interquartile range of 61 to 167 minutes. Across all tiles, the differences were skewed to the left and our travel time estimates were shorter than those reported by the Google API in 72% of the tiles. The median difference was −13.7 minutes within an interquartile range of −35.5 to 2.0 minutes while the absolute difference was 30 minutes or less for 60% of the tiles and 60 minutes or less for 80% of the tiles. The median percentage difference was −16.9% within an interquartile range of −30.6% to 2.7% while the absolute percentage difference was 20% or less in 43% of the tiles and 40% or less in 80% of the tiles.

This process and results are included in the validation zip file.

Usage Notes The accessibility layers can be visualised and analysed in many Geographic Information Systems or remote sensing software such as QGIS, GRASS, ENVI, ERDAS or ArcMap, and also by statistical and modelling packages such as R or MATLAB. They can also be used in cloud-based tools for geospatial analysis such as Google Earth Engine.

The nine layers represent travel times to human settlements of different population ranges. Two or more layers can be combined into one layer by recording the minimum pixel value across the layers. For example, a map of travel time to the nearest settlement of 5,000 to 50,000 people could be generated by taking the minimum of the three layers that represent the travel time to settlements with populations between 5,000 and 10,000, 10,000 and 20,000 and, 20,000 and 50,000 people.

The accessibility layers also permit user-defined hierarchies that go beyond computing the minimum pixel value across layers. A user-defined complete hierarchy can be generated when the union of all categories adds up to the global population, and the intersection of any two categories is empty. Everything else is up to the user in terms of logical consistency with the problem at hand.

The accessibility layers are relative measures of the ease of access from a given location to the nearest target. While the validation demonstrates that they do correspond to typical journey times, they cannot be taken to represent actual travel times. Errors in the friction surface will be accumulated as part of the accumulative cost function and it is likely that locations that are further away from targets will have greater a divergence from a plausible travel time than those that are closer to the targets. Care should be taken when referring to travel time to the larger cities when the locations of interest are extremely remote, although they will still be plausible representations of relative accessibility. Furthermore, a key assumption of the model is that all journeys will use the fastest mode of transport and take the shortest path.

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 ...

This dataset is a compilation of county parcel data from Minnesota counties that have opted-in for their parcel data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 55 counties that have opted-in as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin, Anoka, Becker, Benton, Big Stone, Carlton, Carver, Cass, Chippewa, Chisago, Clay, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Dakota, Douglas, Fillmore, Grant, Hennepin, Houston, Isanti, Itasca, Jackson, Koochiching, Lac qui Parle, Lake, Lyon, Marshall, McLeod, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Mower, Murray, Norman, Olmsted, Otter Tail, Pennington, Pipestone, Polk, Pope, Ramsey, Renville, Rice, Saint Louis, Scott, Sherburne, Stearns, Stevens, Traverse, Waseca, Washington, Wilkin, Winona, Wright, and Yellow Medicine.

If you represent a county not included in this dataset and would like to opt-in, please contact Heather Albrecht (Heather.Albrecht@hennepin.us), co-chair of the Minnesota Geospatial Advisory Council (GAC)’s Parcels and Land Records Committee's Open Data Subcommittee. County parcel data does not need to be in the GAC parcel data standard to be included. MnGeo will map the county fields to the GAC standard.

County parcel data records have been assembled into a single dataset with a common coordinate system (UTM Zone 15) and common attribute schema. The county parcel data attributes have been mapped to the GAC parcel data standard for Minnesota: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

This compiled parcel dataset was created using Python code developed by Minnesota state agency GIS professionals, and represents a best effort to map individual county source file attributes into the common attribute schema of the GAC parcel data standard. The attributes from counties are mapped to the most appropriate destination column. In some cases, the county source files included attributes that were not mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, some county attribute fields were parsed and mapped to multiple GAC standard fields, such as a single line address. Each quarter, MnGeo provides a text file to counties that shows how county fields are mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, this text file shows the fields that are not mapped to the standard and those that are parsed. If a county shares changes to how their data should be mapped, MnGeo updates the compilation. If you represent a county and would like to update how MnGeo is mapping your county attribute fields to this compiled dataset, please contact us.

