Facebook
TwitterThe Military Bases dataset was last updated on November 11, 2025 and are defined by Fiscal Year 2024 data, from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The dataset depicts the authoritative locations of the most commonly known Department of Defense (DoD) sites, installations, ranges, and training areas world-wide. These sites encompass land which is federally owned or otherwise managed. This dataset was created from source data provided by the four Military Service Component headquarters and was compiled by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Program within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment. Only sites reported in the BSR or released in a map supplementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) Real Estate Regulation (31 CFR Part 802) were considered for inclusion. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities. For inventory purposes, installations are comprised of sites, where a site is defined as a specific geographic location of federally owned or managed land and is assigned to military installation. DoD installations are commonly referred to as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction, custody, control of the DoD. While every attempt has been made to provide the best available data quality, this data set is intended for use at mapping scales between 1:50,000 and 1:3,000,000. For this reason, boundaries in this data set may not perfectly align with DoD site boundaries depicted in other federal data sources. Maps produced at a scale of 1:50,000 or smaller which otherwise comply with National Map Accuracy Standards, will remain compliant when this data is incorporated. Boundary data is most suitable for larger scale maps; point locations are better suited for mapping scales between 1:250,000 and 1:3,000,000. If a site is part of a Joint Base (effective/designated on 1 October, 2010) as established under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process, it is attributed with the name of the Joint Base. All sites comprising a Joint Base are also attributed to the responsible DoD Component, which is not necessarily the pre-2005 Component responsible for the site. A data dictionary, or other source of attribute information, is accessible at https://doi.org/10.21949/1529039
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.usa.gov/government-works/https://www.usa.gov/government-works/
The Military Bases dataset is as of May 21, 2019, and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics's (BTS's) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The dataset depicts the authoritative boundaries of the most commonly known Department of Defense (DoD) sites, installations, ranges, and training areas in the United States and Territories. These sites encompass land which is federally owned or otherwise managed. This dataset was created from source data provided by the four Military Service Component headquarters and was compiled by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Program within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Business Enterprise Integration Directorate. Sites were selected from the 2010 Base Structure Report (BSR), a summary of the DoD Real Property Inventory. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities, and only those in the fifty United States and US Territories were considered for inclusion. For inventory purposes, installations are comprised of sites, where a site is defined as a specific geographic location of federally owned or managed land and is assigned to military installation. DoD installations are commonly referred to as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction, custody, control of the DoD.
Foto von israel palacio auf Unsplash
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
## Overview
US Military is a dataset for object detection tasks - it contains Objects annotations for 1,440 images.
## Getting Started
You can download this dataset for use within your own projects, or fork it into a workspace on Roboflow to create your own model.
## License
This dataset is available under the [CC BY 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY 4.0).
Facebook
TwitterThis dataset, released by DoD, contains geographic information for major installations, ranges, and training areas in the United States and its territories. This release integrates site information about DoD installations, training ranges, and land assets in a format which can be immediately put to work in commercial geospatial information systems. Homeland Security/Homeland Defense, law enforcement, and readiness planners will benefit from immediate access to DoD site location data during emergencies. Land use planning and renewable energy planning will also benefit from use of this data. Users are advised that the point and boundary location datasets are intended for planning purposes only, and do not represent the legal or surveyed land parcel boundaries.
Facebook
TwitterThe dataset depicts the authoritative boundaries of the most commonly known Department of Defense (DoD) sites, installations, ranges, and training areas in the United States and Territories. These sites encompass land which is federally owned or otherwise managed. This dataset was created from source data provided by the four Military Service Component headquarters and was compiled by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Program within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Business Enterprise Integration Directorate. Sites were selected from the 2010 Base Structure Report (BSR), a summary of the DoD Real Property Inventory. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities, and only those in the fifty United States and US Territories were considered for inclusion. For inventory purposes, installations are comprised of sites, where a site is defined as a specific geographic location of federally owned or managed land and is assigned to military installation. DoD installations are commonly referred to as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction, custody, control of the DoD.
This layer is sourced from maps.bts.dot.gov.
Facebook
Twitterhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
This dataset has records for the awarding of the United States Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the United States of America’s highest military honor, awarded for personal acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty. The medal is awarded by the President of the United States in the name of the U.S. Congress to U.S. military personnel only. There are three versions of the medal, one for the Army, one for the Navy, and one for the Air Force.[5] Personnel of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard receive the Navy version. The dataset was collected from the official military site, and includes records about how the medal was awarded and characteristics of the recipient. Unfortunately, because of the nature of century-old record keeping, many of the records are incomplete. While a very interesting dataset, it does have some missing data.
