As of October 2020, the average amount of mobile data used by Apple Maps per 20 minutes was 1.83 MB, while Google maps used only 0.73 MB. Waze, which is also owned by Google, used the least amount at 0.23 MB per 20 minutes.

In 2023, Google Maps was the most downloaded map and navigation app in the United States, despite being a standard pre-installed app on Android smartphones. Waze followed, with 9.89 million downloads in the examined period. The app, which comes with maps and the possibility to access information on traffic via users reports, was developed in 2006 by the homonymous Waze company, acquired by Google in 2013.

Usage of navigation apps in the U.S. As of 2021, less than two in 10 U.S. adults were using a voice assistant in their cars, in order to place voice calls or follow voice directions to a destination. Navigation apps generally offer the possibility for users to download maps to access when offline. Native iOS app Apple Maps, which does not offer this possibility, was by far the navigation app with the highest data consumption, while Google-owned Waze used only 0.23 MB per 20 minutes.

Usage of navigation apps worldwide In July 2022, Google Maps was the second most popular Google-owned mobile app, with 13.35 million downloads from global users during the examined month. In China, the Gaode Map app, which is operated along with other navigation services by the Alibaba owned AutoNavi, had approximately 730 million monthly active users as of September 2022.

Content This dataset is composed of 10k images from Google Street Map.

The coords.csv file holds latitude and longitude information for all 10k images. The images themselves have a size of 640x640. All the coordinates come directly from google street map so they are 100% accurate.

Contribute The script to get those image is available as free software a https://github.com/paulchambaz/geotrouvetout.

License This dataset is licensed under the GPLv3 license, feel free to use it however you want.

Successful knowledge graphs (KGs) solved the historical knowledge acquisition bottleneck by supplanting the previous expert focus with a simple, crowd-friendly one: KG nodes represent popular people, places, organizations, etc., and the graph arcs represent common sense relations like affiliations, locations, etc. Techniques for more general, categorical, KG curation do not seem to have made the same transition: the KG research community is still largely focused on logic-based methods that belie the common-sense characteristics of successful KGs. In this paper, we propose a simple yet novel three-tier crowd approach to acquiring class-level attributes that represent broad common sense associations between categories, and can be used with the classic knowledge-base default & override technique, to address the early label sparsity problem faced by machine learning systems for problems that lack data for training. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our acquisition and reasoning approach on a pair of very real industrial-scale problems: how to augment an existing KG of places and offerings (e.g. stores and products, restaurants and dishes) with associations between them indicating the availability of the offerings at those places. Label sparsity is a general problem, and not specific to these use cases, that prevents modern AI and machine learning techniques from applying to many applications for which labeled data is not readily available. As a result, the study of how to acquire the knowledge and data needed for AI to work is as much a problem today as it was in the 1970s and 80s during the advent of expert systems. Our approach was a critical part of enabling a worldwide local search capability on Google Maps, with which users can find products and dishes that are available in most places on earth.

Author: E Gunderson, educator, Minnesota Alliance for Geographic EducationGrade/Audience: grade 8, high schoolResource type: lessonSubject topic(s): gisRegion: united statesStandards: Minnesota Social Studies Standards

Standard 1. People use geographic representations and geospatial technologies to acquire, process and report information within a spatial context.Objectives: Students will be able to:

1. Create a custom map using Google Maps
2. Collect and plot data using Google MapsSummary: Students will learn the basics of Google Maps while using geospatial data to create their neighborhood map with the places they spend time. They will also collect data of their choice from another source (website, book, personal life) and plot the data using Google Maps.