This dataset is a snapshot of parcel data, and the source date of the county data may vary. Users should consult County websites to see the most up-to-date and complete parcel data.

There have been recent changes in date/time fields, and their processing, introduced by our software vendor. In some cases, this has resulted in date fields being empty. We are aware of the issue and are working to correct it for future parcel data releases.

The State of Minnesota makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use or reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. THE DATA IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITH NO GUARANTEE OR REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACCURACY, CURRENCY, SUITABILITY, PERFORMANCE, MECHANTABILITY, RELIABILITY OR FITINESS OF THIS DATA FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This dataset is NOT suitable for accurate boundary determination. Contact a licensed land surveyor if you have questions about boundary determinations.

DOWNLOAD NOTES: This dataset is only provided in Esri File Geodatabase and OGC GeoPackage formats. A shapefile is not available because the size of the dataset exceeds the limit for that format. The distribution version of the fgdb is compressed to help reduce the data footprint. QGIS users should consider using the Geopackage format for better results.

This dataset represents a water shortage vulnerability analysis performed by DWR using modified PLSS sections pulled from the Well Completion Report PLSS Section Summaries. The attribute table includes water shortage vulnerability indicators and scores from an analysis done by CA Department of Water Resources, joined to modified PLSS sections. Several relevant summary statistics from the Well Completion Reports are included in this table as well. This data is from the 2024 analysis.

Water Code Division 6 Part 2.55 Section 8 Chapter 10 (Assembly Bill 1668) effectively requires California Department of Water Resources (DWR), in consultation with other agencies and an advisory group, to identify small water suppliers and “rural communities” that are at risk of drought and water shortage. Following legislation passed in 2021 and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the Water Code Division 6, Section 10609.50 through 10609.80 (Senate Bill 552 of 2021) effectively requires the California Department of Water Resources to update the scoring and tool periodically in partnership with the State Water Board and other state agencies. This document describes the indicators, datasets, and methods used to construct this deliverable.  This is a statewide effort to systematically and holistically consider water shortage vulnerability statewide of rural communities, focusing on domestic wells and state small water systems serving between 4 and 14 connections. The indicators and scoring methodology will be revised as better data become available and stake-holders evaluate the performance of the indicators, datasets used, and aggregation and ranking method used to aggregate and rank vulnerability scores. Additionally, the scoring system should be adaptive, meaning that our understanding of what contributes to risk and vulnerability of drought and water shortage may evolve. This understanding may especially be informed by experiences gained while navigating responses to future droughts.”

A spatial analysis was performed on the 2020 Census Block Groups, modified PLSS sections, and small water system service areas using a variety of input datasets related to drought vulnerability and water shortage risk and vulnerability. These indicator values were subsequently rescaled and summed for a final vulnerability score for the sections and small water system service areas. The 2020 Census Block Groups were joined with ACS data to represent the social vulnerability of communities, which is relevant to drought risk tolerance and resources. These three feature datasets contain the units of analysis (modified PLSS sections, block groups, small water systems service areas) with the model indicators for vulnerability in the attribute table. Model indicators are calculated for each unit of analysis according to the Vulnerability Scoring documents provided by Julia Ekstrom (Division of Regional Assistance).

All three feature classes are DWR analysis zones that are based off existing GIS datasets. The spatial data for the sections feature class is extracted from the Well Completion Reports PLSS sections to be aligned with the work and analysis that SGMA is doing. These are not true PLSS sections, but a version of the projected section lines in areas where there are gaps in PLSS. The spatial data for the Census block group feature class is downloaded from the Census. ACS (American Communities Survey) data is joined by block group, and statistics calculated by DWR have been added to the attribute table. The spatial data for the small water systems feature class was extracted from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SABL dataset, using a definition query to filter for active water systems with 3000 connections or less. None of these datasets are intended to be the authoritative datasets for representing PLSS sections, Census block groups, or water service areas. The spatial data of these feature classes is used as units of analysis for the spatial analysis performed by DWR.

