This interactive map is a collaborative project by the Geographical Names Board of Canada, illustrating a curated selection of places in Canada with names that have origins in multiple Indigenous languages. The names selected show the history and evolution of Indigenous place naming in Canada, from derived and inaccurate usage, to names provided by Indigenous organisations. Many Indigenous place names convey stories, knowledge, and descriptions of the land. By celebrating these names through this map, the Geographical Names Board of Canada hopes to increase the awareness of existing Indigenous place names and help promote the revitalization of Indigenous cultures and languages. Many more Indigenous place names exist in Canada and will be added in future releases of this map. The content of this map is a compilation of information obtained from many current and historical sources. The Geographical Names Board of Canada does not warrant or guarantee that the information is accurate, complete or current at all times. For more information, to report data errors, or to suggest improvements to this application, please contact the Geographical Names Board of Canada Secretariat.

Introduction and Rationale: Due to our increasing understanding of the role the surrounding landscape plays in ecological processes, a detailed characterization of land cover, including both agricultural and natural habitats, is ever more important for both researchers and conservation practitioners. Unfortunately, in the United States, different types of land cover data are split across thematic datasets that emphasize agricultural or natural vegetation, but not both. To address this data gap and reduce duplicative efforts in geospatial processing, we merged two major datasets, the LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL), to produce an integrated land cover map. Our workflow leveraged strengths of the NVC and the CDL to produce detailed rasters comprising both agricultural and natural land-cover classes. We generated these maps for each year from 2012-2021 for the conterminous United States, quantified agreement between input layers and accuracy of our merged product, and published the complete workflow necessary to update these data. In our validation analyses, we found that approximately 5.5% of NVC agricultural pixels conflicted with the CDL, but we resolved a majority of these conflicts based on surrounding agricultural land, leaving only 0.6% of agricultural pixels unresolved in our merged product. Contents: Spatial data Attribute table for merged rasters Technical validation data Number and proportion of mismatched pixels Number and proportion of unresolved pixels Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Attribute table for merged rasters. File Name: CombinedRasterAttributeTable_CDLNVC.csvResource Description: Raster attribute table for merged raster product. Class names and recommended color map were taken from USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer and LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification. Class values are also identical to source data, except classes from the CDL are now negative values to avoid overlapping NVC values. Resource Title: Number and proportion of mismatched pixels. File Name: pixel_mismatch_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of pixels that were mismatched between the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States.Resource Title: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels. File Name: unresolved_conflict_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels in the final merged rasters, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. Unresolved pixels are a result of mismatched pixels that we could not resolve based on surrounding agricultural land (no agriculture with 90m radius).Resource Title: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data. File Name: accuracy_datacoverage_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. We defined coverage of reference data as the proportional area of land cover classes that were included in the reference data published by USDA-NASS and LANDFIRE for the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, respectively. CDL and NVC classes with reference data also had published accuracy statistics. Resource Title: Data Dictionary. File Name: Data_Dictionary_RasterMerge.csv

Internal view of the parcel layer. This view contains all the attributes that can be seen by County employees.There are approximately 51,300 real property parcels in Napa County. Parcels delineate the approximate boundaries of property ownership as described in Napa County deeds, filed maps, and other source documents. GIS parcel boundaries are maintained by the Information Technology Services GIS team. Assessor Parcel Maps are created and maintained by the Assessor Division Mapping Section. Each parcel has an Assessor Parcel Number (APN) that is its unique identifier. The APN is the link to various Napa County databases containing information such as owner name, situs address, property value, land use, zoning, flood data, and other related information. Data for this map service is sourced from the Napa County Parcels dataset which is updated nightly with any recent changes made by the mapping team. There may at times be a delay between when a document is recorded and when the new parcel boundary configuration and corresponding information is available in the online GIS parcel viewer.From 1850 to early 1900s assessor staff wrote the name of the property owner and the property value on map pages. They began using larger maps, called “tank maps” because of the large steel cabinet they were kept in, organized by school district (before unification) on which names and values were written. In the 1920s, the assessor kept large books of maps by road district on which names were written. In the 1950s, most county assessors contracted with the State Board of Equalization for board staff to draw standardized 11x17 inch maps following the provisions of Assessor Handbook 215. Maps were originally drawn on linen. By the 1980’s Assessor maps were being drawn on mylar rather than linen. In the early 1990s Napa County transitioned from drawing on mylar to creating maps in AutoCAD. When GIS arrived in Napa County in the mid-1990s, the AutoCAD images were copied over into the GIS parcel layer. Sidwell, an independent consultant, was then contracted by the Assessor’s Office to convert these APN files into the current seamless ArcGIS parcel fabric for the entire County. Beginning with the 2024-2025 assessment roll, the maps are being drawn directly in the parcel fabric layer.Parcels in the GIS parcel fabric are drawn according to the legal description using coordinate geometry (COGO) drawing tools and various reference data such as Public Lands Survey section boundaries and road centerlines. The legal descriptions are not defined by the GIS parcel fabric. Any changes made in the GIS parcel fabric via official records, filed maps, and other source documents are uploaded overnight. There is always at least a 6-month delay between when a document is recorded and when the new parcel configuration and corresponding information is available in the online parcel viewer for search or download.Parcel boundary accuracy can vary significantly, with errors ranging from a few feet to several hundred feet. These distortions are caused by several factors such as: the map projection - the error derived when a spherical coordinate system model is projected into a planar coordinate system using the local projected coordinate system; and the ground to grid conversion - the distortion between ground survey measurements and the virtual grid measurements. The aim of the parcel fabric is to construct a visual interpretation that is adequate for basic geographic understanding. This digital data is intended for illustration and demonstration purposes only and is not considered a legal resource, nor legally authoritative.SFAP & CFAP DISCLAIMER: Per the California Code, RTC 606. some legal parcels may have been combined for assessment purposes (CFAP) or separated for assessment purposes (SFAP) into multiple parcels for a variety of tax assessment reasons. SFAP and CFAP parcels are assigned their own APN number and primarily result from a parcel being split by a tax rate area boundary, due to a recorded land use lease, or by request of the property owner. Assessor parcel (APN) maps reflect when parcels have been separated or combined for assessment purposes, and are one legal entity. The goal of the GIS parcel fabric data is to distinguish the SFAP and CFAP parcel configurations from the legal configurations, to convey the legal parcel configurations. This workflow is in progress. Please be advised that while we endeavor to restore SFAP and CFAP parcels back to their legal configurations in the primary parcel fabric layer, SFAP and CFAP parcels may be distributed throughout the dataset. Parcels that have been restored to their legal configurations, do not reflect the SFAP or CFAP parcel configurations that correspond to the current property tax delineations. We intend for parcel reports and parcel data to capture when a parcel has been separated or combined for assessment purposes, however in some cases, information may not be available in GIS for the SFAP/CFAP status of a parcel configuration shown. For help or questions regarding a parcel’s SFAP/CFAP status, or property survey data, please visit Napa County’s Surveying Services or Property Mapping Information. For more information you can visit our website: When a Parcel is Not a Parcel | Napa County, CA