The refugee location data (Geo-Refugee) provides information on the geographical locations, population sizes and accommodation types of refugees and people in refugee-like situations throughout Africa. Based on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Location and Demographic Composition data as well as information contained in supplemental UNHCR resources, Geo-Refugee assigns administrative unit names and geographic coordinates to refugee camps/ centers, and locations hosting dispersed (self-settled) refugees. Geo-Refugee was collected for the purpose of investigating the relationship between refugees and armed conflict, but can be used for a number of refugee-related studies. The original data for the category refugees and people in a refugee-like situation by accommodation type and location name comes directly from the UNHCR. The category refugees includes: "individuals recognized under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol; the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa; those recognized in accordance with the UNHCR statute; individuals granted complementary forms of protection and those enjoying temporary protection.The category people in a refugee-like situation "is descriptive in nature and includes groups of people who are outside their country of origin and who face protection risks similar to those of refugees, but for whom refugee status has, for practical or other reasons, not been ascertained" (UNHCR http://www.unhcr.org/45c06c662.html). The unit of the data is the first-level administrative unit (province, region or state). A refugee location is defined as a unit with a known refugee population, as established by UNHCR country offices. The locations data was compiled using statistics provided by the UNHCR Division of Programme Support and Management. Several of the refugee sites in the original UNHCR data are camp names or other lo cations which are not immediately traceable to a particular location using even the most established geographical databases like that of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). Thus, unit-level location of refugees was established and confirmed using supplementary resources including reports, maps, and policy documents compiled by the UNHCR and contained in the Refworld database (see http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain). Refworld was the primary database used for this project. Geographic coordinates were assigned using the database of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. See https://www1.nga.mil/Pages/default.aspx for more information. All attempts were made to find precise coordinates, including cross-referencing with Google Maps. The current version of the data covers 43 African countries and encompasses the period 2000 to 2010. The UNHCR began systematically collecting information on the locations and demographic compositions of refugee populations in 2000.

Successful knowledge graphs (KGs) solved the historical knowledge acquisition bottleneck by supplanting the previous expert focus with a simple, crowd-friendly one: KG nodes represent popular people, places, organizations, etc., and the graph arcs represent common sense relations like affiliations, locations, etc. Techniques for more general, categorical, KG curation do not seem to have made the same transition: the KG research community is still largely focused on logic-based methods that belie the common-sense characteristics of successful KGs. In this paper, we propose a simple yet novel three-tier crowd approach to acquiring class-level attributes that represent broad common sense associations between categories, and can be used with the classic knowledge-base default & override technique, to address the early label sparsity problem faced by machine learning systems for problems that lack data for training. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our acquisition and reasoning approach on a pair of very real industrial-scale problems: how to augment an existing KG of places and offerings (e.g. stores and products, restaurants and dishes) with associations between them indicating the availability of the offerings at those places. Label sparsity is a general problem, and not specific to these use cases, that prevents modern AI and machine learning techniques from applying to many applications for which labeled data is not readily available. As a result, the study of how to acquire the knowledge and data needed for AI to work is as much a problem today as it was in the 1970s and 80s during the advent of expert systems. Our approach was a critical part of enabling a worldwide local search capability on Google Maps, with which users can find products and dishes that are available in most places on earth.

As global communities responded to COVID-19, we heard from public health officials that the same type of aggregated, anonymized insights we use in products such as Google Maps would be helpful as they made critical decisions to combat COVID-19. These Community Mobility Reports aimed to provide insights into what changed in response to policies aimed at combating COVID-19. The reports charted movement trends over time by geography, across different categories of places such as retail and recreation, groceries and pharmacies, parks, transit stations, workplaces, and residential.

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.

This is the second version of the Google Landmarks dataset (GLDv2), which contains images annotated with labels representing human-made and natural landmarks. The dataset can be used for landmark recognition and retrieval experiments. This version of the dataset contains approximately 5 million images, split into 3 sets of images: train, index and test. The dataset was presented in our CVPR'20 paper. In this repository, we present download links for all dataset files and relevant code for metric computation. This dataset was associated to two Kaggle challenges, on landmark recognition and landmark retrieval. Results were discussed as part of a CVPR'19 workshop. In this repository, we also provide scores for the top 10 teams in the challenges, based on the latest ground-truth version. Please visit the challenge and workshop webpages for more details on the data, tasks and technical solutions from top teams.

This dashboard provide insights by month on how people find State of Iowa agency listings on the web via Google Search and Maps, and what they do once they find it to include providing reviews (ratings), accessing agency websites, requesting directions, and making calls.