These datasets are intended to be authoritative datasets of the scoring tools required from DWR according to Senate Bill 552. Please refer to the Drought and Water Shortage Vulnerability Scoring: California's Domestic Wells and State Smalls Systems documentation for more information on indicators and scoring. These estimated indicator scores may sometimes be calculated in several different ways, or may have been calculated from data that has since be updated. Counts of domestic wells may be calculated in different ways. In order to align with DWR SGMO's (State Groundwater Management Office) California Groundwater Live dashboards, domestic wells were calculated using the same query. This includes all domestic wells in the Well Completion Reports dataset that are completed after 12/31/1976, and have a 'RecordType' of 'WellCompletion/New/Production or Monitoring/NA'.

Please refer to the Well Completion Reports metadata for more information. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.4, dated September 14, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees — either expressed or implied— as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data.

DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to GIS@water.ca.gov.

Crowther_Nature_Files.zip This description pertains to the original download. Details on revised (newer) versions of the datasets are listed below. When more than one version of a file exists in Figshare, the original DOI will take users to the latest version, though each version technically has its own DOI. -- Two global maps (raster files) of tree density. These maps highlight how the number of trees varies across the world. One map was generated using biome-level models of tree density, and applied at the biome scale. The other map was generated using ecoregion-level models of tree density, and applied at the ecoregion scale. For this reason, transitions between biomes or between ecoregions may be unrealistically harsh, but large-scale estimates are robust (see Crowther et al 2015 and Glick et al 2016). At the outset, this study was intended to generate reliable estimates at broad spatial scales, which inherently comes at the cost of fine-scale precision. For this reason, country-scale (or larger) estimates are generally more robust than individual pixel-level estimates. Additionally, due to data limitations, estimates for Mangroves and Tropical coniferous forest (as identified by WWF and TNC) were generated using models constructed from Topical moist broadleaf forest data and Temperate coniferous forest data, respectively. Because we used ecological analogy, the estimates for these two biomes should be considered less reliable than those of other biomes . These two maps initially appeared in Crowther et al (2015), with the biome map being featured more prominently. Explicit publication of the data is associated with Glick et al (2016). As they are produced, updated versions of these datasets, as well as alternative formats, will be made available under Additional Versions (see below).

Methods: We collected over 420,000 ground-sources estimates of tree density from around the world. We then constructed linear regression models using vegetative, climatic, topographic, and anthropogenic variables to produce forest tree density estimates for all locations globally. All modeling was done in R. Mapping was done using R and ArcGIS 10.1.

Viewing Instructions: Load the files into an appropriate geographic information system (GIS). For the original download (ArcGIS geodatabase files), load the files into ArcGIS to view or export the data to other formats. Because these datasets are large and have a unique coordinate system that is not read by many GIS, we suggest loading them into an ArcGIS dataframe whose coordinate system matches that of the data (see File Format). For GeoTiff files (see Additional Versions), load them into any compatible GIS or image management program.

Comments: The original download provides a zipped folder that contains (1) an ArcGIS File Geodatabase (.gdb) containing one raster file for each of the two global models of tree density – one based on biomes and one based on ecoregions; (2) a layer file (.lyr) for each of the global models with the symbology used for each respective model in Crowther et al (2015); and an ArcGIS Map Document (.mxd) that contains the layers and symbology for each map in the paper. The data is delivered in the Goode homolosine interrupted projected coordinate system that was used to compute biome, ecoregion, and global estimates of the number and density of trees presented in Crowther et al (2015). To obtain maps like those presented in the official publication, raster files will need to be reprojected to the Eckert III projected coordinate system. Details on subsequent revisions and alternative file formats are list below under Additional Versions.----------

Additional Versions: Crowther_Nature_Files_Revision_01.zip contains tree density predictions for small islands that are not included in the data available in the original dataset. These predictions were not taken into consideration in production of maps and figures presented in Crowther et al (2015), with the exception of the values presented in Supplemental Table 2. The file structure follows that of the original data and includes both biome- and ecoregion-level models.

Crowther_Nature_Files_Revision_01_WGS84_GeoTiff.zip contains Revision_01 of the biome-level model, but stored in WGS84 and GeoTiff format. This file was produced by reprojecting the original Goode homolosine files to WGS84 using nearest neighbor resampling in ArcMap. All areal computations presented in the manuscript were computed using the Goode homolosine projection. This means that comparable computations made with projected versions of this WGS84 data are likely to differ (substantially at greater latitudes) as a product of the resampling. Included in this .zip file are the primary .tif and its visualization support files.