| Key | List of... | Comment | Example Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| death | Boolean | $MISSING_FIELD | True |
| name | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "Sagelhurst, John C." |
| awarded.General Order number | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | -1 |
| awarded.accredited to | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "" |
| awarded.citation | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "Under a heavy fire from the enemy carried off the field a commissioned officer who was severely wounded and also led a charge on the enemy's rifle pits." |
| awarded.issued | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "01/03/1906" |
| birth.location name | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "Buffalo, N.Y." |
| metadata.link | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/1176/sagelhurst-john-c.php" |
| military record.company | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "Company B" |
| military record.division | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "1st New Jersey Cavalry" |
| military record.entered service at | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "Buffalo, N.Y." |
| military record.organization | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "U.S. Army" |
| military record.rank | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "Sergeant" |
| awarded.date.day | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | 6 |
| awarded.date.full | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "1865-2-6" |
| awarded.date.month | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | 2 |
| awarded.date.year | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | 1865 |
| awarded.location.latitude | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | 38 |
| awarded.location.longitude | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | -77 |
| awarded.location.name | String | $MISSING_FIELD | "Hatchers Run Court, Stafford, VA 22554, USA" |
| birth.date.day | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | -1 |
| birth.date.month | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | -1 |
| birth.date.year | Integer | $MISSING_FIELD | -1 |
Foto von Samuel Branch auf Unsplash
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
## Overview
Copy 2 Of US Military is a dataset for object detection tasks - it contains Military 2 annotations for 2,269 images.
## Getting Started
You can download this dataset for use within your own projects, or fork it into a workspace on Roboflow to create your own model.
## License
This dataset is available under the [CC BY 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY 4.0).
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the Soldiers Grove population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Soldiers Grove. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Soldiers Grove by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Soldiers Grove.
Key observations
The largest age group in Soldiers Grove, WI was for the group of age 10-14 years with a population of 83 (14.29%), according to the 2021 American Community Survey. At the same time, the smallest age group in Soldiers Grove, WI was the 80-84 years with a population of 15 (2.58%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.
When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.
Age groups:
Variables / Data Columns
Good to know
Margin of Error
Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.
Custom data
If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.
Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.
This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Soldiers Grove Population by Age. You can refer the same here
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the Soldier population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Soldier. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Soldier by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Soldier.
Key observations
The largest age group in Soldier, IA was for the group of age 55-59 years with a population of 22 (12.22%), according to the 2021 American Community Survey. At the same time, the smallest age group in Soldier, IA was the 10-14 years with a population of 0 (0.00%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.
When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.
Age groups:
Variables / Data Columns
Good to know
Margin of Error
Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.
Custom data
If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.
Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.
This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Soldier Population by Age. You can refer the same here
Facebook
TwitterThe TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The Census Bureau includes landmarks such as military installations in the MTDB for locating special features and to help enumerators during field operations. In 2012, the Census Bureau obtained the inventory and boundaries of most military installations from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) for Air Force, Army, Marine, and Navy installations and from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for Coast Guard installations. The military installation boundaries in this release represent the updates the Census Bureau made in 2012 in collaboration with DoD.
Facebook
TwitterOpen Database License (ODbL) v1.0https://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
From the project website: "url"> https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/mip-dataset/
The Military Intervention Project (MIP) within the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) seeks to solve the puzzle of US foreign military interventions. It is building a new, comprehensive dataset of all US military interventions from 1776 until 2017 to measure the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of US military involvements abroad. In other words, this dataset will provide strong empirical evidence regarding the trade-offs of US military interventions – a current hot topic in Congress, the media, and in public opinion. MIP will measure the costs and benefits to US national interests, economic growth, international reputation as well as human rights, democratic, and economic outcomes within the target state, and much more.
Facebook
TwitterCC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
What can states expect to receive in return for the military aid they provide to other states? Can military aid buy recipient state compliance with donor objectives? In this study, we systematically investigate the effects of U.S. military assistance on recipient state behavior toward the United States. We build on existing literature by creating three explicit theoretical models, employing a new measure of cooperation generated from events data, and controlling for preference similarity so that our results capture the influence military aid has on recipient state behavior independent of any dyadic predisposition toward cooperation or conflict. We test seven hypotheses using a combination of simultaneous equation, cross-sectional time series, and Heckman selection models. We find that, with limited exceptions, increasing levels of U.S. military aid significantly reduce cooperative foreign policy behavior with the United States. U.S. reaction to recipient state behavior is also counter-intuitive; instead of using a carrot-and-stick approach to military aid allocations, our results show that recipient state cooperation is likely to lead to subsequent reductions in U.S. military assistance.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data was reported at 3.149 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.222 % for 2016. United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data is updated yearly, averaging 4.864 % from Sep 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 9.063 % in 1967 and a record low of 2.908 % in 1999. United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Defense and Official Development Assistance. Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons. This definition cannot be applied for all countries, however, since that would require much more detailed information than is available about what is included in military budgets and off-budget military expenditure items. (For example, military budgets might or might not cover civil defense, reserves and auxiliary forces, police and paramilitary forces, dual-purpose forces such as military and civilian police, military grants in kind, pensions for military personnel, and social security contributions paid by one part of government to another.); ; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.; Weighted average; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
A defense contractor is a business organization or individual that provides products or services to a military or intelligence department of a government. Products typically include military or civilian aircraft, ships, vehicles, weaponry, and electronic systems, while services can include logistics, technical support and training, communications support, and engineering support in cooperation with the government.
Security contractors do not generally provide direct support of military operations. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, military contractors engaged in direct support of military operations may be legitimate targets of military interrogation.