Sixty-seven maps from Indian Land Cessions in the United States, compiled by Charles C. Royce and published as the second part of the two-part Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1896-1897 have been scanned, georeferenced in JPEG2000 format, and digitized to create this feature class of cession maps. The mapped cessions and reservations included in the 67 maps correspond to entries in the Schedule of Indian Land Cessions, indicating the number and location of each cession by or reservation for the Indian tribes from the organization of the Federal Government to and including 1894, together with descriptions of the tracts so ceded or reserved, the date of the treaty, law or executive order governing the same, the name of the tribe or tribes affected thereby, and historical data and references bearing thereon, as set forth in the subtitle of the Schedule. Go to this URL for full metadata: https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/edw_resources/meta/S_USA.TRIBALCEDEDLANDS.xml Each Royce map was georeferenced against one or more of the following USGS 1:2,000,000 National Atlas Feature Classes contained in \NatlAtlas_USGS.gdb: cities_2mm, hydro_ln_2mm, hydro_pl_2mm, plss_2mm, states_2mm. Cessions were digitized as a file geodatabase (GDB) polygon feature class, projected as NAD83 USA_Contiguous_Lambert_Conformal_Conic, which is the same projection used to georeference the maps. The feature class was later reprojected to WGS 1984 Web Mercator (auxiliary sphere) to optimize it for the Tribal Connections Map Viewer. Polygon boundaries were digitized as to not deviate from the drawn polygon edge to the extent that space could be seen between the digitized polygon and the mapped polygon at a viewable scale. Topology was maintained between coincident edges of adjacent polygons. The cession map number assigned by Royce was entered into the feature class as a field attribute. The Map Cession ID serves as the link referencing relationship classes and joining additional attribute information to 752 polygon features, to include the following: 1. Data transcribed from Royce's Schedule of Indian Land Cessions: a. Date(s), in the case of treaties, the date the treaty was signed, not the date of the proclamation; b. Tribe(s), the tribal name(s) used in the treaty and/or the Schedule; and c. Map Name(s), the name of the map(s) on which a cession number appears; 2. URLs for the corresponding entry in the Schedule of Indian Land Cessions (Internet Archive) for each unique combination of a Date and reference to a Map Cession ID (historical references in the Schedule are included); 3. URLs for the corresponding treaty text, including the treaties catalogued by Charles J. Kappler in Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (HathiTrust Digital Library), executive order or other federal statute (Library of Congress and University of Georgia) identified in each entry with a reference to a Map Cession ID or IDs; 4. URLs for the image of the Royce map(s) (Library of Congress) on which a given cession number appears; 5. The name(s) of the Indian tribe or tribes related to each mapped cession, including the name as it appeared in the Schedule or the corresponding primary text, as well as the name of the present-day Indian tribe or tribes; and 6. The present-day states and counties included wholly or partially within a Map Cession boundary. During the 2017-2018 revision of the attribute data, it was noted that 7 of the Cession Map IDs are missing spatial representation in the Feature Class. The missing data is associated with the following Cession Map IDs: 47 (Illinois 1), 65 (Tennessee and Bordering States), 128 (Georgia), 129 (Georgia), 130 (Georgia), 543 (Indian Territory 3), and 690 (Iowa 2), which will be updated in the future. This dataset revises and expands the dataset published in 2015 by the U.S. Forest Service and made available through the Tribal Connections viewer, the Forest Service Geodata Clearinghouse, and Data.gov. The 2018 dataset is a result of collaboration between the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Office of Tribal Relations (OTR); the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National NAGPRA Program; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of International and Tribal Affairs, American Indian Environmental Office; and Dr. Claudio Saunt of the University of Georgia. The Forest Service and Dr. Saunt independently digitized and georeferenced the Royce cession maps and developed online map viewers to display Native American land cessions and reservations. Dr. Saunt subsequently undertook additional research to link Schedule entries, treaty texts, federal statutes and executive orders to cession and reservation polygons, which he agreed to share with the U.S. Forest Service. OTR revised the data, linking the Schedule entries, treaty texts, federal statues and executive orders to all 1,172 entries in the attribute table. The 2018 dataset has incorporated data made available by the National NAGPRA Program, specifically the Indian tribe or tribes related to each mapped cession, including the name as it appeared in the Schedule or the corresponding primary text and the name of the present-day Indian tribe or tribes, as well as the present-day states and counties included wholly or partially within a Map Cession boundary. This data replaces in its entirety the National NAGPRA data included in the dataset published in 2015. The 2015 dataset incorporated data presented in state tables compiled from the Schedule of Indian Land Cessions by the National NAGPRA Program. In recent years the National NAGPRA Program has been working to ensure the accuracy of this data, including the reevaluation of the present-day Indian tribes and the provision of references for their determinations. Changes made by the OTR have not been reviewed or approved by the National NAGPRA Program. The Forest Service will continue to collaborate with other federal agencies and work to improve the accuracy of the data included in this dataset. Errors identified since the dataset was published in 2015 have been corrected, and we request that you notify us of any additional errors we may have missed or that have been introduced. Please contact Rebecca Hill, Policy Analyst, U.S. Forest Service, Office of Tribal Relations, at rebeccahill@fs.usda.gov with any questions or concerns with regard to the data included in this dataset.

