This resource contains the test data for the GeoServer OGC Web Services tutorials for various GIS applications including ArcGIS Pro, ArcMap, ArcGIS Story Maps, and QGIS. The contents of the data include a polygon shapefile, a polyline shapefile, a point shapefile, and a raster dataset; all of which pertain to the state of Utah, USA. The polygon shapefile is of every county in the state of Utah. The polyline is of every trail in the state of Utah. The point shapefile is the current list of GNIS place names in the state of Utah. The raster dataset covers a region in the center of the state of Utah. All datasets are projected to NAD 1983 Zone 12N.

For complete collection of data and models, see https://doi.org/10.21942/uva.c.5290546.Original model developed in 2016-17 in ArcGIS by Henk Pieter Sterk (www.rfase.org), with minor updates in 2021 by Stacy Shinneman and Henk Pieter Sterk. Model used to generate publication results:Hierarchical geomorphological mapping in mountainous areas Matheus G.G. De Jong, Henk Pieter Sterk, Stacy Shinneman & Arie C. Seijmonsbergen. Submitted to Journal of Maps 2020, revisions made in 2021.This model creates tiers (columns) of geomorphological features (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3) in the landscape of Vorarlberg, Austria, each with an increasing level of detail. The input dataset needed to create this 'three-tier-legend' is a geomorphological map of Vorarlberg with a Tier 3 category (e.g. 1111, for glacially eroded bedrock). The model then automatically adds Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 categories based on the Tier 3 code in the 'Geomorph' field. The model replaces the input file with an updated shapefile of the geomorphology of Vorarlberg, now including three tiers of geomorphological features. Python script files and .lyr symbology files are also provided here.

World Countries Generalized provides a generalized basemap layer for the countries of the world. It has fields for official names and country codes. The generalized boundaries improve draw performance and effectiveness at global and continental levels.This layer is best viewed out beyond a maximum scale (zoomed in) of 1:5,000,000.The sources of this dataset are Esri, Garmin, and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (The World Factbook). It is updated every 12-18 months as country names or significant borders change.

The Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) has coordinated and manages the development of a consistent, seamless, statewide digital road centerline file with address, road name, and state route number attribution, as part of the Virginia Base Mapping Program (VBMP). The Road Centerline Program (RCL) leverages the Commonwealth"s investment in the VBMP digital orthophotography and is focused on creating a single statewide, consistent digital road file.The RCL data layer is a dynamic dataset supported and maintained by Virginia"s Local Governments, VDOT, and VGIN. VBMP RCL is extracted and provided back to local governments and state agencies in many geographic data sets every quarter.GDB Version: ArcGIS Pro 3.3Additional Resources:Routable RCL With Network Dataset GDB(ArcGIS Pro 3.2)Shapefile DownloadREST EndpointRoad Centerline Data StandardArcGIS LYR FileHistorical RCL & Ancillary Centerlines -Contact VGIN

This packaged data collection contains all of the outputs from our primary model, including the following data layers: Habitat Cores (vector polygons) Least-cost Paths (vector lines) Least-cost Corridors (raster) Least-cost Corridors (vector polygon interpretation) Modeling Extent (vector polygon) Please refer to the embedded spatial metadata and the information in our full report for details on the development of these data layers. Packaged data are available in two formats: Geodatabase (.gdb): A related set of file geodatabase rasters and feature classes, packaged in an ESRI file geodatabase. ArcGIS Pro Map Package (.mpkx): The same data included in the geodatabase, presented as fully-symbolized layers in a map. Note that you must have ArcGIS Pro version 2.0 or greater to view. See Cross-References for links to individual datasets, which can be downloaded in shapefile (.shp) or raster GeoTIFF (.tif) formats.

The Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs) partner with natural and cultural resource managers, tribes and indigenous communities, and university researchers to provide science that helps fish, wildlife, ecosystems, and the communities they support adapt to climate change. The CASCs provide managers and stakeholders with information and decision-making tools to respond to the effects of climate change. While each CASC works to address specific research priorities within their respective region, CASCs also collaborate across boundaries to address issues within shared ecosystems, watersheds, and landscapes. These shapefiles represent the 9 CASC regions and the national CASC that comprise the CASC network, highlighting the consortium institutions that make up each region.The shapefiles were produced in ArcGIS Pro but any geospatial software can be used to view the shapefiles (ArcGIS, QGIS, etc).

