The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) generates and acquires geospatial data. To maintain trust and confidence in the accuracy of this data, and the ability to reuse MPI has developed standards for both internal staff and external contractors. At the conclusion of any project or contract involving MPI, all data created should be provided to MPI. All data supplied to MPI must be well structured and managed to a high standard. The data must be in a format compatible with ESRI software, with all datasets named logically and clearly. If a deviation is required from the data standards please contact the contract manager.

The primary intent of this workshop is to provide practical training in using Statistics Canada geography files with the leading industry standard software: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.(ESRI) ArcGIS 9x. Participants will be introduced to the key features of ArcGIS 9x, as well as to geographic concepts and principles essential to understanding and working with geographic information systems (GIS) software. The workshop will review a range of geography and attribute files available from Statistics Canada, as well as some best practices for accessing this information. A brief overview of complementary data sets available from federal and provincial agencies will be provided. There will also be an opportunity to complete a practical exercise using ArcGIS9x. (Note: Data associated with this presentation is available on the DLI FTP site under folder 1873-221.)

ArcGIS is fundamentally an open platform. Esri president Jack Dangermond discusses how Esri ensures that ArcGIS is interoperable with other technology that users might need to integrate with ArcGIS. Esri’s approach is to help users achieve their interoperability goals. Esri supports open standards like OGC, WWW, and ISO standards, as well as industry data standards. The software has open APIs so developers can extend and build on top of the data and tools, and the ArcGIS platform is extendable and embeddable. Open source tools are also available in GitHub.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides a Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) for benchmarking and measuring the maturity level of cyber security programs across all industries. The City uses this framework and toolset to measure and report on its internal cyber security program.The foundation for this measure is the Framework Core, a set of cybersecurity activities, desired outcomes and applicable references that are common across critical infrastructure/industry sectors. These activities come from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) published standard, along with the information security and customer privacy controls it references (NIST 800 Series Special Publications). The Framework Core presents industry standards, guidelines, and practices in a manner that allows for communication of cybersecurity activities and outcomes across the organization from the executive level to the implementation/operations level. The Framework Core consists of five concurrent and continuous functions – identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover. When considered together, these functions provide a high-level, strategic view of the lifecycle of an organization’s management of cybersecurity risk. The Framework Core identifies underlying key categories and subcategories for each function, and matches them with example references, such as existing standards, guidelines and practices for each subcategory. This page provides data for the Cybersecurity performance measure.Cybersecurity Framework cumulative score summary per fiscal year quarter (Performance Measure 5.12)The performance measure page is available at 5.12 Cybersecurity.Additional InformationSource: Maturity assessment / https://www.nist.gov/topics/cybersecurityContact: Scott CampbellContact E-Mail: Scott_Campbell@tempe.govData Source Type: ExcelPreparation Method: The data is a summary of a detailed and confidential analysis of the city's cyber security program. Maturity scores of subcategories within NIST CFS are combined, averaged and rolled up to a summary score for each major category.Publish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

Water use and supply data for 2021 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2021 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2021 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2021 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.

The North Pilbara project's main objective is to assist industry in their development off exploration strategies. In order to do this, we provide high-quality data sets such as this GIS, which provides different views of the same area, allowing correlation, comparison, and analysis at a broad scale across the entire North Pilbara. The advantage of this GIS is that it packages AGSO's primary data holdings for the entire region into a convenient digital package that can be manipulated and integrated with proprietary data in standard mapping applications. The North Pilbara GIS provides industry with a decision-making context, or wide-spaced framework. The lack of context is due the fact that industry commonly only have restricted data holdings over their leases. Therefore, regional synthesis data sets provide a context and framework for exploration decisions made on more spatially limited data. The North Pilbara GIS provides many new digital data sets, including a number of variations of the magnetics, gravity, and gamma-ray spectrometry. A solid geology map, and derivative maps, mineral deposits, geological events, and Landsat 5-TM provide additional views. This data set complements the 1:1.5 Million scale colour atlas (announced in June-July issue 58 of AusGeoNews). This provision of a regional digital data set will be an invaluable tool for exploration companies making comparative, correlative, and analytical decisions on the prospectivity of the North Pilbara. Just a few of the new aspects of the GIS include: -the under cover shape of prospective rocks with a new digital solid geology map; -all the images generated by the project (magnetics, gravity, Landsat, and radiometrics); -the imaging of several large shear zones, and complexity in granites; -compilation of geochemistry and geochronology; -a new chemical map based on radiometrics; -identification of the source regions of transported regolith

