Have you ever wanted to create your own maps, or integrate and visualize spatial datasets to examine changes in trends between locations and over time? Follow along with these training tutorials on QGIS, an open source geographic information system (GIS) and learn key concepts, procedures and skills for performing common GIS tasks – such as creating maps, as well as joining, overlaying and visualizing spatial datasets. These tutorials are geared towards new GIS users. We’ll start with foundational concepts, and build towards more advanced topics throughout – demonstrating how with a few relatively easy steps you can get quite a lot out of GIS. You can then extend these skills to datasets of thematic relevance to you in addressing tasks faced in your day-to-day work.

This data set was generated through the 2020 LU/LC update mapping effort. The 2020 update is the seventh in a series of land use mapping efforts that was begun in 1986. Revisions and additions to the initial baseline layer were done in subsequent years from imagery captured in 1995/97, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2015 and now, 2020. This present 2020 update was created by comparing the 2015 LU/LC layer from NJDEP's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database to 2020 color infrared (CIR) imagery and delineating and coding areas of change. Work for this data set was done by Aerial Information Systems, Inc., Redlands, CA, under direction of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Bureau of Geographic Information System (BGIS). LU/LC changes were captured by adding new line work and attribute data for the 2020 land use directly to the base data layer. All 2015 LU/LC polygons and 2015 LU/LC coding remains in this data set, so change analysis for the period 2015-2020 can be undertaken from this one layer. The mapping was done by USGS HUC8 basins, 13 of which cover portions of New Jersey. This statewide layer is composed of the final data sets generated for each HUC8 basin. Initial QA/QC was done on each HUC8 data set as it was produced with final QA/QC and basin-to-basin edgematching done on this statewide layer. The classification system used was a modified Anderson et al., classification system. Minimum mapping unit (MMU) is 1 acre for changes to non-water and non-wetland polygons. Changes to these two categories were mapped using .25 acres as the MMU. (See entry under the Advisory section concerning additional review being done on NHD waterbody attribute coding and impervious surface estimation.) ADVISORY This data set, edition 20231120, is a statewide layer that includes updated land use/land cover data for all HUC8 basins in New Jersey. The polygon delineations and associated land use code assignments are considered the final versions for this mapping effort. Note, however, that there is continuing review being done on this layer to update several additional attributes not presently evaluated in this edition. These attributes include several from the National Hydrography Database (NHD) that are specific to the waterbodies mapped in this layer, and several attributes containing impervious surface estimates for each polygon. Evaluating the NHD codes facilitates extracting the water features mapped in this layer and using them to update the New Jersey portion of the NHD. Those NHD specific attributes are still being evaluated and may be added to a future edition of this base data set. Similarly, additional review is being done to assess the feasibility of incorporating data on impervious surface (IS) amounts generated from two independent projects, one of which was just completed by NOAA, into this base land use layer. While the NHD and IS attributes will enhance the use of this base layer in several types of analyses, this present layer can be used for doing all primary land use analyses without having those attributes evaluated. Further, evaluating these extra attributes will result in few, if any, changes to the polygon delineations and standard land use coding that are the primary features of this layer. As such, the layer is being provided in its present edition for general use. As the additional attributes are evaluated, they may be added to a future edition of this data set. The basic land use features and codes, however, as mapped in this version of the data set will serve as the base 2020 LU/LC update. As stated in this metadata record's Use Constraints section, NJDEP makes no representations of any kind, including, but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the digital data layers furnished hereunder. NJDEP assumes no responsibility to maintain them in any manner or form. By downloading this data, user agrees to the data use constraints listed within this metadata record.The data for Somerset County data was extracted & processed from the latest dataset by the Somerset County Office of GIS Services (SCOGIS).

This layer is part of Hamilton City Council's Freshwater Dataset.If you wish to download and consume this entire dataset - click on the link for the file format(s) of your choosing: CAD (DWG)

Please note that the links above may change at any time. For best practice, please refer to this page for the correct links.

If any of the links are above are not functioning, please let us know at gis@hcc.govt.nz.

This Water (Freshwater) dataset contains the following layers:

Water Valve (A tap on a main that controls the flow of water along that main) Water Service Valve (A tap on a service line that controls the flow of water along that line) Water Service Line/Connection (A pipe that delivers water from the main to a building for consumption) Water Meter (A device that measures and displays the amount of water passing through the associated main or service line) Water Main Offset (A point along a main indicating the distance of the main from another known point such as the property boundary or kerb) Water Main Crossover Junction (The junction of one or more pipes where the pipes do not intersect - aka crossover junction) Water Main Abandoned (A water main that is still in the ground, but is now disused and no longer forms part of the active network) Water Hydrant (A tap supplying access to high-pressure water to fight fires, flush pipes and fill water trucks) Water Chamber MH (An opening/structure in a water chamber for the purpose of allowing operators or equipment access to the inside of the chamber) Water Chamber (A chamber on a water main (except bulk mains) containing operational or monitoring devices such as valves or flow meters) Water BM Chamber (A chamber on a water bulk main containing operational devices such as valves or flow meters) Water BM AV Chamber (A chamber on a water bulk main containing an air valve) Water Backflow Device (A device which prevents the accidental backflow of contaminated water into the water system) Water Asbuilts (Plans showing the location and alignment of basic water infrastructure as it was constructed on site, as provided by the contractor or their representatives. Data has not yet been fully incorporated into the Council GIS or asset management system)