Digital line graph (DLG) data are digital representations of cartographic information. DLG's of map features are converted to digital form from maps and related sources. Intermediate-scale DLG data are derived from USGS 1:100,000-scale 30- by 60-minute quadrangle maps. If these maps are not available, Bureau of Land Management planimetric maps at a scale of 1: 100,000 are used. Intermediate-scale DLG's are sold in five categories: (1) Public Land Survey System; (2) boundaries (3) transportation; (4) hydrography; and (5) hypsography. All DLG data distributed by the USGS are DLG - Level 3 (DLG-3), which means the data contain a full range of attribute codes, have full topological structuring, and have passed certain quality-control checks.

Parcels and property data maintained and provided by Lee County Property Appraiser are converted to points. Property attribute data joined to parcel GIS layer by Lee County Government GIS. This dataset is generally used in spatial analysis.Process description: Parcel polygons, condominium points and property data provided by the Lee County Property Appraiser are processed by Lee County's GIS Department using the following steps:Join property data to parcel polygons Join property data to condo pointsConvert parcel polygons to points using ESRI's ArcGIS tool "Feature to Point" and designate the "Source" field "P".Load Condominium points into this layer and designate the "Source" field "C". Add X/Y coordinates in Florida State Plane West, NAD 83, feet using the "Add X/Y" tool.Projected coordinate system name: NAD_1983_StatePlane_Florida_West_FIPS_0902_FeetGeographic coordinate system name: GCS_North_American_1983

 Name
 Type
 Length
 Description


 STRAP
 String
 25
 17-digit Property ID (Section, Township, Range, Area, Block, Lot)


 BLOCK
 String
 10
 5-digit portion of STRAP (positions 9-13)


 LOT
 String
 8
 Last 4-digits of STRAP


 FOLIOID
 Double
 8
 Unique Property ID


 MAINTDATE
 Date
 8
 Date LeePA staff updated record


 MAINTWHO
 String
 20
 LeePA staff who updated record


 UPDATED
 Date
 8
 Data compilation date


 HIDE_STRAP
 String
 1
 Confidential parcel ownership


 TRSPARCEL
 String
 17
 Parcel ID sorted by Township, Range & Section


 DORCODE
 String
 2
 Department of Revenue. See https://leepa.org/Docs/Codes/DOR_Code_List.pdf


 CONDOTYPE
 String
 1
 Type of condominium: C (commercial) or R (residential)


 UNITOFMEAS
 String
 2
 Type of Unit of Measure (ex: AC=acre, LT=lot, FF=frontage in feet)


 NUMUNITS
 Double
 8
 Number of Land Units (units defined in UNITOFMEAS)


