This dataset is about books. It has 1 row and is filtered where the book is The American polity : the people and their government. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.

Publication Date: April 2025. This data represents Federal properties in New York State derived from a combination of the USGS National Boundary Dataset (NBD) with NYS Publicly Available Parcel data. USGS GU_Reserve feature class "...include extents of forest, grassland, park, wilderness, wildlife, and other reserve areas useful for recreational activities, such as hiking and backpacking. Boundaries data are acquired from a variety of government sources. The data represents the source data with minimal editing or review by USGS." More information and detailed metadata is available here: https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/data/USGS:6dcde538-1684-48a0-a8d6-cb671ca0a43e. NYS ITS Geospatial Services publicly available parcel data selection of [OWNER_TYPE] field, where 1 = Federal Classification is based solely on the parcel owner name indicating that the property is owned by the United States. Parcel data that is not publicly available is not included. More information and detailed metadata is available here: https://gis.ny.gov/parcels.These two datasets were combined with a minimum of available common attributes, indicating the Name, Owner, and Address of the property where applicable and/or available. Unique identifiers were retained to link records back to the original datasets. Work to improve and expand upon this Federal properties GIS dataset is on-going. Please contact NYS ITS Geospatial Services at nysgis@its.ny.gov if you have any questions.

Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 39.7 percent of GDP in 2024 . This dataset provides - United States Government Spending To Gdp- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Large Scale International Boundaries

Version 11.1 Release Date: August 22, 2022

Overview

The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. These data and their derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. They reflect U.S. Government policy, and not necessarily de facto limits of control. This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset.

Details

Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions and national mapping agencies. Where available, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery of the data involves analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground.

Attributes

The dataset uses the following attributes: Attribute Name Explanation Country Code Country-level codes are from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC). The Q2 code denotes a line representing a boundary associated with an area not in GENC. Country Names Names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN). Names for lines associated with a Q2 code are descriptive and are not necessarily BGN-approved. Label Required text label for the line segment where scale permits Rank/Status Rank 1: International Boundary Rank 2: Other Line of International Separation Rank 3: Special Line Notes Explanation of any applicable special circumstances Cartographic Usage Depiction of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundaries: International Boundaries (Rank 1), Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2), and Special Lines (Rank 3). Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Additional cartographic information can be found in Guidance Bulletins (https://hiu.state.gov/data/cartographic_guidance_bulletins/) published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues. Please direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov.

Credits

The lines in the LSIB dataset are the product of decades of collaboration between geographers at the Department of State and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency and the UK Defence Geographic Centre. Attribution is welcome: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.

Changes from Prior Release

This version of the LSIB contains changes and accuracy refinements for the following line segments. These changes reflect improvements in spatial accuracy derived from newly available source materials, an ongoing review process, or the publication of new treaties or agreements. Changes to lines include: • Akrotiri (UK) / Cyprus • Albania / Montenegro • Albania / Greece • Albania / North Macedonia • Armenia / Turkey • Austria / Czechia • Austria / Slovakia • Austria / Hungary • Austria / Slovenia • Austria / Germany • Austria / Italy • Austria / Switzerland • Azerbaijan / Turkey • Azerbaijan / Iran • Belarus / Latvia • Belarus / Russia • Belarus / Ukraine • Belarus / Poland • Bhutan / India • Bhutan / China • Bulgaria / Turkey • Bulgaria / Romania • Bulgaria / Serbia • Bulgaria / Romania • China / Tajikistan • China / India • Croatia / Slovenia • Croatia / Hungary • Croatia / Serbia • Croatia / Montenegro • Czechia / Slovakia • Czechia / Poland • Czechia / Germany • Finland / Russia • Finland / Norway • Finland / Sweden • France / Italy • Georgia / Turkey • Germany / Poland • Germany / Switzerland • Greece / North Macedonia • Guyana / Suriname • Hungary / Slovenia • Hungary / Serbia • Hungary / Romania • Hungary / Ukraine • Iran / Turkey • Iraq / Turkey • Italy / Slovenia • Italy / Switzerland • Italy / Vatican City • Italy / San Marino • Kazakhstan / Russia • Kazakhstan / Uzbekistan • Kosovo / north Macedonia • Kosovo / Serbia • Kyrgyzstan / Tajikistan • Kyrgyzstan / Uzbekistan • Latvia / Russia • Latvia / Lithuania • Lithuania / Poland • Lithuania / Russia • Moldova / Ukraine • Moldova / Romania • Norway / Russia • Norway / Sweden • Poland / Russia • Poland / Ukraine • Poland / Slovakia • Romania / Ukraine • Romania / Serbia • Russia / Ukraine • Syria / Turkey • Tajikistan / Uzbekistan