Hamilton City Council 3 Waters data is derived from the Council’s GIS (ArcGIS) dataset. The GIS dataset is synchronised with asset data contained in the Council’s Asset Management (IPS) database. A subset of the GIS dataset has been made available for download.

This GIS dataset is currently updated weekly which in turn dynamically updates to the WLASS open data site. Any questions pertaining to this data should be directed to the City Waters Asset Information Team at CityWatersAssetInfo@hcc.govt.nz

Hamilton City Council does not make any representation or give any warranty as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the data released for public download. Levels, locations and dimensions of works depicted in the data may not be accurate due to circumstances not notified to Council. A physical check should be made on all levels, locations and dimensions before starting design or works.

Hamilton City Council shall not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense (whether direct or indirect) arising from reliance upon or use of any data provided, or Council's failure to provide this data.

While you are free to crop, export and re-purpose the data, we ask that you attribute the Hamilton City Council and clearly state that your work is a derivative and not the authoritative data source. Please include the following statement when distributing any work derived from this data:

‘This work is derived entirely or in part from Hamilton City Council data; the provided information may be updated at any time, and may at times be out of date, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.'

Important Note: This item is in mature support as of September 2023 and will be retired in December 2025. A new version of this item is available for your use. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to use the new version.The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the official inventory of public parks and other protected open space. The spatial data in PAD-US represents public lands held in trust by thousands of national, state and regional/local governments, as well as non-profit conservation organizations.GAP 1 and 2 areas are primarily managed for biodiversity, GAP 3 are managed for multiple uses including conservation and extraction, GAP 4 no known mandate for biodiversity protection. Provides a general overview of protection status including management designations. PAD-US is published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science Analytics and Synthesis (SAS), Gap Analysis Project (GAP). GAP produces data and tools that help meet critical national challenges such as biodiversity conservation, recreation, public health, climate change adaptation, and infrastructure investment. See the GAP webpage for more information about GAP and other GAP data including species and land cover.The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) classifies lands into four GAP Status classes:GAP Status 1 - Areas managed for biodiversity where natural disturbances are allowed to proceedGAP Status 2 - Areas managed for biodiversity where natural disturbance is suppressedGAP Status 3 - Areas protected from land cover conversion but subject to extractive uses such as logging and miningGAP Status 4 - Areas with no known mandate for protectionIn the United States, areas that are protected from development and managed for biodiversity conservation include Wilderness Areas, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wild & Scenic Rivers. Understanding the geographic distribution of these protected areas and their level of protection is an important part of landscape-scale planning. Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Areas protected from development and managed to maintain biodiversity Coordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: 50 United States plus Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and other Pacific Ocean IslandsVisible Scale: 1:1,000,000 and largerSource: USGS Science Analytics and Synthesis (SAS), Gap Analysis Project (GAP) PAD-US version 3.0Publication Date: July 2022Attributes included in this layer are: CategoryOwner TypeOwner NameLocal OwnerManager TypeManager NameLocal ManagerDesignation TypeLocal DesignationUnit NameLocal NameSourcePublic AccessGAP Status - Status 1, 2, or 3GAP Status DescriptionInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Description - I: Strict Nature Reserve, II: National Park, III: Natural Monument or Feature, IV: Habitat/Species Management Area, V: Protected Landscape/Seascape, VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources, Other conservation area, UnassignedDate of EstablishmentThe source data for this layer are available here. What can you do with this Feature Layer?Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro.ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer is limited to scales of approximately 1:1,000,000 or larger but a vector tile layer created from the same data can be used at smaller scales to produce a webmap that displays across the full range of scales. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application.Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections and apply filters. 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.Change the layer’s style and filter the data. For example, you could set a filter for Gap Status Code = 3 to create a map of only the GAP Status 3 areas.Add labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map. The same scale limit as Online applies in ProUse as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class. Note that many features in the PAD-US database overlap. For example wilderness area designations overlap US Forest Service and other federal lands. Any analysis should take this into consideration. An imagery layer created from the same data set can be used for geoprocessing analysis with larger extents and eliminates some of the complications arising from overlapping polygons.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 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.

This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

This dataset is a series of digital map-posters accompanying the AdaptNRM Guide: Helping Biodiversity Adapt: supporting climate adaptation planning using a community-level modelling approach.