 FRONTAGE
 Integer
 4
 Road Frontage in Feet


 DEPTH
 Integer
 4
 Property Depth in Feet


 GISACRES
 Double
 8
 Total Computed Acres from GIS


 TAXINGDIST
 String
 3
 Taxing District of Property


 TAXDISTDES
 String
 60
 Taxing District Description


 FIREDIST
 String
 3
 Fire District of Property


 FIREDISTDE
 String
 60
 Fire District Description


 ZONING
 String
 10
 Zoning of Property


 ZONINGAREA
 String
 3
 Governing Area for Zoning


 LANDUSECOD
 SmallInteger
 2
 Land Use Code


 LANDUSEDES
 String
 60
 Land Use Description


 LANDISON
 String
 5
 BAY,CANAL,CREEK,GULF,LAKE,RIVER & GOLF


 SITEADDR
 String
 55
 Lee County Addressing/E911


 SITENUMBER
 String
 10
 Property Location - Street Number


 SITESTREET
 String
 40
 Street Name


 SITEUNIT
 String
 5
 Unit Number


 SITECITY
 String
 20
 City


 SITEZIP
 String
 5
 Zip Code


 JUST
 Double
 8
 Market Value


 ASSESSED
 Double
 8
 Building Value + Land Value


 TAXABLE
 Double
 8
 Taxable Value


 LAND
 Double
 8
 Land Value


 BUILDING
 Double
 8
 Building Value


 LXFV
 Double
 8
 Land Extra Feature Value


 BXFV
 Double
 8
 Building Extra Feature value


 NEWBUILT
 Double
 8
 New Construction Value


 AGAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Agriculture Exemption Value


 DISAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Disability Exemption Value


 HISTAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Historical Exemption Value


 HSTDAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Homestead Exemption Value


 SNRAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Senior Exemption Value


 WHLYAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Wholly Exemption Value


 WIDAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Widow Exemption Value


 WIDRAMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Widower Exemption Value


 BLDGCOUNT
 SmallInteger
 2
 Total Number of Buildings on Parcel


 MINBUILTY
 SmallInteger
 2
 Oldest Building Built


 MAXBUILTY
 SmallInteger
 2
 Newest Building Built


 TOTALAREA
 Double
 8
 Total Building Area


 HEATEDAREA
 Double
 8
 Total Heated Area


 MAXSTORIES
 Double
 8
 Tallest Building on Parcel


 BEDROOMS
 Integer
 4
 Total Number of Bedrooms


 BATHROOMS
 Double
 8
 Total Number of Bathrooms / Not For Comm


 GARAGE
 String
 1
 Garage on Property 'Y'


 CARPORT
 String
 1
 Carport on Property 'Y'


 POOL
 String
 1
 Pool on Property 'Y'


 BOATDOCK
 String
 1
 Boat Dock on Property 'Y'


 SEAWALL
 String
 1
 Sea Wall on Property 'Y'


 NBLDGCOUNT
 SmallInteger
 2
 Total Number of New Buildings on ParcelTotal Number of New Buildings on Parcel


 NMINBUILTY
 SmallInteger
 2
 Oldest New Building Built


 NMAXBUILTY
 SmallInteger
 2
 Newest New Building Built


 NTOTALAREA
 Double
 8
 Total New Building Area


 NHEATEDARE
 Double
 8
 Total New Heated Area


 NMAXSTORIE
 Double
 8
 Tallest New Building on Parcel


 NBEDROOMS
 Integer
 4
 Total Number of New Bedrooms


 NBATHROOMS
 Double
 8
 Total Number of New Bathrooms/Not For Comm


 NGARAGE
 String
 1
 New Garage on Property 'Y'


 NCARPORT
 String
 1
 New Carport on Property 'Y'


 NPOOL
 String
 1
 New Pool on Property 'Y'


 NBOATDOCK
 String
 1
 New Boat Dock on Property 'Y'


 NSEAWALL
 String
 1
 New Sea Wall on Property 'Y'


 O_NAME
 String
 30
 Owner Name


 O_OTHERS
 String
 120
 Other Owners


 O_CAREOF
 String
 30
 In Care Of Line


 O_ADDR1
 String
 30
 Owner Mailing Address Line 1


 O_ADDR2
 String
 30
 Owner Mailing Address Line 2


 O_CITY
 String
 30
 Owner Mailing City


 O_STATE
 String
 2
 Owner Mailing State


 O_ZIP
 String
 9
 Owner Mailing Zip


 O_COUNTRY
 String
 30
 Owner Mailing Country


 S_1DATE
 Date
 8
 Most Current Sale Date > $100.00


 S_1AMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Sale Amount


 S_1VI
 String
 1
 Sale Vacant or Improved


 S_1TC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Code


 S_1TOC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Override Code


 S_1OR_NUM
 String
 13
 Original Record (Lee County Clerk)


 S_2DATE
 Date
 8
 Previous Sale Date > $100.00


 S_2AMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Sale Amount


 S_2VI
 String
 1
 Sale Vacant or Improved


 S_2TC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Code


 S_2TOC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Override Code


 S_2OR_NUM
 String
 13
 Original Record (Lee County Clerk)


 S_3DATE
 Date
 8
 Next Previous Sale Date > $100.00


 S_3AMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Sale Amount


 S_3VI
 String
 1
 Sale Vacant or Improved


 S_3TC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Code


 S_3TOC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Override Code


 S_3OR_NUM
 String
 13
 Original Record (Lee County Clerk)