Vatican Data Series {title at top of page}Data Developers: Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Emege, Thomas, Gerlt, R.. . “Vatican Data Series {title at top of page}”. Scale not given. Version 1.0. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Catholic Hierarchy, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Web map developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019Web app developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019GoodLands’ polygon data layers, version 2.0 for global ecclesiastical boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church:Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided, due to this being the first developed dataset of global ecclesiastical boundaries curated from many sources it may have a higher margin of error than established geopolitical administrative boundary maps. Boundaries need to be verified with appropriate Ecclesiastical Leadership. The current information is subject to change without notice. No parties involved with the creation of this data are liable for indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the use of the information. We referenced 1960 sources to build our global datasets of ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Often, they were isolated images of dioceses, historical documents and information about parishes that were cross checked. These sources can be viewed here:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11ANlH1S_aYJOyz4TtG0HHgz0OLxnOvXLHMt4FVOS85Q/edit#gid=0To learn more or contact us please visit: https://good-lands.org/The Catholic Leadership global maps information is derived from the Annuario Pontificio, which is curated and published by the Vatican Statistics Office annually, and digitized by David Cheney at Catholic-Hierarchy.org -- updated are supplemented with diocesan and news announcements. GoodLands maps this into global ecclesiastical boundaries. Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories:Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Gerlt, R.. . “Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories For Web”. Scale not given. Version 1.2. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Derived from:Global Diocesan Boundaries:Burhans, M., Bell, J., Burhans, D., Carmichael, R., Cheney, D., Deaton, M., Emge, T. Gerlt, B., Grayson, J., Herries, J., Keegan, H., Skinner, A., Smith, M., Sousa, C., Trubetskoy, S. “Diocesean Boundaries of the Catholic Church” [Feature Layer]. Scale not given. Version 1.2. Redlands, CA, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Using: ArcGIS. 10.4. Version 10.0. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Boundary ProvenanceStatistics and Leadership DataCheney, D.M. “Catholic Hierarchy of the World” [Database]. Date Updated: August 2019. Catholic Hierarchy. Using: Paradox. Retrieved from Original Source.Catholic HierarchyAnnuario Pontificio per l’Anno .. Città del Vaticano :Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, Multiple Years.The data for these maps was extracted from the gold standard of Church data, the Annuario Pontificio, published yearly by the Vatican. The collection and data development of the Vatican Statistics Office are unknown. GoodLands is not responsible for errors within this data. We encourage people to document and report errant information to us at data@good-lands.org or directly to the Vatican.Additional information about regular changes in bishops and sees comes from a variety of public diocesan and news announcements.

Context

The United States Census is a decennial census mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census

Content

The United States census count (also known as the Decennial Census of Population and Housing) is a count of every resident of the US. The census occurs every 10 years and is conducted by the United States Census Bureau. Census data is publicly available through the census website, but much of the data is available in summarized data and graphs. The raw data is often difficult to obtain, is typically divided by region, and it must be processed and combined to provide information about the nation as a whole.

The United States census dataset includes nationwide population counts from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Data is broken out by gender, age and location using zip code tabular areas (ZCTAs) and GEOIDs. ZCTAs are generalized representations of zip codes, and often, though not always, are the same as the zip code for an area. GEOIDs are numeric codes that uniquely identify all administrative, legal, and statistical geographic areas for which the Census Bureau tabulates data. GEOIDs are useful for correlating census data with other censuses and surveys.

Fork this kernel to get started.

Acknowledgements

https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/bigquery-public-data:census_bureau_usa

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/us-census

Dataset Source: United States Census Bureau

Use: This dataset is publicly available for anyone to use under the following terms provided by the Dataset Source - http://www.data.gov/privacy-policy#data_policy - and is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset.

Banner Photo by Steve Richey from Unsplash.

Inspiration

What are the ten most populous zip codes in the US in the 2010 census?

What are the top 10 zip codes that experienced the greatest change in population between the 2000 and 2010 censuses?

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/images/census-population-map.png" alt="https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/images/census-population-map.png"> https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/images/census-population-map.png

This dataset provides insights by month on how people find State of Iowa agency listings on the web via Google Search and Maps, and what they do once they find it to include providing reviews (ratings), accessing agency websites, requesting directions, and making calls.

Geospatial Services Land management within the US Forest Service and on the 900,000+ acre Monongahela National Forest (NF) is driven by a wide mix of resource and societal demands that prove a challenge in fulfilling the Forest Service’s mission of “Caring for the Land and Serving the People.” Programmatically, the 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan guide natural resource management activities on lands administered by the Monongahela National Forest. The Forest Plan describes management direction and practices, resource protection methods and monitoring, desired resource conditions, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. Technology enables staff to address these land management issues and Forest Plan direction by using a science-based approach to facilitate effective decisions. Monongahela NF geospatial services, using enabling-technologies, incorporate key tools such as Environmental Systems Research Institute’s ArcGIS desktop suite and Trimble’s global positioning system (GPS) units to meet program and Forest needs. Geospatial Datasets The Forest has a broad set of geospatial datasets that capture geographic features across the eastern West Virginia landscape. Many of these datasets are available to the public through our download site. Selected geospatial data that encompass the Monongahela National Forest are available for download from this page. A link to the FGDC-compliant metadata is provided for each dataset. All data are in zipped format (or available from the specified source), in one of two spatial data formats, and in the following coordinate system: Coordinate System: Universal Transverse Mercator Zone: 17 Units: Meters Datum: NAD 1983 Spheroid: GRS 1980 Map files – All map files are in pdf format. These maps illustrate the correlated geospatial data. All maps are under 1 MB unless otherwise noted. Metadata file – This FGDC-compliant metadata file contains information pertaining to the specific geospatial dataset. Shapefile – This downloadable zipped file is in ESRI’s shapefile format. KML file – This downloadable zipped file is in Google Earth’s KML format. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Monongahela National Forest Geospatial Data. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mnf/landmanagement/gis/?cid=stelprdb5108081 Selected geospatial data that encompass the Monongahela National Forest are available for download from this page.