These represent supporting materials and information about the community-level biodiversity models applied to climate change. Map posters are organised by four biological groups (vascular plants, mammals, reptiles and amphibians), two climate change scenario (1990-2050 MIROC5 and CanESM2 for RCP8.5), and five measures of change in biodiversity.

The map-posters present the nationally consistent data at locally relevant resolutions in eight parts – representing broad groupings of NRM regions based on the cluster boundaries used for climate adaptation planning (http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/adaptation) and also Nationally.

Map-posters are provided in PNG image format at moderate resolution (300dpi) to suit A0 printing. The posters were designed to meet A0 print size and digital viewing resolution of map detail. An additional set in PDF image format has been created for ease of download for initial exploration and printing on A3 paper. Some text elements and map features may be fuzzy at this resolution.

Each map-poster contains four dataset images coloured using standard legends encompassing the potential range of the measure, even if that range is not represented in the dataset itself or across the map extent.

Most map series are provided in two parts: part 1 shows the two climate scenarios for vascular plants and mammals and part 2 shows reptiles and amphibians. Eight cluster maps for each series have a different colour theme and map extent. A national series is also provided. Annotation briefly outlines the topics presented in the Guide so that each poster stands alone for quick reference.

An additional 77 National maps presenting the probability distributions of each of 77 vegetation types – NVIS 4.1 major vegetation subgroups (NVIS subgroups) - are currently in preparation.

Example citations:

Williams KJ, Raisbeck-Brown N, Prober S, Harwood T (2015) Generalised projected distribution of vegetation types – NVIS 4.1 major vegetation subgroups (1990 and 2050), A0 map-poster 8.1 - East Coast NRM regions. CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Canberra. Available online at www.AdaptNRM.org and https://data.csiro.au/dap/.

Williams KJ, Raisbeck-Brown N, Harwood T, Prober S (2015) Revegetation benefit (cleared natural areas) for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050), A0 map-poster 9.1 - East Coast NRM regions. CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Canberra. Available online at www.AdaptNRM.org and https://data.csiro.au/dap/.

This dataset has been delivered incrementally. Please check that you are accessing the latest version of the dataset. Lineage: The map posters show case the scientific data. The data layers have been developed at approximately 250m resolution (9 second) across the Australian continent to incorporate the interaction between climate and topography, and are best viewed using a geographic information system (GIS). Each data layers is 1Gb, and inaccessible to non-GIS users. The map posters provide easy access to the scientific data, enabling the outputs to be viewed at high resolution with geographical context information provided.

Maps were generated using layout and drawing tools in ArcGIS 10.2.2

A check list of map posters and datasets is provided with the collection.

Map Series: 7.(1-77) National probability distribution of vegetation type – NVIS 4.1 major vegetation subgroup pre-1750 #0x