 S_4DATE
 Date
 8
 Next Previous Sale Date > $100.00


 S_4AMOUNT
 Double
 8
 Sale Amount


 S_4VI
 String
 1
 Sale Vacant or Improved


 S_4TC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Code


 S_4TOC
 String
 2
 Sale Transaction Override Code


 S_4OR_NUM
 String
 13

About the G.M. Hopkins Maps

History and Background of the Maps

Maps produced by the G.M. Hopkins Company have made a lasting impression on the boundaries of many American cities. Between 1870 and 1940, the company produced over 175 atlases and real estate plat maps that primarily covered the Eastern sea board, including cities, counties, and townships in 18 different states and the District of Columbia. In the early years, the company produced county atlases, but gradually focused on city plans and atlases. They were among the first publishers to create a cadastral atlas, a cross between a fire insurance plat and a county atlas prevalent in the 1860s-1870s. These real estate or land ownership maps (also known as plat maps) not only depict property owners, but show lot and block numbers, dimensions, street widths, and other buildings and landmarks, including churches, cemeteries, mills, schools, roads, railroads, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams.

Originally named the G.M. Hopkins and Company, the map-making business was jointly founded in 1865 in Philadelphia, Pa., by the Hopkins brothers, G.M. and Henry. The true identity of G.M. Hopkins remains somewhat of a mystery even today. “G.M.” either stands for Griffith Morgan or George Morgan. There are three different possibilities for the confusion over his identity. “Either the compilers of the earlier [city] directories were negligent; G.M. Hopkins changed his first name; or there were two G.M. Hopkins (father and son) working for the same firm” (Moak, Jefferson M. Philadelphia Mapmakers. Philadelphia: Shackamaxon Society, 1976, p. 258).

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/abouthp/#hopkins

This map uses the USA Generalized Federal Lands layer which presents the federal and tribal land areas of the United States. The lands are symbolized by the managing agency. A vector tile layer showing federal land boundaries and place names is included in this map.

This Web Map Service displays land parcel and related property information maintained by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Queensland. The service also includes some general locational information to assist the user.The data layers shown include Land Parcels from the Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) The Land Parcels group layer has sub layers that show selected land parcels at different scale ranges to aid visualisation and drawing speed. The land parcels are also available in base, easement, strata and volumetric only layers. Addresses from the Queensland Address Management Framework database. Location information including Populated Places from the Queensland Place Names database. State BorderCoastlineAdministrative Boundaries information including Local Government Areas, Locality Boundaries.

Vector data collection DPK 500V is an object-oriented cartographic database at 1: 500 000 scale. Elements on the map are divided into eight object groups: mathematical elements, settlements and objects, communications, relief, hydrography, land cover, boundaries and dividing line, geographical names. The data set is used for "rough" geo-orientation and for the needs of large scale and thematic displaying.

This TNC Lands spatial dataset represents the lands and waters in which The Nature Conservancy (TNC) currently has, or historically had, an interest, legal or otherwise. The system of record for TNC Lands is the Legal Records Management (LRM) system, which is TNC’s database for all TNC land transactions. TNC properties should not be considered open to the public unless specifically designated as being so. TNC may change the access status at any time at its sole discretion. It's recommended to visit preserve-specific websites or contact the organization operating the preserve before any planned visit for the latest conditions, notices, and closures. TNC prohibits redistribution or display of the data in maps or online in any way that misleadingly implies such lands are universally open to the public. The types of current land interests represented in the TNC Lands data include: Fields and Attributes included in the public dataset:

Field Name

Field Definition

Attributes

Attribute Definitions

Public Name

The name of the tract that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Business Unit (BU) uses for public audiences.

Public name of tract if applicable

n/a

TNC Primary Interest

The primary interest held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) on the tract

Fee Ownership

Properties where TNC currently holds fee-title or exclusive rights and control over real estate. Fee Ownership can include TNC Nature Preserves, managed areas, and properties that are held for future transfer.

Conservation Easement

Properties on which TNC holds a conservation easement, which is a legally binding agreement restricting the use of real property for conservation purposes (e.g., no development). The easement may additionally provide the holder (TNC) with affirmative rights, such as the rights to monitor species or to manage the land. It may run forever or for an expressed term of years.

Deed Restriction

Properties where TNC holds a deed restriction, which is a provision placed in a deed restricting or limiting the use of the property in some manner (e.g., if a property goes up for sale, TNC gets the first option).

Transfer

Properties where TNC historically had a legal interest (fee or easement), then subsequently transferred the interest to a conservation partner.

Assist

Properties where TNC assisted another agency/entity in protecting.

Management Lease or Agreement

An agreement between two parties whereby one party allows the other to use their property for a certain period of time in exchange for a periodic fee.

Grazing Lease or Permit

A grazing lease or permit held by The Nature Conservancy.

Right of Way

An access easement or agreement held by The Nature Conservancy.

Other

Another real estate interest or legal agreement held by The Nature Conservancy

Preserve Name

The name of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserve that the tract is a part of, this may be the same name as the as the "Public Name" for the tract.

Preserve Name if applicable

n/a

Public Access

The level of public access allowed on the tract.

Open Access

Access is encouraged on the tract, trails are maintained, signage is abundant, and parking is available. The tract may include regular hours of availability.