Introduction

Geographical scale, in terms of spatial extent, provide a basis for other branches of science. This dataset contains newly proposed geographical and geological GIS boundaries for the Pan-Tibetan Highlands (new proposed name for the High Mountain Asia), based on geological and geomorphological features. This region comprises the Tibetan Plateau and three adjacent mountain regions: the Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains and Mountains of Central Asia, and boundaries are also given for each subregion individually. The dataset will benefit quantitative spatial analysis by providing a well-defined geographical scale for other branches of research, aiding cross-disciplinary comparisons and synthesis, as well as reproducibility of research results.

The dataset comprises three subsets, and we provide three data formats (.shp, .geojson and .kmz) for each of them. Shapefile format (.shp) was generated in ArcGIS Pro, and the other two were converted from shapefile, the conversion steps refer to 'Data processing' section below. The following is a description of the three subsets:

(1) The GIS boundaries we newly defined of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands and its four constituent sub-regions, i.e. the Tibetan Plateau, Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains and the Mountains of Central Asia. All files are placed in the "Pan-Tibetan Highlands (Liu et al._2022)" folder.

(2) We also provide GIS boundaries that were applied by other studies (cited in Fig. 3 of our work) in the folder "Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountains (Others’ definitions)". If these data is used, please cite the relevent paper accrodingly. In addition, it is worthy to note that the GIS boundaries of Hengduan Mountains (Li et al. 1987a) and Mountains of Central Asia (Foggin et al. 2021) were newly generated in our study using Georeferencing toolbox in ArcGIS Pro.

(3) Geological assemblages and characters of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands, including Cratons and micro-continental blocks (Fig. S1), plus sutures, faults and thrusts (Fig. 4), are placed in the "Pan-Tibetan Highlands (geological files)" folder.

Note: High Mountain Asia: The name ‘High Mountain Asia’ is the only direct synonym of Pan-Tibetan Highlands, but this term is both grammatically awkward and somewhat misleading, and hence the term ‘Pan-Tibetan Highlands’ is here proposed to replace it. Third Pole: The first use of the term ‘Third Pole’ was in reference to the Himalaya by Kurz & Montandon (1933), but the usage was subsequently broadened to the Tibetan Plateau or the whole of the Pan-Tibetan Highlands. The mainstream scientific literature refer the ‘Third Pole’ to the region encompassing the Tibetan Plateau, Himalaya, Hengduan Mountains, Karakoram, Hindu Kush and Pamir. This definition was surpported by geological strcture (Main Pamir Thrust) in the western part, and generally overlaps with the ‘Tibetan Plateau’ sensu lato defined by some previous studies, but is more specific.

More discussion and reference about names please refer to the paper. The figures (Figs. 3, 4, S1) mentioned above were attached in the end of this document.

Data processing

We provide three data formats. Conversion of shapefile data to kmz format was done in ArcGIS Pro. We used the Layer to KML tool in Conversion Toolbox to convert the shapefile to kmz format. Conversion of shapefile data to geojson format was done in R. We read the data using the shapefile function of the raster package, and wrote it as a geojson file using the geojson_write function in the geojsonio package.

Version

Version 2022.1.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB31010000), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41971071), the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS (ZDBS-LY-7001). We are grateful to our coauthors insightful discussion and comments. We also want to thank professors Jed Kaplan, Yin An, Dai Erfu, Zhang Guoqing, Peter Cawood, Tobias Bolch and Marc Foggin for suggestions and providing GIS files.

Citation

Liu, J., Milne, R. I., Zhu, G. F., Spicer, R. A., Wambulwa, M. C., Wu, Z. Y., Li, D. Z. (2022). Name and scale matters: Clarifying the geography of Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountain regions. Global and Planetary Change, In revision

Jie Liu & Guangfu Zhu. (2022). Geographical and geological GIS boundaries of the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent mountain regions (Version 2022.1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6432940

Contacts

Dr. Jie LIU: E-mail: liujie@mail.kib.ac.cn;

Mr. Guangfu ZHU: zhuguangfu@mail.kib.ac.cn

Institution: Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Address: 132# Lanhei Road, Heilongtan, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China

Copyright

This dataset is available under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

