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)

Highway and Railroad mile posts in Grand County, CO - published 9/28/2023

Geospatial data about Grand County, Colorado Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Grand County, Utah Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

City Boundaries

Parcels and Land Ownership dataset current as of 2003. parksetc.

Evacuation Areas

Address Points dataset current as of 2001. address.

Wild Lands dataset current as of 2004. Scenic.

East Troublesome Fire Perimeter

Cities, Towns and Villages dataset current as of 2002. ctylmt.

Williams Fork Fire Perimeter

The "Utah 64 Small Health Statistics Areas" feature layer was developed by the Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health using small area analysis methodology in 1997. Each feature was generated by combining a sufficient number of adjacent ZIP code area features to form a geographic area of approximately 33,500 persons (range 15,000 to 62,500). Criteria used for determining which ZIP code areas to combine together to form a Small Health Statistics Area included population size, local health district and county boundaries, similarity of ZIP code population's income level and community political boundaries. Input from local community representatives was used to refine area designations. The Utah 64 Small Health Statistics Areas provide a means of geographically analyzing and presenting health statistics at the community level. Producing information at the small area in Utah provides community planners and other with information that is specific to the populations living in their communities of concern. Small area analysis also allows an investigator to explore ecologic relationships between health status, lifestyle, the environment and the health system. In areas where a ZIP code crosses a county boundary, the 2008 and 2009 versions of Small Statistical Areas honor the ZIP code boundary leading to cases where a Small Statistical Areas can be in multiple counties. The 2012 and 2014 versions correct this issue by splitting ZIP code areas by county boundaries resulting in Small Statistical Areas that can only be found in one county. In the 2017 version, area 57 Grand/San Juan Counties was split into 2 areas, area 57.1 Grand county and 57.2 San Juan County.

Wild Lands dataset current as of 2003. wldfires.

Fire Hydrants dataset current as of 2003. Hydrants.

Subdivisions recorded with the Hall County Register of Deeds office located within Hall County.Description of Edited field: 1- Edited from GPS data. (May still have potential issues)2 - Edited from GPS data.3 - Edited without a deed number. (Mostly IOLLs)Features edited from unverified data will not be tagged unless specified above.

Water Distribution Lines dataset current as of 2000. west pipe utm.

Vector polygon map data of city limits from Hall County, Nebraska containing 5 features.

City limits GIS (Geographic Information System) data provides valuable information about the boundaries of a city, which is crucial for various planning and decision-making processes. Urban planners and government officials use this data to understand the extent of their jurisdiction and to make informed decisions regarding zoning, land use, and infrastructure development within the city limits.

By overlaying city limits GIS data with other layers such as population density, land parcels, and environmental features, planners can analyze spatial patterns and identify areas for growth, conservation, or redevelopment. This data also aids in emergency management by defining the areas of responsibility for different emergency services, helping to streamline response efforts during crises..

This city limits data is available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