Open with Limited Access

There are no special requirements for public access to the tract, the tract may include regular hours of availability with limited amenities.

Restricted Access

The tract requires a special permit from the owner for access, a registration permit on public land, or has highly variable times or conditions to use.

Closed Access

No public access is allowed on the tract.

Unknown

Access information for the tract is not currently available.

Gap Category

The Gap Analysis Project (GAP) code for the tract. Gap Analysis is the science of determining how well we are protecting common plants and animals. Developing the data and tools to support that science is the mission of the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) at the US Geological Survey. See their website for more information, linked in the field name.

1 - Permanent Protection for Biodiversity

Permanent Protection for Biodiversity

2 - Permanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural State

Permanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural State

3 - Permanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural cover

Permanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural cover

39 - Permanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass cover

Permanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass cover

4 - Unsecured (temporary easements lands and/or municipal lands that are already developed (schools, golf course, soccer fields, ball fields)

Unsecured (temporary easements lands and/or municipal lands that are already developed (schools, golf course, soccer fields, ball fields)

9 - Unknown

Unknown

GIS Acres

The planar area of the tract polygon in acres, calculated by the TNC Lands geographic information system (GIS).

Total geodesic area of polygon in acres

Projection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

Original Protection Date

The original protection date for the tract, from the Land Resource Management (LRM) system record.

Original protection date

n/a

State

The state within the United States of America or the Canadian province where the tract is located.

Chosen from a list of state names.

n/a

Country

The name of the country where the tract is located.

Chosen from a list of countries

n/a

This feature class represents the smallest geographic unit located in development centers as defined by the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan text refers to these areas as land units, sub-units, districts, subareas, sub-blocks, and suburban neighborhoods, depending on what section of the Plan they are located. For the purpose of this feature class and metadata, these areas are referred to generically as a geographic unit.Contact: Fairfax County Department of Planning & DevelopmentData Accessibility: Publicly available Update Frequency: AnnuallyCreation Date: 2009Feature Layer Name: DPZMGR.COMP_PLAN_UNITSFeature Dataset Name: DPZMGR.PLANNING

Provide state-owned forest land zoning map shp download file, including fields DIST_C (Chinese name of forest management office), WKNG_C (Chinese name of state-owned forest business area), forest land zoning (state-owned forest business area forest land zoning).

Land based information extracted from the Sunshine Council Regional Council corporate database (T1 Property), linked to the cadastre for representation of the land parcel boundaries. Attribute information includes land parcel addresses, property names and area details.

The Geospatial Data Gateway (GDG) provides access to a map library of over 100 high resolution vector and raster layers in the Geospatial Data Warehouse. It is the one stop source for environmental and natural resource data, available anytime, from anywhere. It allows a user to choose an area of interest, browse and select data, customize the format, then download or have it shipped on media. The map layers include data on: Public Land Survey System (PLSS), Census data, demographic statistics, precipitation, temperature, disaster events, conservation easements, elevation, geographic names, geology, government units, hydrography, hydrologic units, land use and land cover, map indexes, ortho imagery, soils, topographic images, and streets and roads. This service is made available through a close partnership between the three Service Center Agencies (SCA): Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), and Rural Development (RD). Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Geospatial Data Gateway. File Name: Web Page, url: https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov This is the main page for the GDG that includes several links to view, download, or order various datasets. Find additional status maps that indicate the location of data available for each map layer in the Geospatial Data Gateway at https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGHome_StatusMaps.aspx

Digital line graph (DLG) data are digital representations of cartographic information. DLG's of map features are converted to digital form from maps and related sources. Intermediate-scale DLG data are derived from USGS 1:100,000-scale 30- by 60-minute quadrangle maps. If these maps are not available, Bureau of Land Management planimetric maps at a scale of 1: 100,000 are used. Intermediate-scale DLG's are sold in five categories: (1) Public Land Survey System; (2) boundaries (3) transportation; (4) hydrography; and (5) hypsography. All DLG data distributed by the USGS are DLG - Level 3 (DLG-3), which means the data contain a full range of attribute codes, have full topological structuring, and have passed certain quality-control checks.