In the United States, defense contracting has taken an increasingly larger role. In 2009, the Department of Defense spent nearly $316 billion on contracts. Contractors have assumed a much larger on-the-ground presence during American conflicts: during the 1991 Gulf War the ratio of uniformed military to contractors was about 50 to 1, while during the first four years of the Iraq War the U.S. hired over 190,000 contractors, surpassing the total American military presence even during the 2007 Iraq surge and 23 times greater than other allied military personnel numbers. In Afghanistan, the presence of almost 100,000 contractors has resulted in a near 1-to-1 ratio with military personnel.The surge in spending on defense services contractors that began in 2001 came to a halt in 2009, leading to the Better Buying Power initiative of 2010.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the Soldiers Grove population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Soldiers Grove across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.
Key observations
In 2022, the population of Soldiers Grove was 562, a 0.88% decrease year-by-year from 2021. Previously, in 2021, Soldiers Grove population was 567, an increase of 1.07% compared to a population of 561 in 2020. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2022, population of Soldiers Grove decreased by 87. In this period, the peak population was 649 in the year 2000. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).
When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).
Data Coverage:
Variables / Data Columns
Good to know
Margin of Error
Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.
Custom data
If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.
Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.
This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Soldiers Grove Population by Year. You can refer the same here
Facebook
TwitterThis comprehensive report chronicles the history of women in the military and as Veterans, profiles the characteristics of women Veterans in 2009, illustrates how women Veterans in 2009 utilized some of the major benefits and services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and discusses the future of women Veterans in relation to VA. The goal of this report is to gain an understanding of who our women Veterans are, how their military service affects their post-military lives, and how they can be better served based on these insights.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Lists the military spending, GDP, and population estimate for the US each year from 1960 to 2020.
Banner image source: https://unsplash.com/photos/BQgAYwERXhs
Facebook
TwitterDetailed listing of all U.S. Military Active Duty deaths since 1/1/2001 giving branch of service, age at death, military occupational code, location of death, and casualty category
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Time series data for the statistic Military_Expenditure_USD and country United States. Indicator Definition:Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons. This definition cannot be applied for all countries, however, since that would require much more detailed information than is available about what is included in military budgets and off-budget military expenditure items. (For example, military budgets might or might not cover civil defense, reserves and auxiliary forces, police and paramilitary forces, dual-purpose forces such as military and civilian police, military grants in kind, pensions for military personnel, and social security contributions paid by one part of government to another).The statistic "Military Expenditure USD" stands at 916,014,700,000.00 United States Dollars as of 12/31/2023, the highest value at least since 12/31/1961, the period currently displayed. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes an increase of 6.43 percent compared to the value the year prior.The 1 year change in percent is 6.43.The 3 year change in percent is 17.68.The 5 year change in percent is 34.22.The 10 year change in percent is 34.86.The Serie's long term average value is 349,632,192,410.91 United States Dollars. It's latest available value, on 12/31/2023, is 161.99 percent higher, compared to it's long term average value.The Serie's change in percent from it's minimum value, on 12/31/1960, to it's latest available value, on 12/31/2023, is +1,834.70%.The Serie's change in percent from it's maximum value, on 12/31/2023, to it's latest available value, on 12/31/2023, is 0.0%.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the Soldiers Grove population by gender and age. The dataset can be utilized to understand the gender distribution and demographics of Soldiers Grove.
The dataset constitues the following two datasets across these two themes
Good to know
Margin of Error
Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.
Custom data
If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.
Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.
Facebook
TwitterThe Military Bases dataset was last updated on November 11, 2025 and are defined by Fiscal Year 2024 data, from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The dataset depicts the authoritative locations of the most commonly known Department of Defense (DoD) sites, installations, ranges, and training areas world-wide. These sites encompass land which is federally owned or otherwise managed. This dataset was created from source data provided by the four Military Service Component headquarters and was compiled by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Program within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment. Only sites reported in the BSR or released in a map supplementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) Real Estate Regulation (31 CFR Part 802) were considered for inclusion. This list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive collection of all Department of Defense facilities. For inventory purposes, installations are comprised of sites, where a site is defined as a specific geographic location of federally owned or managed land and is assigned to military installation. DoD installations are commonly referred to as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction, custody, control of the DoD. While every attempt has been made to provide the best available data quality, this data set is intended for use at mapping scales between 1:50,000 and 1:3,000,000. For this reason, boundaries in this data set may not perfectly align with DoD site boundaries depicted in other federal data sources. Maps produced at a scale of 1:50,000 or smaller which otherwise comply with National Map Accuracy Standards, will remain compliant when this data is incorporated. Boundary data is most suitable for larger scale maps; point locations are better suited for mapping scales between 1:250,000 and 1:3,000,000. If a site is part of a Joint Base (effective/designated on 1 October, 2010) as established under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process, it is attributed with the name of the Joint Base. All sites comprising a Joint Base are also attributed to the responsible DoD Component, which is not necessarily the pre-2005 Component responsible for the site. A data dictionary, or other source of attribute information, is accessible at https://doi.org/10.21949/1529039