8.1 Generalised projected distribution of vegetation types (NVIS subgroups) (1990 and 2050)

9.1 Revegetation benefit (cleared natural areas) for plants and mammals (1990-2050)

9.2 Revegetation benefit (cleared natural areas) for reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

10.1 Need for assisted dispersal for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050)

10.2 Need for assisted dispersal for reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

11.1 Refugial potential for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050)

11.1 Refugial potential for reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

12.1 Climate-driven future revegetation benefit for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050)

12.2 Climate-driven future revegetation benefit for vascular reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

This dataset represents a unique compiled environmental data set for the circumpolar Arctic ocean region 45N to 90N region. It consists of 170 layers (mostly marine, some terrestrial) in ArcGIS 10 format to be used with a Geographic Information System (GIS) and which are listed below in detail. Most layers are long-term average raster GRIDs for the summer season, often by ocean depth, and represent value-added products easy to use. The sources of the data are manifold such as the World Ocean Atlas 2009 (WOA09), International Bathimetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO), Canadian Earth System Model 2 (CanESM2) data (the newest generation of models available) and data sources such as plankton databases and OBIS. Ocean layers were modeled and predicted into the future and zooplankton species were modeled based on future data: Calanus hyperboreus (AphiaID104467), Metridia longa (AphiaID 104632), M. pacifica (AphiaID 196784) and Thysanoessa raschii (AphiaID 110711). Some layers are derived within ArcGIS. Layers have pixel sizes between 1215.819573 meters and 25257.72929 meters for the best pooled model, and between 224881.2644 and 672240.4095 meters for future climate data. Data was then reprojected into North Pole Stereographic projection in meters (WGS84 as the geographic datum). Also, future layers are included as a selected subset of proposed future climate layers from the Canadian CanESM2 for the next 100 years (scenario runs rcp26 and rcp85). The following layer groups are available: bathymetry (depth, derived slope and aspect); proximity layers (to,glaciers,sea ice, protected areas, wetlands, shelf edge); dissolved oxygen, apparent oxygen, percent oxygen, nitrogen, phosphate, salinity, silicate (all for August and for 9 depth classes); runoff (proximity, annual and August); sea surface temperature; waterbody temperature (12 depth classes); modeled ocean boundary layers (H1, H2, H3 and Wx).This dataset is used for a M.Sc. thesis by the author, and freely available upon request. For questions and details we suggest contacting the authors. Process_Description: Please contact Moritz Schmid for the thesis and detailed explanations. Short version: We model predicted here for the first time ocean layers in the Arctic Ocean based on a unique dataset of physical oceanography. Moreover, we developed presence/random absence models that indicate where the studied zooplankton species are most likely to be present in the Arctic Ocean. Apart from that, we develop the first spatially explicit models known to science that describe the depth in which the studied zooplankton species are most likely to be at, as well as their distribution of life stages. We do not only do this for one present day scenario. We modeled five different scenarios and for future climate data. First, we model predicted ocean layers using the most up to date data from various open access sources, referred here as best-pooled model data. We decided to model this set of stratification layers after discussions and input of expert knowledge by Professor Igor Polyakov from the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. We predicted those stratification layers because those are the boundaries and layers that the plankton has to cross for diel vertical migration and a change in those would most likely affect the migration. I assigned 4 variables to the stratification layers. H1, H2, H3 and Wx. H1 is the lower boundary of the mixed layer depth. Above this layer a lot of atmospheric disturbance is causing mixing of the water, giving the mixed layer its name. H2, the middle of the halocline is important because in this part of the ocean a strong gradient in salinity and temperature separates water layers. H3, the isotherm is important, because beneath it flows denser and colder Atlantic water. Wx summarizes the overall width of the described water column. Ocean layers were predicted using machine learning algorithms (TreeNet, Salford Systems). Second, ocean layers were included as predictors and used to predict the presence/random absence, most likely depth and life stage layers for the zooplankton species: Calanus hyperboreus, Metridia longa, Metridia pacifica and Thysanoessa raschii, This process was repeated for future predictions based on the CanESM2 data (see in the data section). For zooplankton species the following layers were developed and for the future. C. hyperboreus: Best-pooled model as well as future predictions (rcp26 including ocean layer(also excluding), rcp85 including oocean layers (also excluding) for 2010 and 2100.For parameters: Presence/random absence, most likely depth and life stage layers M. longa: Best-pooled model as well as future predictions (rcp26 including ocean layer(also excluding), rcp85 including oocean layers (also excluding) for 2010 and 2100. For parameters: Presence/rand... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/f63d0f6c-7d53-46ce-b755-42a368007601 for complete metadata about this dataset.

This data layer references data from a high-resolution tree canopy change-detection layer for Seattle, Washington. Tree canopy change was mapped by using remotely sensed data from two time periods (2016 and 2021). Tree canopy was assigned to three classes: 1) no change, 2) gain, and 3) loss. No change represents tree canopy that remained the same from one time period to the next. Gain represents tree canopy that increased or was newly added, from one time period to the next. Loss represents the tree canopy that was removed from one time period to the next. Mapping was carried out using an approach that integrated automated feature extraction with manual edits. Care was taken to ensure that changes to the tree canopy were due to actual change in the land cover as opposed to differences in the remotely sensed data stemming from lighting conditions or image parallax. Direct comparison was possible because land-cover maps from both time periods were created using object-based image analysis (OBIA) and included similar source datasets (LiDAR-derived surface models, multispectral imagery, and thematic GIS inputs). OBIA systems work by grouping pixels into meaningful objects based on their spectral and spatial properties, while taking into account boundaries imposed by existing vector datasets. Within the OBIA environment a rule-based expert system was designed to effectively mimic the process of manual image analysis by incorporating the elements of image interpretation (color/tone, texture, pattern, _location, size, and shape) into the classification process. A series of morphological procedures were employed to ensure that the end product is both accurate and cartographically pleasing. No accuracy assessment was conducted, but the dataset was subjected to manual review and correction.University of Vermont Spatial Analysis LaboratoryThis dataset consists of City of Seattle Public Schools areas which cover the following tree canopy categories:Existing tree canopy percentPossible tree canopy - vegetation percentRelative percent changeAbsolute percent changeFor more information, please see the 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment.

