Vector polygon map data of property parcels from Itasca County, Minnesota containing 77967 features.

​

Property parcel GIS map data consists of detailed information about individual land parcels, including their boundaries, ownership details, and geographic coordinates.

​

Property parcel data can be used to analyze and visualize land-related information for purposes such as real estate assessment, urban planning, or environmental management.

​

Available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

This layer contains boundaries and attributes of zoning in Itasca County

This map shows the free and open data status of county public geospatial (GIS) data across Minnesota. The accompanying data set can be used to make similar maps using GIS software.

Counties shown in this dataset as having free and open public geospatial data (with or without a policy) are: Aitkin, Anoka, Becker, Beltrami, Benton, Big Stone, Carlton, Carver, Cass, Chippewa, Chisago, Clay, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Dakota, Douglas, Grant, Hennepin, Hubbard, Isanti, Itasca, Kittson, Koochiching, Lac qui Parle, Lake, Lyon, Marshall, McLeod, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Mower, Norman, Olmsted, Otter Tail, Pipestone, Polk, Pope, Ramsey, Renville, Rice, Scott, Sherburne, Stearns, Steele, Stevens, St. Louis, Traverse, Waseca, Washington, Wilkin, Winona, Wright and Yellow Medicine.

To see if a county's data is distributed via the Minnesota Geospatial Commons, check the Commons organizations page: https://gisdata.mn.gov/organization

To see if a county distributes data via its website, check the link(s) on the Minnesota County GIS Contacts webpage: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/county_contacts.html

Geospatial data about Itasca County, Minnesota Roads. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Polygon layer representing tax parcels in Itasca County.
Right-of-Ways are incorporated into the parcels. All of the tax information and the parcel number are duplicated in the right-of-way portion. The polycode field should be used to isolate only tax parcels for tax information analysis.
Redundant geometries exist for condominiums and undivided interests.
Undivided ownership occurs when two or more parties have an interest in the same parcel.
This becomes important in analysis as well. The acres and tax information reflects the entire parcel, not the undivided interest portion.

This dataset is a compilation of county parcel data from Minnesota counties that have opted-in for their parcel data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 55 counties that have opted-in as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin, Anoka, Becker, Benton, Big Stone, Carlton, Carver, Cass, Chippewa, Chisago, Clay, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Dakota, Douglas, Fillmore, Grant, Hennepin, Houston, Isanti, Itasca, Jackson, Koochiching, Lac qui Parle, Lake, Lyon, Marshall, McLeod, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Mower, Murray, Norman, Olmsted, Otter Tail, Pennington, Pipestone, Polk, Pope, Ramsey, Renville, Rice, Saint Louis, Scott, Sherburne, Stearns, Stevens, Traverse, Waseca, Washington, Wilkin, Winona, Wright, and Yellow Medicine.

If you represent a county not included in this dataset and would like to opt-in, please contact Heather Albrecht (Heather.Albrecht@hennepin.us), co-chair of the Minnesota Geospatial Advisory Council (GAC)’s Parcels and Land Records Committee's Open Data Subcommittee. County parcel data does not need to be in the GAC parcel data standard to be included. MnGeo will map the county fields to the GAC standard.

County parcel data records have been assembled into a single dataset with a common coordinate system (UTM Zone 15) and common attribute schema. The county parcel data attributes have been mapped to the GAC parcel data standard for Minnesota: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

This compiled parcel dataset was created using Python code developed by Minnesota state agency GIS professionals, and represents a best effort to map individual county source file attributes into the common attribute schema of the GAC parcel data standard. The attributes from counties are mapped to the most appropriate destination column. In some cases, the county source files included attributes that were not mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, some county attribute fields were parsed and mapped to multiple GAC standard fields, such as a single line address. Each quarter, MnGeo provides a text file to counties that shows how county fields are mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, this text file shows the fields that are not mapped to the standard and those that are parsed. If a county shares changes to how their data should be mapped, MnGeo updates the compilation. If you represent a county and would like to update how MnGeo is mapping your county attribute fields to this compiled dataset, please contact us.

This dataset is a snapshot of parcel data, and the source date of the county data may vary. Users should consult County websites to see the most up-to-date and complete parcel data.