The documentation below is in reference to this items placement in the NM Supply Chain Data Hub. The documentation is of use to understanding the source of this item, and how to reproduce it for updatesTitle: Animal Welfare Standards - A Comparison of Industry Guidelines and Independent LabelsItem Type: PDFSummary: Table outlining certification guidelines for various prominent labels including: American Humane Certified, Certified Humane Program, Animal Welfare Approved, Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Program, & Certified Organic for various food products.Notes: Prepared by: Uploaded by EMcRae_NMCDCSource: Animal Welfare Institute website, https://awionline.org/content/consumers-guide-food-labels-and-animal-welfareFeature Service: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ca39998e2c974f9ebe2a436c2258eec3UID: 24Data Requested: Current regulations: who qualifies and who doesnt, who can we help qualify GAP certs, procedure rules, etc.)Method of Acquisition: downloaded from the Animal Welfare Institute website, https://awionline.org/content/consumers-guide-food-labels-and-animal-welfareDate Acquired: 6/23/22Priority rank as Identified in 2022 (scale of 1 being the highest priority, to 11 being the lowest priority): 5Tags: PENDING

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Water use and supply data for 2018 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2018 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2018 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2018 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.

The Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008 established that all private buildings over 50,000 gross square feet within the District of Columbia, including multifamily residences, must annually measure and disclose their energy and water consumption to the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). Benchmarking is defined as tracking a building’s energy and water use and using a standard metric to compare the building’s performance against past performance and to its peers nationwide. These comparisons have been shown to drive energy efficiency upgrades and increase occupancy rates and property values. The District of Columbia has chosen U.S. EPA’s free, industry-standard ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager® tool for benchmarking and reporting. DDOE is required to publicly disclose the ENERGY STAR® Benchmarking results for each publicly or privately owned building that is subject to the benchmarking law, beginning with the 2nd year of benchmarking data for that building. For more information, see https://doee.dc.gov/energybenchmarking.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau across all standard and custom geographies at statewide summary level where applicable. For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the ACS 2017-2021 Data Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics. Find naming convention prefixes/suffixes, geography definitions and user notes below.Prefixes:NoneCountpPercentrRatemMedianaMean (average)tAggregate (total)chChange in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pchPercent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chpChange in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)sSignificance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computedSuffixes:_e21Estimate from 2017-21 ACS_m21Margin of Error from 2017-21 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_21Change, 2010-21 (holding constant at 2020 geography)GeographiesAAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)ARC21 = Atlanta Regional Commission modeling area (21 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)BeltLine (buffer)BeltLine Study (subareas)Census Tract (statewide)CFGA23 = Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta (23 counties merged to a single geographic unit)City (statewide)City of Atlanta Council Districts (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit STV (3 NPUs merged to a single geographic unit within City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas E02E06 (2 NSAs merged to single geographic unit within City of Atlanta)County (statewide)Georgia House (statewide)Georgia Senate (statewide)MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)Regional Commissions (statewide)SPARCC = Strong, Prosperous And Resilient Communities ChallengeState of Georgia (single geographic unit)Superdistrict (ARC region)US Congress (statewide)UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)WFF = Westside Future Fund (subarea of City of Atlanta)ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (statewide)The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2017-2021). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2017-2021Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://garc.maps.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/34b9adfdcc294788ba9c70bf433bd4c1/data