This New Zealand Point Cloud Classification Deep Learning Package will classify point clouds into building and background classes. This model is optimized to work with New Zealand aerial LiDAR data.The classification of point cloud datasets to identify Building is useful in applications such as high-quality 3D basemap creation, urban planning, and planning climate change response.Building could have a complex irregular geometrical structure that is hard to capture using traditional means. Deep learning models are highly capable of learning these complex structures and giving superior results.This model is designed to extract Building in both urban and rural area in New Zealand.The Training/Testing/Validation dataset are taken within New Zealand resulting of a high reliability to recognize the pattern of NZ common building architecture.Licensing requirementsArcGIS Desktop - ArcGIS 3D Analyst extension for ArcGIS ProUsing the modelThe model can be used in ArcGIS Pro's Classify Point Cloud Using Trained Model tool. Before using this model, ensure that the supported deep learning frameworks libraries are installed. For more details, check Deep Learning Libraries Installer for ArcGIS.Note: Deep learning is computationally intensive, and a powerful GPU is recommended to process large datasets.The model is trained with classified LiDAR that follows the The model was trained using a training dataset with the full set of points. Therefore, it is important to make the full set of points available to the neural network while predicting - allowing it to better discriminate points of 'class of interest' versus background points. It is recommended to use 'selective/target classification' and 'class preservation' functionalities during prediction to have better control over the classification and scenarios with false positives.The model was trained on airborne lidar datasets and is expected to perform best with similar datasets. Classification of terrestrial point cloud datasets may work but has not been validated. For such cases, this pre-trained model may be fine-tuned to save on cost, time, and compute resources while improving accuracy. Another example where fine-tuning this model can be useful is when the object of interest is tram wires, railway wires, etc. which are geometrically similar to electricity wires. When fine-tuning this model, the target training data characteristics such as class structure, maximum number of points per block and extra attributes should match those of the data originally used for training this model (see Training data section below).OutputThe model will classify the point cloud into the following classes with their meaning as defined by the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) described below: 0 Background 6 BuildingApplicable geographiesThe model is expected to work well in the New Zealand. It's seen to produce favorable results as shown in many regions. However, results can vary for datasets that are statistically dissimilar to training data.Training dataset - Auckland, Christchurch, Kapiti, Wellington Testing dataset - Auckland, WellingtonValidation/Evaluation dataset - Hutt City Dataset City Training Auckland, Christchurch, Kapiti, Wellington Testing Auckland, Wellington Validating HuttModel architectureThis model uses the SemanticQueryNetwork model architecture implemented in ArcGIS Pro.Accuracy metricsThe table below summarizes the accuracy of the predictions on the validation dataset. - Precision Recall F1-score Never Classified 0.984921 0.975853 0.979762 Building 0.951285 0.967563 0.9584Training dataThis model is trained on classified dataset originally provided by Open TopoGraphy with < 1% of manual labelling and correction.Train-Test split percentage {Train: 75~%, Test: 25~%} Chosen this ratio based on the analysis from previous epoch statistics which appears to have a descent improvementThe training data used has the following characteristics: X, Y, and Z linear unitMeter Z range-137.74 m to 410.50 m Number of Returns1 to 5 Intensity16 to 65520 Point spacing0.2 ± 0.1 Scan angle-17 to +17 Maximum points per block8192 Block Size50 Meters Class structure[0, 6]Sample resultsModel to classify a dataset with 23pts/m density Wellington city dataset. The model's performance are directly proportional to the dataset point density and noise exlcuded point clouds.To learn how to use this model, see this story

This dataset contains mapping information (shapefile) of reefs in Tuvalu including its distribution. A foundation baseline map for future, more detailed, work.

Please note that this file is large, ~550 MB, and may take a substantial amount of time to download especially on slower internet connections.Shapefile (NJ State Plane NAD 1983) download: Click "Open" or Click hereFile Geodatabase (NJ State Plane NAD 1983) download: Click hereThis data represents a "generalized" version of the 2012 LULC. To improve the performance of the web applications displaying the 2012 land use data, it was necessary to create a new simplified layer that included only the minimum number of polygons and attributes needed to represent the 2012 land use conditions. The 2012 LU/LC data set is the fifth in a series of land use mapping efforts that was begun in 1986. Revisions and additions to the initial baseline layer were done in subsequent years from imagery captured in 1995/97, 2002, 2007 and 2012. This present 2012 update was created by comparing the 2007 LU/LC layer from NJDEP's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database to 2012 color infrared (CIR) imagery and delineating and coding areas of change. Work for this data set was done by Aerial Information Systems, Inc., Redlands, CA, under direction of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Bureau of Geographic Information System (BGIS). LU/LC changes were captured by adding new line work and attribute data for the 2012 land use directly to the base data layer. All 2007 LU/LC polygons and attribute fields remain in this data set, so change analysis for the period 2007-2012 can be undertaken from this one layer. The classification system used was a modified Anderson et al., classification system. An impervious surface (IS) code was also assigned to each LU/LC polygon based on the percentage of impervious surface within each polygon as of 2007. Minimum mapping unit (MMU) is 1 acre. ADVISORY: This metadata file contains information for the 2012 Land Use/Land Cover (LU/LC) data sets, which were mapped by USGS Subbasin (HU8). There are additional reference documents listed in this file under Supplemental Information which should also be examined by users of these data sets. As stated in this metadata record's Use Constraints section, NJDEP makes no representations of any kind, including, but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the digital data layers furnished hereunder. NJDEP assumes no responsibility to maintain them in any manner or form. By downloading this data, user agrees to the data use constraints listed within this metadata record.