There have been recent changes in date/time fields, and their processing, introduced by our software vendor. In some cases, this has resulted in date fields being empty. We are aware of the issue and are working to correct it for future parcel data releases.

The State of Minnesota makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use or reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. THE DATA IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITH NO GUARANTEE OR REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACCURACY, CURRENCY, SUITABILITY, PERFORMANCE, MECHANTABILITY, RELIABILITY OR FITINESS OF THIS DATA FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This dataset is NOT suitable for accurate boundary determination. Contact a licensed land surveyor if you have questions about boundary determinations.

DOWNLOAD NOTES: This dataset is only provided in Esri File Geodatabase and OGC GeoPackage formats. A shapefile is not available because the size of the dataset exceeds the limit for that format. The distribution version of the fgdb is compressed to help reduce the data footprint. QGIS users should consider using the Geopackage format for better results.

The bulk of the thin sections in the database are poorly located or not located at all, as they temporally span the entire history of the Minnesota Geological Survey. However many of the thin sections constructed since the 1970's can be fairly easily located via old field maps and notebooks on file at the Minnesota Geological Survey. Due to the overwhelming number of sections they have been located on an 'as-needed' basis, meaning that as we progress through different mapping project areas, every attempt was made to properly locate where the sample for the thin section was taken. Several hundred thin sections have been located, mainly in northeastern Minnesota in Cook and Lake Counties, in central St. Louis County, and Itasca County. All thin sections that were made since the advent of GIS and GPS are already located, having been stored with the data for individual mapping projects.

This dataset is a compilation of road centerline data from Minnesota suppliers that have opted-in for their road centerline data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 43 suppliers that have opted-in to share their data openly as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Benton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Cook County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Koochinching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Le Sueur County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Otter Tail County, Pipestone County, Pope County, Polk County, Ramsey County, Renville County, Rock County, Saint Louis County, Scott County, Sherburne County, Stearns, Stevens County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

The two sources of road centerline data are the Minnesota Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) Program, in collaboration with local data suppliers, and the MetroGIS Road Centerlines (Geospatial Advisory Council Schema) which is on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons:

The Minnesota NG9-1-1 Program enterprise database provides the data outside of the Metro Region which is provide by the suppliers. The data have been aggregated into a single dataset which implements the MN NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model (https://ng911gis-minnesota.hub.arcgis.com/documents/79beb1f9bde84e84a0fa9b74950f7589/about ).

Only data which have meet the requirements for supporting NG9-1-1 are in the statewide aggregate GIS data. MnGeo extracts the available data, applies domain translations, and transforms it to UTM Zone 15 to comply with the GAC road centerline attribute schema: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/roadcenterline/index.html.

The MetroGIS Road Centerlines data was created by a joint collaborative project involving the technical and managerial GIS staff from the the Metropolitan Counties (Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, and Washington), the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, MetroGIS and the Metropolitan Council. The data are pulled from the Minnesota Geospatial Commons: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-trans-road-centerlines-gac

‘Supplier’ is a term used throughout this document. A supplier will typically be a county, but it could also be a public safety answering point (PSAP), region, or tribal nation. The supplier is the agency which provides the individual datasets for the aggregated dataset. The trans_road_centerlines_open_metadata feature layer will contain the geometry/shape of the supplier boundaries, supplier name, supplier type, and feature count.

Aggregation Process:
1. Extract NG9-1-1 data from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) Enterprise database.
2. Download the latest MetroGIS data from the Geospatial Commons.
3. Extract, Translate, and Load (ETL) the DPS data to the GAC schema.
4. Combine NG9-1-1 data with MetroGIS data.
5. Filter the data for the Opt-In Open data counties

This dataset is a compilation of address point data from Minnesota suppliers that have opted-in for their address point data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 44 suppliers that have opted-in to share their data openly as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Benton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Cook County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Koochinching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Le Sueur County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Otter Tail County, Pipestone County, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Renville County, Rock County, Saint Louis County, Scott County, Sherburne County, Stearns, Stevens County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

The two sources of address point data are the Minnesota Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) Program, in collaboration with local data suppliers, and the MetroGIS Metro Address Points Dataset which is on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons:

The Minnesota NG9-1-1 Program enterprise database provides the data outside of the Metro Region which is provide by the suppliers. The data have been aggregated into a single dataset which implements the MN NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model (https://ng911gis-minnesota.hub.arcgis.com/documents/79beb1f9bde84e84a0fa9b74950f7589/about ).