11/22/2024- County-wide road updates were completed in Golden Valley and Billings Counties. Intersecting routes throughout the state were cartographically realigned in preparation of MIRE intersections 6/27/2024 - The data was prepared for HPMS submittal which included updated 2023 AADT values and to keep certain segments consistent with HPMS segments, mainly sample sections and the NHS, values of "BOTH", "NHS" and "SAMPLE" were added to the field HPMS_ROUTE_ID to distinguish these segments from other segments. 3/19/2024 - Miscellaneous updates were done in Dunn County. County wide updates to Grand Forks and Golden Valley counties along with route realignments at intersections throughout the state.12/04/2023 - County wide updates to Walsh, Dunn and Grand Forks Counties and various updates to county/local roads throughout the state including street names in Westhope8/23/2023 - Function Class changes were updated in McLean and Mountrail Counties. Function Class updates also occurred in the cities of Fargo, Valley City, West Fargo and Williston. County-wide updates completed for: Towner, Cavalier, Pembina, Pierce, Benson, Ramsey. 2022 AADTs updated. A road was also removed in Bottineau County at the request off a landowner.5/19/22 - Dunn County contacted the NDDOT with data updates ,Rolette County was updated, and the 2021 AADT's were updated. 2/14/22 - Contacted by the Dunn County Road Dept., updates were made on newly paved road segments. 1/20/2022 - Since the August 2021 update, Morton, Stark, Hettinger, Bowman, Adams, Slope, Grant and Sioux Counties have been updated using 2020 imagery. Surface type has been checked and updated on all functionally classified roads statewide. Function Class changes have been made in the Bismarck/Mandan Metro, Grand Forks County and Burleigh County.6/15/21 - Since the 2019 update, trails and seldom used trails were updated statewide using 2018,and 2019 imagery. Steele, Traill and Griggs Counties have also been updated using 2020 imagery. Surface type has been checked and updated on all functionally classified roads statewide New roads added includes roads in the Fargo, West Fargo, Grand Forks, Jamestown, Bismarck, Mandan, Minot, Dickinson, Watford City and Williston. Ownership on Federal jurisdiction roads were also updated based on an dataset received for FHWA in conjunction with the HPMS submittal. HPMS (Highway Performance Monitoring System) fields were also added in an effort to integrate the roads county data into HPMS and MIRE (Model Inventory Roadway Elements). 9/14/20 - Added the following fields - AADT, AADT_YR, HPMS_MAINTENANCE_OPERATIONS, HPMS_THROUGH_LANES, FUNCTIONAL_CLASS (replaces FUNCTION_CLASS)8/13/19 - The following counties were updated by using a variety of aerial photography: Eddy, Foster and Barnes. Seldom used trails have been added to Barnes, Benson, Billings, Bottineau, and Bowman Counties. Mercer County had (2) 61STAvenues, this has been corrected.12/26/18 - The following counties have had their roads updated by a variety of aerial photography, McHenry, Wells, Kidder, Cass (with aid of Cass county website) and McKenzie (with aid of McKenzie County GIS Coordinator)8/14/18 - Counties updated using 2017 NAIP Imagery are Ward, Mountrail, Burke and Renville counties. Seldom used trails are also being digitized into the dataset. They are being added as counties are being checked, so it will take some time for all seldom used trails to be added statewide. Also since the last update, all local roads that are in the corporate boundaries have been broken at the boundaries so it is easier to query to determine which roads go with each community.5/21/18 - removed CITY_INT_ID column - no longer used because of CITY_FIPS and HPMS_URBAN_CODE attributes. Removed SERVICE_LEVEL field, never used/maintained.4/19/18 - added HPMS_OWNERSHIP and HPMS_FACILITY fields for HPMS submittal1/24/18 - added CITY_FIPS and HPMS_URBAN_CODE attributes/domains. These columns will replace CITY_INT_ID and SOURCE_ID columns (eventually).11/15/17 - Williams, Divide and Bottineau counties have been updated. Great effort has been taken to update attributes and QC null fields. Functional Classified roads in Bismarck and Mandan have been updated as have local roads in Bismarck, Mandan, Williston, Fargo – West Fargo and Minot. 