This layer is a high-resolution tree canopy change-detection layer for Baltimore City, MD. It contains three tree-canopy classes for the period 2007-2015: (1) No Change; (2) Gain; and (3) Loss. It was created by extracting tree canopy from existing high-resolution land-cover maps for 2007 and 2015 and then comparing the mapped trees directly. Tree canopy that existed during both time periods was assigned to the No Change category while trees removed by development, storms, or disease were assigned to the Loss class. Trees planted during the interval were assigned to the Gain category, as were the edges of existing trees that expanded noticeably. Direct comparison was possible because both the 2007 and 2015 maps were created using object-based image analysis (OBIA) and included similar source datasets (LiDAR-derived surface models, multispectral imagery, and thematic GIS inputs). OBIA systems work by grouping pixels into meaningful objects based on their spectral and spatial properties, while taking into account boundaries imposed by existing vector datasets. Within the OBIA environment a rule-based expert system was designed to effectively mimic the process of manual image analysis by incorporating the elements of image interpretation (color/tone, texture, pattern, location, size, and shape) into the classification process. A series of morphological procedures were employed to insure that the end product is both accurate and cartographically pleasing. No accuracy assessment was conducted, but the dataset will be subjected to manual review and correction. 2006 LiDAR and 2014 LiDAR data was also used to assist in tree canopy change.

This geodatabase of point, line and polygon features is an effort to consolidate all of the range improvement locations on BLM-managed land in Idaho into one database. Currently, the point feature class has some data for all of the BLM field offices except the Coeur d'Alene and Cottonwood field offices. Range improvements are structures intended to enhance rangeland resources, including wildlife, watershed, and livestock management. Examples of range improvements include water troughs, spring headboxes, culverts, fences, water pipelines, gates, wildlife guzzlers, artificial nest structures, reservoirs, developed springs, corrals, exclosures, etc. These structures were first tracked by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Job Documentation Report (JDR) System in the early 1960s, which was predominately a paper-based tracking system. In 1988 the JDRs were migrated into and replaced by the automated Range Improvement Project System (RIPS), and version 2.0 is currently being used today. It tracks inventory, status, objectives, treatment, maintenance cycle, maintenance inspection, monetary contributions and reporting. Not all range improvements are documented in the RIPS database; there may be some older range improvements that were built before the JDR tracking system was established. There also may be unauthorized projects that are not in RIPS. Official project files of paper maps, reports, NEPA documents, checklists, etc., document the status of each project and are physically kept in the office with management authority for that project area. In addition, project data is entered into the RIPS system to enable managers to access the data to track progress, run reports, analyze the data, etc. Before Geographic Information System technology most offices kept paper atlases or overlay systems that mapped the locations of the range improvements. The objective of this geodatabase is to migrate the _location of historic range improvement projects into a GIS for geospatial use with other data and to centralize the range improvement data for the state. This data set is a work in progress and does not have all range improvement projects that are on BLM lands. Some field offices have not migrated their data into this database, and others are partially completed. New projects may have been built but have not been entered into the system. Historic or unauthorized projects may not have case files and are being mapped and documented as they are found. Many field offices are trying to verify the locations and status of range improvements with GPS, and locations may change or projects that have been abandoned or removed on the ground may be deleted. Attributes may be incomplete or inaccurate. This data was created using the standard for range improvements set forth in Idaho IM 2009-044, dated 6/30/2009. However, it does not have all of the fields the standard requires. Fields that are missing from the point feature class that are in the standard are: ALLOT_NO, MGMT_AGCY, ADMIN_ST, ADMIN_OFF, SRCE_AGCY, MAX_PDOP, MAX_HDOP, CORR_TYPE, RCVR_TYPE, GPS_TIME, UPDATE_STA, UNFILT_POS, FILT_POS, DATA_DICTI, GPS_HEIGHT, VERT_PREC, HORZ_PREC, and CONF_LEVEL. Several additional fields have been added that are not part of the standard: wrpt_idwrn, bird_laddr, and year_checked. There is no National BLM standard for GIS range improvement data at this time. For more information contact us at blm_id_stateoffice@blm.gov.