This dataset is a LAS (industry-standard binary format for storing large point clouds) dataset containing light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data and sonar data representing the beach and near-shore topography of Lake Superior at Minnesota Point, Duluth, Minnesota. Average point spacing of the LAS files in the dataset are as follows: LiDAR, 0.137 meters (m); multi-beam sonar, 1.029 m; single-beam sonar, 0.999 m. The LAS dataset was used to create a 10-m (32.8084 feet) digital elevation model (DEM) of the approximately 5.9 square kilometer (2.3 square mile) surveyed area using the "LAS dataset to raster" tool in Esri ArcGIS, version 10.7. LiDAR data were collected August 10, 2019 using a boat-mounted Optech ILRIS scanner and methodology similar to that described by Huizinga and Wagner (2019). Multi-beam sonar data were collected August 7-11, 2019 using an R2Sonic 2024 sonar unit and methodology similar to that described by Richards and Huizinga (2018). Single-beam sonar data were collected August 27-28, 2019 using a CEESCOPE single-beam echosounder and methodology similar to that described by Wilson and Richards (2006).

The North Pilbara project's main objective is to assist industry in their development off exploration strategies. In order to do this, we provide high-quality data sets such as this GIS, which provides different views of the same area, allowing correlation, comparison, and analysis at a broad scale across the entire North Pilbara.

The advantage of this GIS is that it packages Geoscience Australia's primary data holdings for the entire region into a convenient digital package that can be manipulated and integrated with proprietary data in standard mapping applications.

The North Pilbara GIS provides industry with a decision-making context, or wide-spaced framework. The lack of context is due the fact that industry commonly only have restricted data holdings over their leases. Therefore, regional synthesis data sets provide a context and framework for exploration decisions made on more spatially limited data.

The North Pilbara GIS provides many new digital data sets, including a number of variations of the magnetics, gravity, and gamma-ray spectrometry. A solid geology map, and derivative maps, mineral deposits, geological events, and Landsat 5-TM provide additional views. This data set complements the 1:1.5 Million scale colour atlas (announced in June-July issue 58 of AusGeoNews).

This provision of a regional digital data set will be an invaluable tool for exploration companies making comparative, correlative, and analytical decisions on the prospectivity of the North Pilbara. Just a few of the new aspects of the GIS include:

• the under cover shape of prospective rocks with a new digital solid geology map;
• all the images generated by the project (magnetics, gravity, Landsat, and radiometrics);
• the imaging of several large shear zones, and complexity in granites;
• compilation of geochemistry and geochronology;
• a new chemical map based on radiometrics;
• identification of the source regions of transported regolith

This map has been produced as a GeoPDF, which is an extension to the standard PDF file format viewed using Adobe Acrobat Reader. Layers can be turned off and on to customise the view of the data, similar to using Geographic Information System tools. In addition, GeoPDF maps are georeferenced to be compatible with other coordinated geographic data. Coordinate locations and distances can be retrieved automatically.

A plug-in to view GeoPDF using Adobe Acrobat Reader is available as a free download ( http://terragotech.com/solutions/map2pdf_reader.php ).

Location Intelligence Market size was valued at USD 18.5 Billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 63.15 Billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 15.63% during the forecasted period 2024 to 2030.

Global Location Intelligence Market Drivers

The growth and development of the Location Intelligence Market drivers. These factors have a big impact on how Location Intelligence are demanded and adopted in different sectors. Several of the major market forces are as follows:

Proliferation of Spatial Data: A rich source of data for location intelligence and analytics is made possible by the exponential increase of spatial data produced by sources including GPS-enabled devices, Internet of Things sensors, and geographic information systems (GIS). In order to extract meaningful insights, there is a growing need for sophisticated tools and technologies due to the volume and diversity of spatial data.

Location-Based Services (LBS) are Growing: The demand for location intelligence and analytics solutions is fueled by the widespread use of location-based services including ride-sharing services, navigation apps, and location-based marketing. Companies use location data to target services based on local context, optimize operations, and improve customer experiences.

Need for Real-time information: To make wise judgments swiftly in the hectic business world of today, businesses need to have real-time access to location-based information. Businesses may increase agility and responsiveness by using location intelligence and analytics solutions to monitor events, identify patterns, and react to changes in real-time.