References:

Crowther, T. W., Glick, H. B., Covey, K. R., Bettigole, C., Maynard, D. S., Thomas, S. M., Smith, J. R., Hintler, G., Duguid, M. C., Amatulli, G., Tuanmu, M. N., Jetz, W., Salas, C., Stam, C., Piotto, D., Tavani, R., Green, S., Bruce, G., Williams, S. J., Wiser, S. K., Huber, M. O., Hengeveld, G. M., Nabuurs, G. J., Tikhonova, E., Borchardt, P., Li, C. F., Powrie, L. W., Fischer, M., Hemp, A., Homeier, J., Cho, P., Vibrans, A. C., Umunay, P. M., Piao, S. L., Rowe, C. W., Ashton, M. S., Crane, P. R., and Bradford, M. A. 2015. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature, 525(7568): 201-205. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/nature14967Glick, H. B., Bettigole, C. B., Maynard, D. S., Covey, K. R., Smith, J. R., and Crowther, T. W. 2016. Spatially explicit models of global tree density. Scientific Data, 3(160069), doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.69.

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) - link to USGS website - is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that make up the nation's surface water drainage system. NHD data was originally developed at 1:100,000 scale and exists at that scale for the whole country. High resolution NHD adds detail to the original 1:100,000-scale NHD. (Data for Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was developed at high-resolution, not 1:100,000 scale.) Like the 1:100,000-scale NHD, high resolution NHD contains reach codes for networked features and isolated lakes, flow direction, names, stream level, and centerline representations for areal water bodies. Reaches are also defined to represent waterbodies and the approximate shorelines of the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The NHD also incorporates the National Spatial Data Infrastructure framework criteria set out by the Federal Geographic Data Committee.NHD is used with other data themes such as elevation, boundaries, and transportation to produce general reference maps. The NHD is often used by scientists using GIS technology. GIS takes advantage of a rich set of attributes that can be processed to generate specialized information. These analyses are possible because the NHD contains a flow direction network that traces the water downstream or upstream. The NHD also uses an addressing system to link specific information about the water such as discharge rates, water quality, and fish population. Using the basic NHD attributes, flow network, linked information, and other characteristics, it is possible to study cause and affect relationships such as how a source of poor water quality upstream might affect a fish population downstream. The features in the NHD are organized into polygons, lines and points. The polygons most commonly portray waterbodies such as lakes while lines commonly portray streams. The stream lines are broken into shorter segments stretching from confluence-to-confluence. The segments are then linked together to trace the flow of water across the landscape. Flowlines attributed as artificial paths are added inside water bodies to maintain the flow network.

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

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: PSMFC GIS, Description: Accurate mapping of tidal wetlands is vital for effective conservation and restoration of these valued habitats, and good mapping is key to strategic planning for coastal resilience. Tidal wetlands are defined by regular inundation by the tides; therefore, mapping of tidal wetlands should be based on knowledge of tidal water levels and the land areas inundated by the tides.

Prof. Robert Hartwell (1932 - 1996) created his China Historical GIS under the auspices of his company Chinese Historical Studies. His estate left the data to Harvard University. These materials include functional GIS datasets for the Chinese Dynasties, from Tang to Ming, which were based on the concept of "co-location," or the use of GIS representations of modern county-level administrative units as building blocks to depict the approximate shapes of historical areas. Making use of county boundary data for 1992, (obtained from Crissman's ACASIAN data), Hartwell represented historical units that occupied roughly the same areas by merging or splitting the 1992 counties. Where the contemporary boundaries could not be "co-located" in this fashion, Hartwell drew in approximate line boundaries to divide the contemporary units to fit the historical situations and therefore provide an approximation of the historical unit's area. Although the resulting boundaries are, in many cases, problematic representations, the GIS remains an interesting hueristic GIS tool for sorting, querying, and creating digital maps for selected areas within the major dynasties up to the Ming. Harvard University released the original Hartwell datasets on April 2nd, 2001, in conjunction with the CHGIS project, as a useful means of generating approximate spatial entities correlating to historical administrative units. For Version 5, the Hartwell Datasets were renamed according to a filenaming convention (described above) and projected to match the CHGIS V5 standard (2014).