High resolution land cover data set for New York City. This is the 3ft version of the high-resolution land cover dataset for New York City. Seven land cover classes were mapped: (1) tree canopy, (2) grass/shrub, (3) bare earth, (4) water, (5) buildings, (6) roads, and (7) other paved surfaces. The minimum mapping unit for the delineation of features was set at 3 square feet. The primary sources used to derive this land cover layer were the 2010 LiDAR and the 2008 4-band orthoimagery. Ancillary data sources included GIS data (city boundary, building footprints, water, parking lots, roads, railroads, railroad structures, ballfields) provided by New York City (all ancillary datasets except railroads); UVM Spatial Analysis Laboratory manually created railroad polygons from manual interpretation of 2008 4-band orthoimagery. The tree canopy class was considered current as of 2010; the remaining land-cover classes were considered current as of 2008. Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA) techniques were employed to extract land cover information using the best available remotely sensed and vector GIS datasets. OBIA systems work by grouping pixels into meaningful objects based on their spectral and spatial properties, while taking into account boundaries imposed by existing vector datasets. Within the OBIA environment a rule-based expert system was designed to effectively mimic the process of manual image analysis by incorporating the elements of image interpretation (color/tone, texture, pattern, location, size, and shape) into the classification process. A series of morphological procedures were employed to insure that the end product is both accurate and cartographically pleasing. More than 35,000 corrections were made to the classification. Overall accuracy was 96%. This dataset was developed as part of the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment for New York City. As such, it represents a 'top down' mapping perspective in which tree canopy over hanging other features is assigned to the tree canopy class. At the time of its creation this dataset represents the most detailed and accurate land cover dataset for the area. This project was funded by National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) and the National Science Fundation (NSF), although it is not specifically endorsed by either agency. The methods used were developed by the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory, in collaboration with the New York City Urban Field Station, with funding from the USDA Forest Service.

This database was collected for agriculture statistics related work by our field survey experts in Chai Badan district, Lop Buri province, Thailand, in July 2022. As the fieldwork result, 108 points were collected by windshield survey using the QField mobile application from inside a passenger vehicle. According to GT database format, our database contains 108 records of a geographic layer in shapefile format (point), and the geographic coordinate system is GCS_WGS_1984. In addition, each record corresponds to a point format with ten attributes, including a unique feature ID, the format of the feature (such as point), type of land cover of the point, type of crop of the point, name of the ground truth point when collecting in the field, date and time of the ground truth data collection, X and Y coordination of the point, and intercrop (presence or absence of intercropping [single crop, mixed crop, etc.]).

This data layer references data from a high-resolution tree canopy change-detection layer for Seattle, Washington. Tree canopy change was mapped by using remotely sensed data from two time periods (2016 and 2021). Tree canopy was assigned to three classes: 1) no change, 2) gain, and 3) loss. No change represents tree canopy that remained the same from one time period to the next. Gain represents tree canopy that increased or was newly added, from one time period to the next. Loss represents the tree canopy that was removed from one time period to the next. Mapping was carried out using an approach that integrated automated feature extraction with manual edits. Care was taken to ensure that changes to the tree canopy were due to actual change in the land cover as opposed to differences in the remotely sensed data stemming from lighting conditions or image parallax. Direct comparison was possible because land-cover maps from both time periods were created using object-based image analysis (OBIA) and included similar source datasets (LiDAR-derived surface models, multispectral imagery, and thematic GIS inputs). OBIA systems work by grouping pixels into meaningful objects based on their spectral and spatial properties, while taking into account boundaries imposed by existing vector datasets. Within the OBIA environment a rule-based expert system was designed to effectively mimic the process of manual image analysis by incorporating the elements of image interpretation (color/tone, texture, pattern, _location, size, and shape) into the classification process. A series of morphological procedures were employed to ensure that the end product is both accurate and cartographically pleasing. No accuracy assessment was conducted, but the dataset was subjected to manual review and correction.University of Vermont Spatial Analysis LaboratoryThis dataset consists of hexagons 50-acres in area, or several city blocks. The dataset covers the following tree canopy categories:Existing tree canopy percentPossible tree canopy - vegetation percentRelative percent changeAbsolute percent changeAverage maximum afternoon temperature (F)Tree canopy percentage & average afternoon temperature (F)For more information, please see the 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment.

Tempe is among Arizona's most educated cities, lending to a creative, smart atmosphere. With more than a dozen colleges, trade schools and universities, about 40 percent of our residents over the age of 25 have Bachelor's degrees or higher. Having such an educated and accessible workforce is a driving factor in attracting and growing jobs for residents in the region.The City of Tempe is a member of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC) and with the membership staff tracks collaborative efforts to recruit business prospects and locates. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC) is a performance-driven, public-private partnership. GPEC partners with the City of Tempe, Maricopa County, 22 other communities and more than 170 private-sector investors to promote the region’s competitive position and attract quality jobs that enable strategic economic growth and provide increased tax revenue for Tempe.This dataset provides the target and actual job creation numbers for the City of Tempe and Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC). The job creation target for Tempe is calculated by multiplying GPEC's target by twice Tempe's proportion of the population.This page provides data for the New Jobs Created performance measure.The performance measure dashboard is available at 5.02 New Jobs Created.Additional InformationSource:Contact: Madalaine McConvilleContact Phone: 480-350-2927Data Source Type: Excel filesPreparation Method: Extracted from GPEC monthly and annual reports and proprietary excel filesPublish Frequency: AnnuallyPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