The amalgamation of location: intelligence and analytics with nascent technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) amplifies their potential and value proposition. Through the integration of sensor data, AI algorithms, and location data, enterprises may gain more profound understanding, anticipate future patterns, and streamline their decision-making procedures.

Urbanization and Smart City Initiatives: The use of location intelligence and analytics solutions is fueled by the global trend toward urbanization and the growth of smart city initiatives. These technologies help municipalities, urban planners, and government agencies create sustainable and effective urban environments by optimizing infrastructure development, city planning, and service delivery.

Cross-Industry Applications: Location analytics and intelligence are useful in a variety of industries, such as banking, logistics, healthcare, and retail. Businesses use location-based data to increase risk management, streamline supply chains, target customers more effectively, and increase operational efficiency across a range of company operations.

Regulatory Compliance and Risk Management: The use of location intelligence and analytics solutions for regulatory compliance and risk management is influenced by compliance requirements relating to location-based data, such as privacy laws and geospatial standards. These products are purchased by organizations to guarantee data governance, reduce risks, and prove compliance with legal and regulatory obligations.

The need for location-based: marketing is growing as companies use location analytics and intelligence to create more focused advertising and marketing campaigns. Organizations may increase customer engagement and conversion rates by providing tailored offers, promotions, and content depending on the geographic context of their customers by evaluating location data and consumer activity patterns.

Emergence of Digital Twin Technology: This technology opens up new possibilities for location intelligence and analytics by building virtual versions of real assets or environments. Organizations can improve decision-making processes in a variety of fields, such as manufacturing, infrastructure management, and urban planning, by incorporating location data into digital twin models and simulating scenarios.

This dataset has been deprecated. Please see 2017 Countywide LiDAR Point Cloud for more information.Industry standard .las LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) classified points. This LiDAR data was collected using Leica's ALS50 Phase I sensor. The raw data was verified in Merrick and Company's LiDAR software (MARS) for complete coverage of the project area, and boresighted to align the flightlines. Raw data files were parsed into manageable client-specific tiles. These tiles were then processed through automated filtering that separates the data into different classification groups: unclassified points, ground points, breakline proximity points, "noise" points and water. The data was next taken into MARS to reclassify the erroneous points that may remain in the LiDAR point cloud after auto-filter.The horizontal datum used is the North American 1983 HARN. The vertical datum is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The projection is Illinois State Plane, Eastern Zone, using US Survey Feet as units.

Xtract.io's airport location data provides a game-changing resource for the aviation and transportation industries. By offering precise geographical coordinates and boundary information for over 150 airports across the United States and Canada, this dataset enables comprehensive spatial analysis. Urban planners can optimize infrastructure, airlines can strategize route planning, and researchers can conduct in-depth studies on airport ecosystems. The polygon data allows for accurate geofencing, supporting security, navigation, and development initiatives. With centimeter-level precision, these datasets transform how organizations understand and interact with airport infrastructure.

How Do We Create Polygons? -All our polygons are manually crafted using advanced GIS tools like QGIS, ArcGIS, and similar applications. This involves leveraging aerial imagery and street-level views to ensure precision. -Beyond visual data, our expert GIS data engineers integrate venue layout/elevation plans sourced from official company websites to construct detailed indoor polygons. This meticulous process ensures higher accuracy and consistency. -We verify our polygons through multiple quality checks, focusing on accuracy, relevance, and completeness.

What's More? -Custom Polygon Creation: Our team can build polygons for any location or category based on your specific requirements. Whether it’s a new retail chain, transportation hub, or niche point of interest, we’ve got you covered. -Enhanced Customization: In addition to polygons, we capture critical details such as entry and exit points, parking areas, and adjacent pathways, adding greater context to your geospatial data. -Flexible Data Delivery Formats: We provide datasets in industry-standard formats like WKT, GeoJSON, Shapefile, and GDB, making them compatible with various systems and tools. -Regular Data Updates: Stay ahead with our customizable refresh schedules, ensuring your polygon data is always up-to-date for evolving business needs.