This release also contains topology fixes, land boundary terminus refinements, and tripoint adjustments.

Copyright Notice and Disclaimer

While U.S. Government works prepared by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not subject to Federal copyright protection (see 17 U.S.C. § 105), copyrighted material incorporated in U.S. Government works retains its copyright protection. The works on or made available through download from the U.S. Department of State’s website may not be used in any manner that infringes any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights held by any third party. Use of any copyrighted material beyond what is allowed by fair use or other exemptions may require appropriate permission from the relevant rightsholder. With respect to works on or made available through download from the U.S. Department of State’s website, neither the U.S. Government nor any of its agencies, employees, agents, or contractors make any representations or warranties—express, implied, or statutory—as to the validity, accuracy, completeness, or fitness for a particular purpose; nor represent that use of such works would not infringe privately owned rights; nor assume any liability resulting from use of such works; and shall in no way be liable for any costs, expenses, claims, or demands arising out of use of such works.

The O*NET Database contains hundreds of standardized and occupation-specific descriptors on almost 1,000 occupations covering the entire U.S. economy. The database, which is available to the public at no cost, is continually updated by a multi-method data collection program. Sources of data include: job incumbents, occupational experts, occupational analysts, employer job postings, and customer/professional association input.

Data content areas include:

• Worker Characteristics (e.g., Abilities, Interests, Work Styles)
• Worker Requirements (e.g., Education, Knowledge, Skills)
• Experience Requirements (e.g., On-the-Job Training, Work Experience)
• Occupational Requirements (e.g., Detailed Work Activities, Work Context)
• Occupation-Specific Information (e.g., Job Titles, Tasks, Technology Skills)

A large body of research has demonstrated that land use and urban form can have a significant effect on transportation outcomes. People who live and/or work in compact neighborhoods with a walkable street grid and easy access to public transit, jobs, stores, and services are more likely to have several transportation options to meet their everyday needs. As a result, they can choose to drive less, which reduces their emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants compared to people who live and work in places that are not location efficient. Walking, biking, and taking public transit can also save people money and improve their health by encouraging physical activity.

The Smart Location Database summarizes several demographic, employment, and built environment variables for every census block group (CBG) in the United States. The database includes indicators of the commonly cited “D” variables shown in the transportation research literature to be related to travel behavior. The Ds include residential and employment density, land use diversity, design of the built environment, access to destinations, and distance to transit. SLD variables can be used as inputs to travel demand models, baseline data for scenario planning studies, and combined into composite indicators characterizing the relative location efficiency of CBG within U.S. metropolitan regions.

This update features the most recent geographic boundaries (2019 Census Block Groups) and new and expanded sources of data used to calculate variables. Entirely new variables have been added and the methods used to calculate some of the SLD variables have changed.

See https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping for more information.

This EnviroAtlas dataset shows the employment rate, or the percent of the population aged 16-64 who have worked in the past 12 months. The employment rate is a measure of the percent of the working-age population who are employed. It is an indicator of the prevalence of unemployment, which is often used to assess labor market conditions by economists. It is a widely used metric to evaluate the sustainable development of communities (NRC, 2011, UNECE, 2009). This dataset is based on the American Community Survey 5-year data for 2008-2012. This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

This dataset contains annual average CES data for California statewide and areas from 1990 to 2023.