1/25/17 - started to maintain roads in Esri's Road and Highways. The shapes now contain measures in miles along with the associated linear referencing/roads and highways fields. Removed INSET_ASSOC field and added COUNTY_FIPS field.Updates include the counties of Emmons, Logan, McIntosh, Lamoure, Dickey, Ransom, Sargent and Richland. These counties were updated using a combination of the available NAIP aerials, the DES aerials, and by car within the insets. In addition to these updates, the whole county dataset was edited using Data Reviewer checks. The checks ran included unnecessary nodes, non-linear segments, invalid geometry, Duplicate vertices with a tolerance of .5 meters, polyline closes of self, checked for cutbacks using a 15 degree minimum angle, checked for polyline length check using a distance less than 10 meters, checked for multipart lines, inspected dangles with a tolerance of 10 meters, and checked for orphans. All checks were inspected and fixed where appropriate.7/16/14 - updates include: Traill, Barnes, Stutsman, Kidder, Bowman, Slope, Stark, Hettinger, Adams, Grant, Sioux and Morton. These datasets were updated using a combination of the available NAIP aerials, the DES aerials, and by car within the insets.10/22/12 - city streets were updated in Bismarck, Dickinson, Minot and Williston. GIS data from the city of Bismarck was used to update Bismarck, GIS data and 2012 aerial photography was used to update the city of Williston, Minot’s city map and the 2010 aerial photography from Ward County was used to update Minot, and 2011 aerial photography and Dickinson’s "working" city map was used to update Dickinson. The counties updated were Williams, Burke, Bottineau, Mountrail, Ward, Wells, Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Steele, and Cass. At the time of this updated, approximately 50% of Stutsman and 50% of Traill Counties are updated. Williams, Bottineau, Ward, and Mountrail roads were inspected from the air and the 2009 NAIP photos were also used to assist the updates. The roads in Williams County were also recoded to match Williams County naming conventions. Williams County CADD map which is on the Williams county web site was used in updating the road names. In Ward County, the 2010 image from Ward County was used to assist in updating Ward County. The 2010 NAIP photos were used to update Wells, Eddy, Foster, Griggs and Steele Counties. Cass was updated with the assistance of the Cass County GIS layer and the 2011 Cass county imagery. 10/3/2011 - County roads were edited in the cities of Fargo, West Fargo, Horace, Minot, Bismarck, Devils Lake, Grafton, Williston, Valley City, and Dickinson. Also, a part of Ward and Mchenry Counties was edited and the county of Renville has been updated. The business routes through Bismarck and Jamestown were also edited. 5/9/2011 - Updated streets in Bismarck, Mandan, Jamestown, Dickinson, West Fargo ( not quite finished yet), and Valley City. Also, corrected the north - south roads in Township 144N Ranges 49 - 53 E, (in Traill County) 10/5/10 - The original Roads_County data was maintained in two separate ArcInfo coverages and then combined each year and exported to the NDHUB infrastructure. These two coverages have now been combined into one SDE feature class and is being edited within the SDE environment. The following changes have been made to feature class. Deleted all the A1 and A2 Fields so a person would have to hunt back and forth to find a road name. Road names consist of the following fields: RTE_ID, STR_TYP, SUF_DIR, & LAN_DIR. The CMC route numbers were moved from the A1_ prefixed fields to the CMC field to better track the CMC route. Created a County Highway field so we can enter the county road number. It consists of the counties name and number. This is still a work in progress. Created FS_RD_Number and FS_RD_Name fields to better track Forest Service roads. Created Bia-RD_Number and BIA_RD_Name fields to better track Bureau of Indian Affairs roads. The following field changes are used for NDDOT specific processes: Created a service level field which is something that may be used in the future. Currently it contains how Walsh County prioritizes their roads. Created a Through and Connecting Route field so we can so select routes through the towns and cities. This was created exclusively for the county base maps. Created an Inset Associated field. This was created so the information in the rd_misc would come into the county routes. In the future, it is planned to be deleted. 6/18/09 - Updated county routes from aerial observation and photo interpretation using 2003, 2005, 2006 NAIP photos and 2008 photography from Designs camera. Counties updated were Golden Valley, Billings, McKenzie, Dunn, Mercer, Oliver, McLean, Sheridan and Burleigh. City streets were rectified in these counties using the 2003 NAIP photos. Observations were performed by Steven Nelson. 4/17/08 - Updated road surface types in NE. Rolette, Pierce, Benson, Towner, Ramsey, Cavalier, Pembina, Walsh, Grand Forks and Nelson from the 2006 aerial observations by Dewaine Olson 2/13/07 - Updated via 2004 NAIP photos: Barnes, Cass, Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Kidder, Steele, Stutsman, Traill, Wells. Combined Misc Roads and County Roads. Blank fields mean unknown attribute. Use P_STREET_NAME for dynamic labeling. We are also in the process of removing all proposed roads. 12/28/05 - Counties updated: Emmons, Logan, Mcintosh, Lamoure, Dickey, Ransom, Sargent, Richland, Divide, Williams, Burke, Mountrail, Ward, Renville, Bottineau, and Mchenry This data came from the NDDOT's Mapping Section. The original data was digitized from hand scribed maps and registered