Unlock the Power of POI and Geospatial Data With our robust polygon datasets and point-of-interest data, you can: -Perform detailed market analyses to identify growth opportunities. -Pinpoint the ideal location for your next store or business expansion. -Decode consumer behavior patterns using geospatial insights. -Execute targeted, location-driven marketing campaigns for better ROI. -Gain an edge over competitors by leveraging geofencing and spatial intelligence.

Why Choose LocationsXYZ? LocationsXYZ is trusted by leading brands to unlock actionable business insights with our spatial data solutions. Join our growing network of successful clients who have scaled their operations with precise polygon and POI data. Request your free sample today and explore how we can help accelerate your business growth.

This specialized geospatial dataset offers detailed insights into heliport locations across North America. Emergency services, aviation companies, and urban development agencies can leverage these precise center points and boundary information to enhance operational efficiency. The comprehensive data supports critical applications like emergency response routing, infrastructure planning, and aviation safety assessments. By providing exact geographical coordinates and spatial extents, Xtract.io empowers organizations to make data-driven decisions in helicopter transportation and emergency services.

How Do We Create Polygons? -All our polygons are manually crafted using advanced GIS tools like QGIS, ArcGIS, and similar applications. This involves leveraging aerial imagery and street-level views to ensure precision. -Beyond visual data, our expert GIS data engineers integrate venue layout/elevation plans sourced from official company websites to construct detailed indoor polygons. This meticulous process ensures higher accuracy and consistency. -We verify our polygons through multiple quality checks, focusing on accuracy, relevance, and completeness.

What's More? -Custom Polygon Creation: Our team can build polygons for any location or category based on your specific requirements. Whether it’s a new retail chain, transportation hub, or niche point of interest, we’ve got you covered. -Enhanced Customization: In addition to polygons, we capture critical details such as entry and exit points, parking areas, and adjacent pathways, adding greater context to your geospatial data. -Flexible Data Delivery Formats: We provide datasets in industry-standard formats like WKT, GeoJSON, Shapefile, and GDB, making them compatible with various systems and tools. -Regular Data Updates: Stay ahead with our customizable refresh schedules, ensuring your polygon data is always up-to-date for evolving business needs.

Unlock the Power of POI and Geospatial Data With our robust polygon datasets and point-of-interest data, you can: -Perform detailed market analyses to identify growth opportunities. -Pinpoint the ideal location for your next store or business expansion. -Decode consumer behavior patterns using geospatial insights. -Execute targeted, location-driven marketing campaigns for better ROI. -Gain an edge over competitors by leveraging geofencing and spatial intelligence.

Why Choose LocationsXYZ? LocationsXYZ is trusted by leading brands to unlock actionable business insights with our spatial data solutions. Join our growing network of successful clients who have scaled their operations with precise polygon and POI data. Request your free sample today and explore how we can help accelerate your business growth.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. This raster dataset consists of 8-bit, 4-band (R, G, B, NIR) color orthoimagery. A digital orthoimage is a raster image processed from vertical aerial images in which displacement in the image due to sensor orientation and terrain relief have been removed. Orthoimagery combines the image characteristics of an image with the geometric qualities of a map. Unlike planimetric maps which depict natural and manmade features by means of lines, point symbols, texts and polygons, orthoimagery illustrates the actual images of features and are thus more easily interpreted than regular maps. The normal orientation of data in an orthoimage is by lines (rows) and samples (columns). Each line contains a series of pixels ordered from west to east with the order of the lines from north to south. Each image tile is stored in industry standard TIFF (tagged interchange file format) with an associated TIFF world file. Aerial imagery was acquired on May 6, 2014, May 19, 2014 from flying heights of approximately 14500 feet above ground level (AGL). Each orthoimage tile is 5000 feet X 5000 feet in dimension, edge-tied with the adjacent tiles (no gap and no overlap).

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)