The Current Employment Statistics (CES) program is a Federal-State cooperative effort in which monthly surveys are conducted to provide estimates of employment, hours, and earnings based on payroll records of business establishments. The CES survey is based on approximately 119,000 businesses and government agencies representing approximately 629,000 individual worksites throughout the United States.

CES data reflect the number of nonfarm, payroll jobs. It includes the total number of persons on establishment payrolls, employed full- or part-time, who received pay (whether they worked or not) for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month. Temporary and intermittent employees are included, as are any employees who are on paid sick leave or on paid holiday. Persons on the payroll of more than one establishment are counted in each establishment. CES data excludes proprietors, self-employed, unpaid family or volunteer workers, farm workers, and household workers. Government employment covers only civilian employees; it excludes uniformed members of the armed services.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for the concepts, definitions, technical procedures, validation, and publication of the estimates that State workforce agencies prepare under agreement with BLS.

State, territorial, and county executive orders, administrative orders, resolutions, and proclamations are collected from government websites and cataloged and coded using Microsoft Excel by one coder with one or more additional coders conducting quality assurance.

Data were collected to determine when individuals in states, territories, and counties were subject to executive orders, administrative orders, resolutions, and proclamations for COVID-19 that require or recommend people stay in their homes.

These data are derived from the publicly available state, territorial, and county executive orders, administrative orders, resolutions, and proclamations (“orders”) for COVID-19 that expressly require or recommend individuals stay at home found by the CDC, COVID-19 Community Intervention and At-Risk Task Force, Monitoring and Evaluation Team & CDC, Center for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Public Health Law Program from March 15 through May 5, 2020. These data will be updated as new orders are collected. Any orders not available through publicly accessible websites are not included in these data. Only official copies of the documents or, where official copies were unavailable, official press releases from government websites describing requirements were coded; news media reports on restrictions were excluded. Recommendations not included in an order are not included in these data. These data do not include mandatory business closures, curfews, or limitations on public or private gatherings. These data do not necessarily represent an official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Copy of https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/kisoibo/countries-databasesqlite

Updated the name of the table from 'countries of the world' to 'countries', for ease of writing queries.

Info about the dataset:

Content

Table Total Rows Total Columns countries of the world **0 ** ** 20** Country, Region, Population, Area (sq. mi.), Pop. Density (per sq. mi.), Coastline (coast/area ratio), Net migration, Infant mortality (per 1000 births), GDP ($ per capita), Literacy (%), Phones (per 1000), Arable (%), Crops (%), Other (%), Climate, Birthrate, Deathrate, Agriculture, Industry, Service

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements Source: All these data sets are made up of data from the US government. Generally they are free to use if you use the data in the US. If you are outside of the US, you may need to contact the US Govt to ask. Data from the World Factbook is public domain. The website says "The World Factbook is in the public domain and may be used freely by anyone at anytime without seeking permission." https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/faqs.html

Inspiration

When making visualisations related to countries, sometimes it is interesting to group them by attributes such as region, or weigh their importance by population, GDP or other variables.

A collection of performance indicators and regional benchmarks for consistently comparing neighborhoods (census block groups) across the US in regards to their accessibility to jobs or workers via public transit service. Accessibility was modeled by calculating total travel time between block group centroids inclusive of walking to/from transit stops, wait times, and transfers. Block groups that can be accessed in 45 minutes or less from the origin block group are considered accessible. Indicators reflect public transit service in December 2012 and employment/worker counts in 2010. Coverage is limited to census block groups within metropolitan regions served by transit agencies who share their service data in a standardized format called GTFS.