The dataset has combined the Parcels and Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) data for 2023 into a single dataset. This dataset is designed to make it easier for stakeholders and the GIS community to use and access the information as a geospatial dataset. Included in this dataset are geometries for all 169 municipalities and attribution from the CAMA data for all but one municipality. Pursuant to Section 7-100l of the Connecticut General Statutes, each municipality is required to transmit a digital parcel file and an accompanying assessor’s database file (known as a CAMA report), to its respective regional council of governments (COG) by May 1 annually. These data were gathered from the CT municipalities by the COGs and then submitted to CT OPM. This dataset was created on 12/08/2023 from data collected in 2022-2023. Data was processed using Python scripts and ArcGIS Pro, ensuring standardization and integration of the data.CAMA Notes:The CAMA underwent several steps to standardize and consolidate the information. Python scripts were used to concatenate fields and create a unique identifier for each entry. The resulting dataset contains 1,353,595 entries and information on property assessments and other relevant attributes.CAMA was provided by the towns.Canaan parcels are viewable, but no additional information is available since no CAMA data was submitted.Spatial Data Notes:Data processing involved merging the parcels from different municipalities using ArcGIS Pro and Python. The resulting dataset contains 1,247,506 parcels.No alteration has been made to the spatial geometry of the data.Fields that are associated with CAMA data were provided by towns.The data fields that have information from the CAMA were sourced from the towns’ CAMA data.If no field for the parcels was provided for linking back to the CAMA by the town a new field within the original data was selected if it had a match rate above 50%, that joined back to the CAMA.Linking fields were renamed to "Link".All linking fields had a census town code added to the beginning of the value to create a unique identifier per town.Any field that was not town name, Location, Editor, Edit Date, or a field associated back to the CAMA, was not used in the creation of this Dataset.Only the fields related to town name, location, editor, edit date, and link fields associated with the towns’ CAMA were included in the creation of this dataset. Any other field provided in the original data was deleted or not used.Field names for town (Muni, Municipality) were renamed to "Town Name".The attributes included in the data: Town Name OwnerCo-OwnerLinkEditorEdit DateCollection year – year the parcels were submittedLocationMailing AddressMailing CityMailing StateAssessed TotalAssessed LandAssessed BuildingPre-Year Assessed Total Appraised LandAppraised BuildingAppraised OutbuildingConditionModelValuationZoneState UseState Use DescriptionLiving AreaEffective AreaTotal roomsNumber of bedroomsNumber of BathsNumber of Half-BathsSale PriceSale DateQualifiedOccupancyPrior Sale PricePrior Sale DatePrior Book and PagePlanning Region*Please note that not all parcels have a link to a CAMA entry.*If any discrepancies are discovered within the data, whether pertaining to geographical inaccuracies or attribute inaccuracy, please directly contact the respective municipalities to request any necessary amendmentsAs of 2/15/2023 - Occupancy, State Use, State Use Description, and Mailing State added to datasetAdditional information about the specifics of data availability and compliance will be coming soon.