This dataset provides detailed information on road surfaces from OpenStreetMap (OSM) data, distinguishing between paved and unpaved surfaces across the region. This information is based on road surface prediction derived from hybrid deep learning approach. For more information on Methods, refer to the paper

Roughly 4.8023 million km of roads are mapped in OSM in this region. Based on AI-mapped estimates the share of paved and unpaved roads is approximately 0.5281 and 0.2874 (in million kms), corressponding to 10.9979% and 5.9838% respectively of the total road length in the dataset region. 3.9868 million km or 83.0183% of road surface information is missing in OSM. In order to fill this gap, Mapillary derived road surface dataset provides an additional 0.0218 million km of information (corressponding to 0.5461% of total missing information on road surface)

It is intended for use in transportation planning, infrastructure analysis, climate emissions and geographic information system (GIS) applications.

This dataset provides comprehensive information on road and urban area features, including location, surface quality, and classification metadata. This dataset includes attributes from OpenStreetMap (OSM) data, AI predictions for road surface, and urban classifications.

AI features:

• pred_class: Model-predicted class for the road surface, with values "paved" or "unpaved."

• pred_label: Binary label associated with pred_class (0 = paved, 1 = unpaved).

• osm_surface_class: Classification of the surface type from OSM, categorized as "paved" or "unpaved."

• combined_surface_osm_priority: Surface classification combining pred_label and surface(OSM) while prioritizing the OSM surface tag, classified as "paved" or "unpaved."

• combined_surface_DL_priority: Surface classification combining pred_label and surface(OSM) while prioritizing DL prediction pred_label, classified as "paved" or "unpaved."

• n_of_predictions_used: Number of predictions used for the feature length estimation.

• predicted_length: Predicted length based on the DL model’s estimations, in meters.

• DL_mean_timestamp: Mean timestamp of the predictions used, for comparison.

OSM features may have these attributes(Learn what tags mean here):

• name: Name of the feature, if available in OSM.

• name:en: Name of the feature in English, if available in OSM.

• name:* (in local language): Name of the feature in the local official language, where available.

• highway: Road classification based on OSM tags (e.g., residential, motorway, footway).

• surface: Description of the surface material of the road (e.g., asphalt, gravel, dirt).

• smoothness: Assessment of surface smoothness (e.g., excellent, good, intermediate, bad).

• width: Width of the road, where available.

• lanes: Number of lanes on the road.

• oneway: Indicates if the road is one-way (yes or no).

• bridge: Specifies if the feature is a bridge (yes or no).

• layer: Indicates the layer of the feature in cases where multiple features are stacked (e.g., bridges, tunnels).

• source: Source of the data, indicating the origin or authority of specific attributes.

Urban classification features may have these attributes:

• continent: The continent where the data point is located (e.g., Europe, Asia).

• country_iso_a2: The ISO Alpha-2 code representing the country (e.g., "US" for the United States).

• urban: Binary indicator for urban areas based on the GHSU Urban Layer 2019. (0 = rural, 1 = urban)

• urban_area: Name of the urban area or city where the data point is located.

• osm_id: Unique identifier assigned by OpenStreetMap (OSM) to each feature.

• osm_type: Type of OSM element (e.g., node, way, relation).

The data originates from OpenStreetMap (OSM) and is augmented with model predictions using images downloaded from Mapillary in combination with the GHSU Global Human Settlement Urban Layer 2019 and AFRICAPOLIS2020 urban layer.

This dataset is one of many HeiGIT exports on HDX. See the HeiGIT website for more information.

We are looking forward to hearing about your use-case! Feel free to reach out to us and tell us about your research at communications@heigit.org – we would be happy to amplify your work.

OVERVIEWThis site is dedicated to raising the level of spatial and data literacy used in public policy. We invite you to explore curated content, training, best practices, and datasets that can provide a baseline for your research, analysis, and policy recommendations. Learn about emerging policy questions and how GIS can be used to help come up with solutions to those questions.EXPLOREGo to your area of interest and explore hundreds of maps about various topics such as social equity, economic opportunity, public safety, and more. Browse and view the maps, or collect them and share via a simple URL. Sharing a collection of maps is an easy way to use maps as a tool for understanding. Help policymakers and stakeholders use data as a driving factor for policy decisions in your area.ISSUESBrowse different categories to find data layers, maps, and tools. Use this set of content as a driving force for your GIS workflows related to policy. RESOURCESTo maximize your experience with the Policy Maps, we’ve assembled education, training, best practices, and industry perspectives that help raise your data literacy, provide you with models, and connect you with the work of your peers.