Named Landforms of the World (NLW) contains four sub-layers representing geomorphological landforms, provinces, divisions, and their respective cartographic boundaries. The latter is to support map making, while the first three represent basic units such landforms comprise provinces, and provinces comprise divisions. NLW is a substantial update to World Named Landforms in both compilation method and the attributes that describe each landform.For more details, please refer to our paper, Named Landforms of the World: A Geomorphological and Physiographic Compilation, in Annals of the American Assocation of Geographers.Landforms are commonly defined as natural features on the surface of the Earth. The National Geographic Society specifies terrain as the basis for landforms and lists four major types: mountains, hills, plateaus, and plains. Here, however, we define landforms in a richer way that includes properties relating to underlying geologic structure, erosional and depositional character, and tectonic setting and processes. These characteristics were asserted by Dr. Richard E. Murphy in 1968 in his map, titled Landforms of the World. We blended Murphy's definition for landforms with the work E.M. Bridges, who in his 1990 book, World Geomorphology, provided a globally consistent description of geomorphological divisions, provinces, and sections to give names to the landform regions of the world. AttributeDescription Bridges Full NameFull name from E.M. Bridges' 1990 "World Geomorphology" Division and if present province and section - intended for labeling print maps of small extents. Bridges DivisionGeomorphological Division as described in E.M. Bridges' 1990 "World Geomorphology" - All Landforms have a division assigned, i.e., no nulls. Bridges ProvinceGeomorphological Province as described in E.M. Bridges' 1990 "World Geomorphology" - Not all divisions are subdivided into provinces. Bridges SectionGeomorphological Section as described in E.M. Bridges' 1990 "World Geomorphology" - Not all provinces are subdivided into sections. StructureLandform Structure as described in Richard E. Murphy's 1968 "Landforms of the World" map. Coded Value Domain. Values include: - Alpine Systems: Area of mountains formed by orogenic (collisions of tectonic plates) processes in the past 350 to 500 million years. - Caledonian/Hercynian Shield Remnants: Area of mountains formed by orogenic (collisions of tectonic plates) processes 350 to 500 million years ago. - Gondwana or Laurasian Shields: Area underlaid by mostly crystalline rock formations fromed one billion or more years ago and unbroken by tectonic processes. - Rifted Shield Areas: fractures or spreading along or adjacent to tectonic plate edges. - Isolated Volcanic Areas: volcanic activity occurring outside of Alpine Systems and Rifted Shields. - Sedimentary: Areas of deposition occurring within the past 2.5 million years Moist or DryLandform Erosional/Depositional variable as described in Richard E. Murphy's 1968 "Landforms of the World" map. Coded Value Domain. Values include: - Moist: where annual aridity index is 1.0 or higher, which implies precipitation is absorbed or lost via runoff. - Dry: where annual aridity index is less than 1.0, which implies more precipitation evaporates before it can be absorbed or lost via runoff. TopographicLandform Topographic type variable as described in Richard E. Murphy's 1968 "Landforms of the World" map. Karagulle et. al. 2017 - based on rich morphometric characteristics. Coded Value Domain. Values include: - Plains: Areas with less than 90-meters of relief and slopes under 20%. - Hills: Areas with 90- to 300-meters of local relief. - Mountains: Areas with over 300-meters of relief - High Tablelands: Areas with over 300-meters of relief and 50% of highest elevation areas are of gentle slope. - Depressions or Basins: Areas of land surrounded land of higher elevation. Glaciation TypeLandform Erosional/Depositional variable as described in Richard E. Murphy's 1968 "Landforms of the World" map. Values include: - Wisconsin/Wurm Glacial Extent: Areas of most recent glaciation which formed 115,000 years ago and ended 11,000 years ago. - Pre-Wisconsin/Wurm Glacial Extent: Areas subjected only to glaciation prior to 140,000 years ago. ContinentAssigned by Author during data compilation. Bridges Short NameThe name of the smallest of Division, Province, or Section containing this landform feature. Murphy Landform CodeCombination of Richard E. Murphy's 1968 "Landforms of the World" variables expressed as a 3- or 4- letter notation. Used to label medium scale maps. Area_GeoGeodesic area in km2. Primary PlateName of tectonic plate that either completely underlays this landform feature or underlays the largest portion of the landform's area. Secondary PlateWhen a landform is underlaid by two or more tectonic plates, this is the plate that underlays the second largest area. 3rd PlateWhen a landform is underlaid by three or more tectonic plates, this is the plate that underlays the third largest area. 4th PlateWhen a landform is underlaid by four or more tectonic plates, this is the plate that underlays the fourth largest area. 5th PlateWhen a landform is underlaid by five tectonic plates, this is the plate that underlays the fifth largest area. NotesContains standard text to convey additional tectonic process characteristics. Tectonic ProcessAssigns values of orogenic, rift zone, or above subducting plate.

These data are also available as an ArcGIS Pro Map Package: Named_Landforms_of_the_World_v2.0.mpkx.These data supersede the earlier v1.0: World Named Landforms.Change Log:

DateDescription of Change July 20, 2022Corrected spelling of Guiana from incorrect representation, "Guyana", used by Bridges. July 27, 2022Corrected Structure coded value domain value, changing "Caledonian/Hercynian Shield" to "Caledonian , Hercynian, or Appalachian Remnants".

Cite as:Frye, C., Sayre R., Pippi, M., Karagulle, Murphy, A., D. Soller, D.R., Gilbert, M., and Richards, J., 2022. Named Landforms of the World. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33178.93129. Accessed on:

Digital line graph (DLG) data are digital representations of cartographic information. DLG's of map features are converted to digital form from maps and related sources. Intermediate-scale DLG data are derived from USGS 1:100,000-scale 30- by 60-minute quadrangle maps. If these maps are not available, Bureau of Land Management planimetric maps at a scale of 1: 100,000 are used. Intermediate-scale DLG's are sold in five categories: (1) Public Land Survey System; (2) boundaries (3) transportation; (4) hydrography; and (5) hypsography. All DLG data distributed by the USGS are DLG - Level 3 (DLG-3), which means the data contain a full range of attribute codes, have full topological structuring, and have passed certain quality-control checks.