Only data which have meet the requirements for supporting NG9-1-1 are in the statewide aggregate GIS data. MnGeo extracts the available data, applies domain translations, and transforms it to UTM Zone 15 to comply with the GAC Address Point attribute schema: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/address/address_standard.html.

The MetroGIS Metro Address Points Dataset was created by a joint collaborative project involving the technical and managerial GIS staff from the ten Metropolitan Counties (Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, and Washington), the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, MetroGIS and the Metropolitan Council. The data are pulled in from the Minnesota Geospatial Commons: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-loc-address-points

‘Supplier’ is a term used throughout this document. A supplier will typically be a county, but it could also be a public safety answering point (PSAP), region, or tribal nation. The supplier is the agency which provides the individual datasets for the aggregated dataset. The loc_addresses_open_metadata feature layer will contain the geometry/shape of the supplier boundaries, supplier name, supplier type, and feature count.

Aggregation Process:
1. Transfer NG9-1-1 data from the DPS Enterprise database.
2. Download the latest data from the Geospatial Commons for MetroGIS.
3. Extract, Translate, and Load (ETL) the data to the GAC Address Point Standard schema.
4. Combine NG9-1-1 data with MetroGIS data.
5. Filter the data for the Opt-In suppliers

The project vendor, Woolpert, Inc., acquired highly accurate Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) elevation data for the Arrowhead Region in Northeast Minnesota in Spring 2011. The data cover Carlton, Cook, Lake and St. Louis counties, part of Itasca County, and Voyageurs National Park in Koochiching County. Lidar data are in the UTM Zone 15 coordinate system, NAD83 96 NAVD88 Geoid09, meters. The tiling scheme is 16th USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle tiles.

The vendor delivered the data to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in several formats:

1) One-meter digital elevation model
2) Edge-of-water breaklines
3) Classified LAS formatted point cloud data

DNR staff created two additional products: two-foot contours and building outlines.

This metadata record was created at the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office by combining information supplied by Woolpert and DNR.

This dataset includes the main MNDNR Scientific and Natural Areas (SNA) feature class, along with ancillary feature classes such as annotation and parking lots. These feature classes support MNNR's SNA Work Planning application.

scientific_and_natural_area_boundaries: A polygon feature class delineated on and digitized from 1:24,000 U.S.G.S. quad maps of Minnesota Scientific and Natural Areas (SNAs).

Scientific and natural areas are established to protect and perpetuate in an undisturbed natural state those lands and waters embracing natural features of exceptional scientific and educational value. The SNA Program's goal is to ensure that no single rare feature is lost from any region of the state. This requires protection and management of each feature in sufficient quantity and distribution across the landscape. The Programs' Long Range Plan is to protect at least five locations of plant communities known to occur in each landscape region, and three locations per region of each rare species, plant or animal, and geologic feature. It is estimated that 500 natural areas are needed throughout the state to adequately protect significant features. Because over 40 percent of these rare features occur in prairies, 200 SNAs would be in the prairie area of the state. Of the remainder, approximately 135 are estimated to be needed in the deciduous and 165 in coniferous forest landscape communities in the next 100 years. Protection of multiple sites in each landscape region is a vital means of capturing the genetic diversity and preventing the loss of important species, communities, and features. This strategy observes the wisdom of not putting all our eggs in one basket.

In addition to SNA, Itasca and Crow Wing Counties have established county natural areas. Itasca County's natural areas were established in 1966. Sites are set aside as SNAs because of their natural attributes and rare resources, which warrant protection for their inherent values and as places for scientific and educational use. Protection guards against developments such as trails, campgrounds, picnic sites, logging, mineral exploration and development, cultivation, and other uses of land, public or private, that interfere with the preservation of its natural features