The Geospatial Analytics Market size was valued at USD 79.06 USD billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 202.74 USD billion by 2032, exhibiting a CAGR of 14.4 % during the forecast period. The growing adoption of location-based technologies and the increasing need for data-driven decision-making in various industries are key factors driving market growth. Geospatial analytics captures, produces and displays GIS (geographic information system)-maps and pictures that may be weather maps, GPS or satellite photos. The geospatial analysis as a tool works with state of art technology in every formats namely; the GPS, sensors that locates, social media, mobile devices, multi of the satellite imagery to produce data visualizations that are facilitating trend-finding in complex relations between people and places as well are the situations' understanding. Visualizations are depicted through the use of maps, graphs, figures, and cartograms that illustrate the entire historical picture as well as a current changing trend. This is why the forecast becomes more confident and the situation is anticipated better. Recent developments include: February 2024: Placer.ai and Esri, a Geographic Information System (GIS) technology provider, partnered to empower customers with enhanced analytics capabilities, integrating consumer behavior analysis. Additionally, the agreement will foster collaborations to unlock further features by synergizing our respective product offerings., December 2023: CKS and Esri India Technologies Pvt Ltd teamed up to introduce the 'MMGEIS' program, focusing on students from 8th grade to undergraduates, to position India as a global leader in geospatial technology through skill development and innovation., December 2023: In collaboration with Bayanat, the UAE Space Agency revealed the initiation of the operational phase of the Geospatial Analytics Platform during its participation in organizing the Space at COP28 initiatives., November 2023: USAID unveiled its inaugural Geospatial Strategy, designed to harness geospatial data and technology for more targeted international program delivery. The strategy foresees a future where geographic methods enhance the effectiveness of USAID's efforts by pinpointing development needs, monitoring program implementation, and evaluating outcomes based on location., May 2023: TomTom International BV, a geolocation technology specialist, expanded its partnership with Alteryx, Inc. Through this partnership, Alteryx will use TomTom’s Maps APIs and location data to integrate spatial data into Alteryx’s products and location insights packages, such as Alteryx Designer., May 2023: Oracle Corporation announced the launch of Oracle Spatial Studio 23.1, available in the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) marketplace and for on-premises deployment. Users can browse, explore, and analyze geographic data stored in and managed by Oracle using a no-code mapping tool., May 2023: CAPE Analytics, a property intelligence company, announced an enhanced insurance offering by leveraging Google geospatial data. Google’s geospatial data can help CAPE create appropriate solutions for insurance carriers., February 2023: HERE Global B.V. announced a collaboration with Cognizant, an information technology, services, and consulting company, to offer digital customer experience using location data. In this partnership, Cognizant will utilize the HERE location platform’s real-time traffic data, weather, and road attribute data to develop spatial intelligent solutions for its customers., July 2022: Athenium Analytics, a climate risk analytics company, launched a comprehensive tornado data set on the Esri ArcGIS Marketplace. This offering, which included the last 25 years of tornado insights from Athenium Analytics, would extend its Bronze partner relationship with Esri. . Key drivers for this market are: Advancements in Technologies to Fuel Market Growth. Potential restraints include: Lack of Standardization Coupled with Shortage of Skilled Workforce to Limit Market Growth. Notable trends are: Rise of Web-based GIS Platforms Will Transform Market.

The data in this dataset is a spatial inventory of urban agriculture (UA) carried out in the city of Milan (Italy). UA areas where identified with a multi-step and iterative procedure by using different web-mapping tools, especially multitemporal Google Earth images, and ancillary data such as Google Street View and Bing Maps.

License

Creative Commons CC-BY

Disclaimer

Despite our best efforts to validate the data, some information may be incorrect.