Please note that this dataset is not an official City of Toronto land use dataset. It was created for personal and academic use using City of Toronto Land Use Maps (2019) found on the City of Toronto Official Plan website at https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/official-plan-maps-copy, along with the City of Toronto parcel fabric (Property Boundaries) found at https://open.toronto.ca/dataset/property-boundaries/ and Statistics Canada Census Dissemination Blocks level boundary files (2016). The property boundaries used were dated November 11, 2021. Further detail about the City of Toronto's Official Plan, consolidation of the information presented in its online form, and considerations for its interpretation can be found at https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/ Data Creation Documentation and Procedures Software Used The spatial vector data were created using ArcGIS Pro 2.9.0 in December 2021. PDF File Conversions Using Adobe Acrobat Pro DC software, the following downloaded PDF map images were converted to TIF format. 9028-cp-official-plan-Map-14_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9042-cp-official-plan-Map-22_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9070-cp-official-plan-Map-20_LandUse_AODA.pdf 908a-cp-official-plan-Map-13_LandUse_AODA.pdf 978e-cp-official-plan-Map-17_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97cc-cp-official-plan-Map-15_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97d4-cp-official-plan-Map-23_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97f2-cp-official-plan-Map-19_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97fe-cp-official-plan-Map-18_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9811-cp-official-plan-Map-16_LandUse_AODA.pdf 982d-cp-official-plan-Map-21_LandUse_AODA.pdf Georeferencing and Reprojecting Data Files The original projection of the PDF maps is unknown but were most likely published using MTM Zone 10 EPSG 2019 as per many of the City of Toronto's many datasets. They could also have possibly been published in UTM Zone 17 EPSG 26917 The TIF images were georeferenced in ArcGIS Pro using this projection with very good results. The images were matched against the City of Toronto's Centreline dataset found here The resulting TIF files and their supporting spatial files include: TOLandUseMap13.tfwx TOLandUseMap13.tif TOLandUseMap13.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap13.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap14.tfwx TOLandUseMap14.tif TOLandUseMap14.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap14.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap15.tfwx TOLandUseMap15.tif TOLandUseMap15.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap15.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap16.tfwx TOLandUseMap16.tif TOLandUseMap16.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap16.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap17.tfwx TOLandUseMap17.tif TOLandUseMap17.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap17.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap18.tfwx TOLandUseMap18.tif TOLandUseMap18.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap18.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap19.tif TOLandUseMap19.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap19.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap20.tfwx TOLandUseMap20.tif TOLandUseMap20.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap20.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap21.tfwx TOLandUseMap21.tif TOLandUseMap21.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap21.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap22.tfwx TOLandUseMap22.tif TOLandUseMap22.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap22.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap23.tfwx TOLandUseMap23.tif TOLandUseMap23.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap23.tif.ov Ground control points were saved for all georeferenced images. The files are the following: map13.txt map14.txt map15.txt map16.txt map17.txt map18.txt map19.txt map21.txt map22.txt map23.txt The City of Toronto's Property Boundaries shapefile, "property_bnds_gcc_wgs84.zip" were unzipped and also reprojected to EPSG 26917 (UTM Zone 17) into a new shapefile, "Property_Boundaries_UTM.shp" Mosaicing Images Once georeferenced, all images were then mosaiced into one image file, "LandUseMosaic20211220v01", within the project-generated Geodatabase, "Landuse.gdb" and exported TIF, "LandUseMosaic20211220.tif" Reclassifying Images Because the original images were of low quality and the conversion to TIF made the image colours even more inconsistent, a method was required to reclassify the images so that different land use classes could be identified. Using Deep learning Objects, the images were re-classified into useful consistent colours. Deep Learning Objects and Training The resulting mosaic was then prepared for reclassification using the Label Objects for Deep Learning tool in ArcGIS Pro. A training sample, "LandUseTrainingSamples20211220", was created in the geodatabase for all land use types as follows: Neighbourhoods Insitutional Natural Areas Core Employment Areas Mixed Use Areas Apartment Neighbourhoods Parks Roads Utility Corridors Other Open Spaces General Employment Areas Regeneration Areas Lettering (not a land use type, but an image colour (black), used to label streets). By identifying the letters, it then made the reclassification and vectorization results easier to clean up of unnecessary clutter caused by the labels of streets. Reclassification Once the training samples were created and saved, the raster was then reclassified using the Image Classification Wizard tool in ArcGIS Pro, using the Support...