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

Non Farm Payrolls in the United States increased by 73 thousand in July of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Non Farm Payrolls - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

This data set contains information about any US government agency participating in the transit benefits program, funding agreements, individual participating Federal employees and details about commutes, supervisors and supervisory approvals, fare media in use, and transaction histories.

This submission includes publicly available data extracted in its original form. Please reference the Related Publication listed here for source and citation information: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/smart-location-database7 If you have questions about the underlying data stored here, please contact Thomas John (thomas.john@epa.gov). If you have questions or recommendations related to this metadata entry and extracted data, please contact the CAFE Data Management team at: climatecafe@bu.edu. "The Smart Location Database is a nationwide geographic data resource for measuring location efficiency. It includes more than 90 attributes summarizing characteristics, such as housing density, diversity of land use, neighborhood design, destination accessibility, transit service, employment and demographics. Most attributes are available for every census block group in the United States. A large body of research has demonstrated that land use and urban form can have a significant effect on transportation outcomes. People who live and/or work in compact neighborhoods with a walkable street grid and easy access to public transit, jobs, stores, and services are more likely to have several transportation options to meet their everyday needs. As a result, they can choose to drive less, which reduces their emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants compared to people who live and work in places that are not location efficient. Walking, biking, and taking public transit can also save people money and improve their health by encouraging physical activity. The Smart Location Database summarizes several demographic, employment, and built environment variables for every census block group (CBG) in the United States. The database includes indicators of the commonly cited “D” variables shown in the transportation research literature to be related to travel behavior. The Ds include residential and employment density, land use diversity, design of the built environment, access to destinations, and distance to transit. SLD variables can be used as inputs to travel demand models, baseline data for scenario planning studies, and combined into composite indicators characterizing the relative location efficiency of CBG within U.S. metropolitan regions. EPA first released a beta version of the Smart Location Database in 2011. The initial full version was released in 2013, and the database was updated to its current version in 2021." Quote from https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping and https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/smart-location-database7

Summary:

Estimated stand-off distance between ADS-B equipped aircraft and obstacles. Obstacle information was sourced from the FAA Digital Obstacle File and the FHWA National Bridge Inventory. Aircraft tracks were sourced from processed data curated from the OpenSky Network. Results are presented as histograms organized by aircraft type and distance away from runways.

Description:

For many aviation safety studies, aircraft behavior is represented using encounter models, which are statistical models of how aircraft behave during close encounters. They are used to provide a realistic representation of the range of encounter flight dynamics where an aircraft collision avoidance system would be likely to alert. These models currently and have historically have been limited to interactions between aircraft; they have not represented the specific interactions between obstacles and aircraft equipped transponders. In response, we calculated the standoff distance between obstacles and ADS-B equipped manned aircraft.

For robustness, this assessment considered two different datasets of manned aircraft tracks and two datasets of obstacles. For robustness, MIT LL calculated the standoff distance using two different datasets of aircraft tracks and two datasets of obstacles. This approach aligned with the foundational research used to support the ASTM F3442/F3442M-20 well clear criteria of 2000 feet laterally and 250 feet AGL vertically.

The two datasets of processed tracks of ADS-B equipped aircraft curated from the OpenSky Network. It is likely that rotorcraft were underrepresented in these datasets. There were also no considerations for aircraft equipped only with Mode C or not equipped with any transponders. The first dataset was used to train the v1.3 uncorrelated encounter models and referred to as the “Monday” dataset. The second dataset is referred to as the “aerodrome” dataset and was used to train the v2.0 and v3.x terminal encounter model. The Monday dataset consisted of 104 Mondays across North America. The other dataset was based on observations at least 8 nautical miles within Class B, C, D aerodromes in the United States for the first 14 days of each month from January 2019 through February 2020. Prior to any processing, the datasets required 714 and 847 Gigabytes of storage. For more details on these datasets, please refer to "Correlated Bayesian Model of Aircraft Encounters in the Terminal Area Given a Straight Takeoff or Landing" and “Benchmarking the Processing of Aircraft Tracks with Triples Mode and Self-Scheduling.”