Description of the dataset

Typologies of UA

Residential garden: Private parcel near single houses (e.g. backyard), villas, buildings, industrial and commercial activities, generally managed by property owners. Cultivation is diversified ranging from leafy vegetables to herbs and fruit trees. Production is intended for self-consumption and/or for hobby purposes.

Community garden: A large area subdivided into multipleplots managed individually (i.e. allotment) or collectively by a group of people. Crop production is intended for self-consumption. Land is assigned by the Municipality; several cases of land cultivated without authorization are also common.

Urban farm: Parcel managed by professional farmers with an intensive and an advanced cropping system. The cultivation can be specialized or oriented to high diversity vegetables. The production is intended for market. The mapping procedure focus on arable crops, horticulture, vineyard, olive groves and orchard.

Institutional garden: Parcel managed by institutions or organizations like schools, religious center, prisons and non-profit organizations. The production is generally intended for self-consumption and less frequently for trade. Several gardens in this category are intended for social purposes (e.g. recreation,education, etc.).

Illegal garden: Parcel isolated, cultivated without authorization organized and managed individually or by a few people. Localization occurs on unused or abandoned areas owned by public bodies or private subjects. The production is intended for self-consumption.

Nurseries: A large area subdivided into multiple plots managed for growing ornamental plants and flowers.

Land use typologies

Horticulture: annual crops generally seed sown in spring or summer (tomatoes, lettuce, zucchini, cucumbers, peppers).

Vineyard: grape vines grown in order to produce wine or table grape.

Olive groves: olive trees grown in order to produce olive oil or table olives.

Orchards: mixed trees such as orange, stone fruit, pome fruit, olive trees.

Mixed crops: an area grown with a mix of horticulture crops and fruit trees, not divisible.

Nurseries: ornamental plants, trees, flowers.

Credit

Pulighe G., Lupia F. (2019) Multitemporal Geospatial Evaluation of Urban Agriculture and (Non)-Sustainable Food Self-Provisioning in Milan, Italy. Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 1846

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1846

Motivation The data in this dataset is a spatial inventory of urban agriculture (UA) carried out in the city of Rome (Italy) (Grande Raccordo Anulare (GRA)). UA areas where identified with a multi-step and iterative procedure by using different web-mapping tools, especially multitemporal Google Earth images, and ancillary data such as Google Street View and Bing Maps. License Creative Commons CC-BY Disclaimer Despite our best efforts to validate the data, some information may be incorrect. Description of the dataset Typologies of UA Residential garden: Private parcel near single houses (e.g. backyard), villas, buildings, industrial and commercial activities, generally managed by property owners. Cultivation is diversified ranging from leafy vegetables to herbs and fruit trees. Production is intended for self-consumption and/or for hobby purposes. Community garden: A large area subdivided into multipleplots managed individually (i.e. allotment) or collectively by a group of people. Crop production is intended for self-consumption. Land is assigned by the Municipality; several cases of land cultivated without authorization are also common. Urban farm: Parcel managed by professional farmers with an intensive and an advanced cropping system. The cultivation can be specialized or oriented to high diversity vegetables. The production is intended for market. The mapping procedure focus exclusively on horticulture, vineyard, olive groves and orchard. Institutional garden: Parcel managed by institutions or organizations like schools, religious center, prisons and non-profit organizations. The production is generally intended for self-consumption and less frequently for trade. Several gardens in this category are intended for social purposes (e.g. recreation,education, etc.). Illegal garden: Parcel isolated, cultivated without authorization organized and managed individually or by a few people. Localization occurs on unused or abandoned areas owned by public bodies or private subjects. The production is intended for self-consumption. Land use typologies Horticulture: annual crops generally seed sown in spring or summer (tomatoes, lettuce, zucchini, cucumbers, peppers). Vineyard: grape vines grown in order to produce wine or table grape. Olive groves: olive trees grown in order to produce olive oil or table olives. Orchards: mixed trees such as orange, stone fruit, pome fruit, olive trees. Mixed crops: an area grown with a mix of horticulture crops and fruit trees, not divisible. Credit Pulighe G., Lupia F. (2016) Mapping spatial patterns of urban agriculture in Rome (Italy) using Google Earth and web-mapping services. Land Use Policy 59(2016) 49-58. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716300059 {"references": ["Pulighe G., Lupia F. (2016) Mapping spatial patterns of urban agriculture in Rome (Italy) using Google Earth and web-mapping services. Land Use Policy 59 (2016) 49\u201358"]}