Reason for Selection Protected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. They help foster a conservation ethic by providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and also support ecosystem services like offsetting heat island effects (Greene and Millward 2017, Simpson 1998), water filtration, stormwater retention, and more (Hoover and Hopton 2019). In addition, parks, greenspace, and greenways can help improve physical and psychological health in communities (Gies 2006). Urban park size complements the equitable access to potential parks indicator by capturing the value of existing parks.Input DataSoutheast Blueprint 2024 extentFWS National Realty Tracts, accessed 12-13-2023Protected Areas Database of the United States(PAD-US):PAD-US 3.0 national geodatabase -Combined Proclamation Marine Fee Designation Easement, accessed 12-6-20232020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 censusOpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 12-5-2023A polygon from this dataset is considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. Data for coastal states (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX) were downloaded in .pbf format and translated to an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under theOpen Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by theOpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more onthe OSM copyright page.2021 National Land Cover Database (NLCD): Percentdevelopedimperviousness2023NOAA coastal relief model: volumes 2 (Southeast Atlantic), 3 (Florida and East Gulf of America), 4 (Central Gulf of America), and 5 (Western Gulf of America), accessed 3-27-2024Mapping StepsCreate a seamless vector layer to constrain the extent of the urban park size indicator to inland and nearshore marine areas <10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature. Shallow areas are more accessible for recreational activities like snorkeling, which typically has a maximum recommended depth of 12-15 meters. This step mirrors the approach taken in the Caribbean version of this indicator.Merge all coastal relief model rasters (.nc format) together using QGIS “create virtual raster”.Save merged raster to .tif and import into ArcPro.Reclassify the NOAA coastal relief model data to assign areas with an elevation of land to -10 m a value of 1. Assign all other areas (deep marine) a value of 0.Convert the raster produced above to vector using the “RasterToPolygon” tool.Clip to 2024 subregions using “Pairwise Clip” tool.Break apart multipart polygons using “Multipart to single parts” tool.Hand-edit to remove deep marine polygon.Dissolve the resulting data layer.This produces a seamless polygon defining land and shallow marine areas.Clip the Census urban area layer to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Clip PAD-US 3.0 to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Remove the following areas from PAD-US 3.0, which are outside the scope of this indicator to represent parks:All School Trust Lands in Oklahoma and Mississippi (Loc Des = “School Lands” or “School Trust Lands”). These extensive lands are leased out and are not open to the public.All tribal and military lands (“Des_Tp” = "TRIBL" or “Des_Tp” = "MIL"). Generally, these lands are not intended for public recreational use.All BOEM marine lease blocks (“Own_Name” = "BOEM"). These Outer Continental Shelf lease blocks do not represent actively protected marine parks, but serve as the “legal definition for BOEM offshore boundary coordinates...for leasing and administrative purposes” (BOEM).All lands designated as “proclamation” (“Des_Tp” = "PROC"). These typically represent the approved boundary of public lands, within which land protection is authorized to occur, but not all lands within the proclamation boundary are necessarily currently in a conserved status.Retain only selected attribute fields from PAD-US to get rid of irrelevant attributes.Merged the filtered PAD-US layer produced above with the OSM beaches and FWS National Realty Tracts to produce a combined protected areas dataset.The resulting merged data layer contains overlapping polygons. To remove overlapping polygons, use the Dissolve function.Clip the resulting data layer to the inland and nearshore extent.Process all multipart polygons (e.g., separate parcels within a National Wildlife Refuge) to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”).Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 0.5 miles. We chose 0.5 miles to represent a reasonable walking distance based on input and feedback from park access experts. Assuming a moderate intensity walking pace of 3 miles per hour, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s physical activity guidelines, the 0.5 mi distance also corresponds to the 10-minute walk threshold used in the equitable access to potential parks indicator.Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used in a later step to join the parks to their buffers.Create a 0.5 mi (805 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 0.5 mi buffer is created for each park.Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using “overlap analysis”. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix (e.g., Umstead Park in Raleigh, NC and Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve in Atlanta, GA). This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.Remove parks that had ≤10% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: The 10% threshold is a judgement call based on testing which known urban parks and urban National Wildlife Refuges are captured at different overlap cutoffs and is intended to be as inclusive as possible.Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small and narrow parks from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.Reclassify the parks based on their area into the 7 classes seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).Assess the impervious surface composition of each park using the NLCD 2021 impervious layer and the Zonal Statistics “MEAN” function. Retain only the mean percent impervious value for each park.Extract only parks with a mean impervious pixel value <80%. This step excludes parks that do not meet the intent of the indicator to capture opportunities to connect with nature and offer refugia for species (e.g., the Superdome in New Orleans, LA, the Astrodome in Houston, TX, and City Plaza in Raleigh, NC).Extract again to the inland and nearshore extent.Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Feature to Raster function and the area class field.Assign a value of 0 to all other pixels in the Southeast Blueprint 2024 extent not already identified as an urban park in the mapping steps above. Zero values are intended to help users better understand the extent of this indicator and make it perform better in online tools.Use the land and shallow marine layer and “extract by mask” tool to save the final version of this indicator.Add color and legend to raster attribute table.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in theSoutheast Blueprint Data Downloadunder > 6_Code. Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:6= 75+ acre urban park5= 50 to <75 acre urban park4= 30 to <50 acre urban park3= 10 to <30 acre urban park2=5 to <10acreurbanpark1 = <5 acre urban park0 = Not identified as an urban parkKnown IssuesThis indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources.This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.The NLCD percent impervious layer contains classification inaccuracies. As a result, this indicator may exclude parks that are mostly natural because they are misclassified as mostly impervious. Conversely, this indicator may include parks that are mostly impervious because they are misclassified as mostly