Two different datasets of obstacles were also considered. First was point obstacles defined by the FAA digital obstacle file (DOF) and consisted of point obstacle structures of antenna, lighthouse, meteorological tower (met), monument, sign, silo, spire (steeple), stack (chimney; industrial smokestack), transmission line tower (t-l tower), tank (water; fuel), tramway, utility pole (telephone pole, or pole of similar height, supporting wires), windmill (wind turbine), and windsock. Each obstacle was represented by a cylinder with the height reported by the DOF and a radius based on the report horizontal accuracy. We did not consider the actual width and height of the structure itself. Additionally, we only considered obstacles at least 50 feet tall and marked as verified in the DOF.

The other obstacle dataset, termed as “bridges,” was based on the identified bridges in the FAA DOF and additional information provided by the National Bridge Inventory. Due to the potential size and extent of bridges, it would not be appropriate to model them as point obstacles; however, the FAA DOF only provides a point location and no information about the size of the bridge. In response, we correlated the FAA DOF with the National Bridge Inventory, which provides information about the length of many bridges. Instead of sizing the simulated bridge based on horizontal accuracy, like with the point obstacles, the bridges were represented as circles with a radius of the longest, nearest bridge from the NBI. A circle representation was required because neither the FAA DOF or NBI provided sufficient information about orientation to represent bridges as rectangular cuboid. Similar to the point obstacles, the height of the obstacle was based on the height reported by the FAA DOF. Accordingly, the analysis using the bridge dataset should be viewed as risk averse and conservative. It is possible that a manned aircraft was hundreds of feet away from an obstacle in actuality but the estimated standoff distance could be significantly less. Additionally, all obstacles are represented with a fixed height, the potentially flat and low level entrances of the bridge are assumed to have the same height as the tall bridge towers. The attached figure illustrates an example simulated bridge.

It would had been extremely computational inefficient to calculate the standoff distance for all possible track points. Instead, we define an encounter between an aircraft and obstacle as when an aircraft flying 3069 feet AGL or less comes within 3000 feet laterally of any obstacle in a 60 second time interval. If the criteria were satisfied, then for that 60 second track segment we calculate the standoff distance to all nearby obstacles. Vertical separation was based on the MSL altitude of the track and the maximum MSL height of an obstacle.

For each combination of aircraft track and obstacle datasets, the results were organized seven different ways. Filtering criteria were based on aircraft type and distance away from runways. Runway data was sourced from the FAA runways of the United States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands open dataset. Aircraft type was identified as part of the em-processing-opensky workflow.

• All: No filter, all observations that satisfied encounter conditions
• nearRunway: Aircraft within or at 2 nautical miles of a runway
• awayRunway: Observations more than 2 nautical miles from a runway
• glider: Observations when aircraft type is a glider
• fwme: Observations when aircraft type is a fixed-wing multi-engine
• fwse: Observations when aircraft type is a fixed-wing single engine
• rotorcraft: Observations when aircraft type is a rotorcraft

License

This dataset is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form and for noncommercial purposes only. Only noncommercial use of your work is permitted. Noncommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. Exceptions are given for the not for profit standards organizations of ASTM International and RTCA.

MIT is releasing this dataset in good faith to promote open and transparent research of the low altitude airspace. Given the limitations of the dataset and a need for more research, a more restrictive license was warranted. Namely it is based only on only observations of ADS-B equipped aircraft, which not all aircraft in the airspace are required to employ; and observations were source from a crowdsourced network whose surveillance coverage has not been robustly characterized.

As more research is conducted and the low altitude airspace is further characterized or regulated, it is expected that a future version of this dataset may have a more permissive license.