Big “p” policy changes at the state and federal level are certainly important to health equity, such as eligibility for and generosity of Medicaid benefits. Medicaid expansion has significantly expanded the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid and the creation of the health insurance exchanges (Marketplace) under the Affordable Care Act created a very visible avenue through which people can learn that they are eligible. Although many applications are now submitted online, physical access to state, county, and tribal government Medicaid offices still plays a critical role in understanding eligibility, getting help in applying, and navigating required documentation for both initial enrollment and redetermination of eligibility. However, as more government functions have moved online, in-person office locations and/or staff may have been cut to reduce costs, and gentrification has shifted where minoritized, marginalized, and/or low-income populations live, it is unclear if this key local connection point between residents and Medicaid has been maintained. Our objective was to identify and geocode all Medicaid offices in the United States for pairing with other spatial data (e.g., demographics, Medicaid participation, health care use, health outcomes) to investigate policy-relevant research questions. Three coders identified Medicaid office addresses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia by searching state government websites (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services or analogous state agency) during late 2021 and early 2022 for the appropriate Medicaid agency and its office locations, which were then reviewed for accuracy by a fourth coder. Our corpus of Medicaid office addresses was then geocoded using the Census Geocoder from the US Census Bureau (https://geocoding.geo.census.gov/geocoder/) with unresolved addresses investigated and/or manually geocoded using Google Maps. The corpus was updated in August through December 2023 following the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency by a fifth coder as several states closed and/or combined offices during the pandemic. After deduplication (e.g., where multiple counties share a single office) and removal of mailing addresses (e.g., PO Boxes), our dataset includes 3,027 Medicaid office locations. 1 (December 19, 2023) – original version 2 (January 25, 2024) – added related publication (Data in Brief), corrected two records that were missing negative signs in longitude 3 (February 6, 2024) – corrected latitude and longitude for one office (1340 State Route 9, Lake George, NY 12845) 4 (March 4, 2024) – added one office for Vermont after contacting relevant state agency (280 State Road, Waterbury, VT 05671)

Catholics per Parish {title at top of page}Data Developers: Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Emege, Thomas, Gerlt, R.. . “Catholics per Parish {title at top of page}”. Scale not given. Version 1.0. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Catholic Hierarchy, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Web map developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019Web app developer: Molly Burhans, October 2019GoodLands’ polygon data layers, version 2.0 for global ecclesiastical boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church:Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided, due to this being the first developed dataset of global ecclesiastical boundaries curated from many sources it may have a higher margin of error than established geopolitical administrative boundary maps. Boundaries need to be verified with appropriate Ecclesiastical Leadership. The current information is subject to change without notice. No parties involved with the creation of this data are liable for indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the use of the information. We referenced 1960 sources to build our global datasets of ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Often, they were isolated images of dioceses, historical documents and information about parishes that were cross checked. These sources can be viewed here:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11ANlH1S_aYJOyz4TtG0HHgz0OLxnOvXLHMt4FVOS85Q/edit#gid=0To learn more or contact us please visit: https://good-lands.org/The Catholic Leadership global maps information is derived from the Annuario Pontificio, which is curated and published by the Vatican Statistics Office annually, and digitized by David Cheney at Catholic-Hierarchy.org -- updated are supplemented with diocesan and news announcements. GoodLands maps this into global ecclesiastical boundaries. Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories:Burhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Gerlt, R.. . “Admin 3 Ecclesiastical Territories For Web”. Scale not given. Version 1.2. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.Derived from:Global Diocesan Boundaries:Burhans, M., Bell, J., Burhans, D., Carmichael, R., Cheney, D., Deaton, M., Emge, T. Gerlt, B., Grayson, J., Herries, J., Keegan, H., Skinner, A., Smith, M., Sousa, C., Trubetskoy, S. “Diocesean Boundaries of the Catholic Church” [Feature Layer]. Scale not given. Version 1.2. Redlands, CA, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Using: ArcGIS. 10.4. Version 10.0. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Boundary ProvenanceStatistics and Leadership DataCheney, D.M. “Catholic Hierarchy of the World” [Database]. Date Updated: August 2019. Catholic Hierarchy. Using: Paradox. Retrieved from Original Source.Catholic HierarchyAnnuario Pontificio per l’Anno .. Città del Vaticano :Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, Multiple Years.The data for these maps was extracted from the gold standard of Church data, the Annuario Pontificio, published yearly by the Vatican. The collection and data development of the Vatican Statistics Office are unknown. GoodLands is not responsible for errors within this data. We encourage people to document and report errant information to us at data@good-lands.org or directly to the Vatican.Additional information about regular changes in bishops and sees comes from a variety of public diocesan and news announcements.