Distribution Statement

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

© 2021 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Delivered to the U.S. Government with Unlimited Rights, as defined in DFARS Part 252.227-7013 or 7014 (Feb 2014). Notwithstanding any copyright notice, U.S. Government rights in this work are defined by DFARS 252.227-7013 or DFARS 252.227-7014 as detailed above. Use of this work other than as specifically authorized by the U.S. Government may violate any copyrights that exist in this work.

This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Aviation Administration under Air Force Contract No. FA8702-15-D-0001. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Aviation Administration.

This document is derived from work done for the FAA (and possibly others); it is not the direct product of work done for the FAA. The information provided herein may include content supplied by third parties. Although the data and information contained herein has been produced or processed from sources believed to be reliable, the Federal Aviation Administration makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, legality, reliability or usefulness of any information, conclusions or recommendations provided herein. Distribution of the information contained herein does not constitute an endorsement or warranty of the data or information provided herein by the Federal Aviation Administration or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the U.S. Department of

The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is climate survey and results allow decision makers to assess how employees jointly experience the policies, practices, and procedures of their organizations. The survey allows government employees to share their opinions about what matters most to them, and gives them the opportunity to let their leadership know how they feel about their job, their supervisor, and their agency. Topics assessed in the FEVS focus on organizational practices within leadership scope to act upon. The ultimate goal of the FEVS program is to provide leadership with information that can be leveraged for improving and achieving effective Federal workplaces.Largescale government-wide survey administered by OPM's Employee Services. Each agency has an internal POC leading efforts supporting administration of the survey. Captures agency employee perceptions on work environment; supervisors; managers; executives; Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility; Engagement; job and pay satisfaction; rewards and recognition; as well as demographics of survey takers. ~2300 OPM employees receive this survey / year.

Law Enforcement Locations Any location where sworn officers of a law enforcement agency are regularly based or stationed. Law Enforcement agencies "are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers". This is the definition used by the US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ-BJS) for their Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Although LEMAS only includes non Federal Agencies, this dataset includes locations for federal, state, local, and special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, municipal police, county sheriffs, state police, school police, park police, railroad police, federal law enforcement agencies, departments within non law enforcement federal agencies charged with law enforcement (e.g., US Postal Inspectors), and cross jurisdictional authorities (e.g., Port Authority Police). In general, the requirements and training for becoming a sworn law enforcement officer are set by each state. Law Enforcement agencies themselves are not chartered or licensed by their state. County, city, and other government authorities within each state are usually empowered by their state law to setup or disband Law Enforcement agencies. Generally, sworn Law Enforcement officers must report which agency they are employed by to the state. Although TGS's intention is to only include locations associated with agencies that meet the above definition, TGS has discovered a few locations that are associated with agencies that are not publicly funded. TGS deleted these locations as we became aware of them, but some may still exist in this dataset. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes of constables are included due to the fact that many constables work out of their homes. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all local police; county sheriffs; state police and/or highway patrol; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. FBI entities are intended to be excluded from this dataset, but a few may be included. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, the NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 08/10/2006 and the newest record dates from 10/22/2009

This table contains data on the percent of population aged 16 years or older whose commute to work is 10 or more minutes/day by walking or biking for California, its regions, counties, and cities/towns. Data is from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, and from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and National Household Travel Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Active modes of transport, bicycling and walking alone and in combination with public transit, offer opportunities to incorporate physical activity into the daily routine. Physical activity is associated with lowering rates of heart disease and stroke, diabetes, colon and breast cancer, dementia and depression. Automobile commuting is associated with health hazards, such as air pollution, motor vehicle crashes, pedestrian injuries and fatalities, and sedentary lifestyles. Consequently the transition from automobile-focused transport to public and active transport offers environmental health benefits, including reductions in air pollution, greenhouse gases and noise pollution, and may lead to greater overall safety in transportation. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

The list tracks the number of businesses that NYC Business Acceleration has assisted in opening and how many jobs were created by those businesses. This data is up to date as of the date reflected in the "About" tab of this dataset.