This dataset comprises land use maps of Maputo city, with exception of the KaTembe urban district, for the years 1964, 1973, 1982, 1991 and 2001. It is the digital version of the land use maps published by Henriques [1] and revised under the LUCO research project.

The land use of Maputo city was identified from: i) aerial photographs (1964, 1982, 1991), orthophoto maps (1973) and IKONOS images (2001); ii) documentary sources, such as the Urbanization Master Plan (1969) and the Maputo City Addressing (1997); iii) the recognition made during several field survey campaigns. The methodology is described in Henriques [1].

Land use was classified into three levels, resulting from a hierarchical classification system, including descriptive and parametric classes. Levels I and II are available in this repository.

Level I, composed by 10 classes, contains the main forms of occupation: built-up areas (residential, economic activity, equipment, and infrastructure) and non-built-up areas (vacant or "natural"). It is geared towards analyses that serve policymaking and resource management at the regional or national scale [1].

Level II, composed by 31 classes, discriminates the higher hierarchical level according to its functional land use to become useful for municipal planning and management in municipal master plans, for example [1].

Maps are available in shapefile format and include predefined symbology-legend files, for QGIS and ArcGIS (v.10.7 or higher). The urban land use classes are described in Portuguese and English, and their meaning is provided as an accompanying document (ULU_Maputo_Nomenclatura_PT.pdf / ULU_Maputo_Nomenclature_EN.pdf).

Data format: vector (shapefile, polygon)

Reference system: WGS84, UTM 36S (EPSG:32736)

Original minimum mapping unit: 25 m2

Urban Land Use dataset attributes:

[N_I_C] – code of level I

[N_I_D_PT] – name of level I, in Portuguese

[N_I_D_EN] - name of level I, in English

[N_II_C] – code of level II

[N_II_D_PT] - name of level II, in Portuguese

[N_II_D_EN] - name of level II, in English

Funding: this research was supported by national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P. Project number: FCT AGA-KHAN/ 541731809 / 2019

[1] Henriques, C.D. (2008). Maputo. Cinco décadas de mudança territorial. O uso do solo observado por tecnologias de informação geográfica [Maputo. Five decades of territorial transformation. Land use assessed by geographical information technologies]. Lisboa, Instituto Português de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento (ISBN: 978-972-8975-22-7).

Sentinel2GlobalLULC is a deep learning-ready dataset of RGB images from the Sentinel-2 satellites designed for global land use and land cover (LULC) mapping. Sentinel2GlobalLULC v2.1 contains 194,877 images in GeoTiff and JPEG format corresponding to 29 broad LULC classes. Each image has 224 x 224 pixels at 10 m spatial resolution and was produced by assigning the 25th percentile of all available observations in the Sentinel-2 collection between June 2015 and October 2020 in order to remove atmospheric effects (i.e., clouds, aerosols, shadows, snow, etc.). A spatial purity value was assigned to each image based on the consensus across 15 different global LULC products available in Google Earth Engine (GEE).

Our dataset is structured into 3 main zip-compressed folders, an Excel file with a dictionary for class names and descriptive statistics per LULC class, and a python script to convert RGB GeoTiff images into JPEG format. The first folder called "Sentinel2LULC_GeoTiff.zip" contains 29 zip-compressed subfolders where each one corresponds to a specific LULC class with hundreds to thousands of GeoTiff Sentinel-2 RGB images. The second folder called "Sentinel2LULC_JPEG.zip" contains 29 zip-compressed subfolders with a JPEG formatted version of the same images provided in the first main folder. The third folder called "Sentinel2LULC_CSV.zip" includes 29 zip-compressed CSV files with as many rows as provided images and with 12 columns containing the following metadata (this same metadata is provided in the image filenames):

Land Cover Class ID: is the identification number of each LULC class

Land Cover Class Short Name: is the short name of each LULC class

Image ID: is the identification number of each image within its corresponding LULC class

Pixel purity Value: is the spatial purity of each pixel for its corresponding LULC class calculated as the spatial consensus across up to 15 land-cover products

GHM Value: is the spatial average of the Global Human Modification index (gHM) for each image

Latitude: is the latitude of the center point of each image

Longitude: is the longitude of the center point of each image

Country Code: is the Alpha-2 country code of each image as described in the ISO 3166 international standard. To understand the country codes, we recommend the user to visit the following website where they present the Alpha-2 code for each country as described in the ISO 3166 international standard:https: //www.iban.com/country-codes

Administrative Department Level1: is the administrative level 1 name to which each image belongs

Administrative Department Level2: is the administrative level 2 name to which each image belongs

Locality: is the name of the locality to which each image belongs

Number of S2 images : is the number of found instances in the corresponding Sentinel-2 image collection between June 2015 and October 2020, when compositing and exporting its corresponding image tile

For seven LULC classes, we could not export from GEE all images that fulfilled a spatial purity of 100% since there were millions of them. In this case, we exported a stratified random sample of 14,000 images and provided an additional CSV file with the images actually contained in our dataset. That is, for these seven LULC classes, we provide these 2 CSV files:

A CSV file that contains all exported images for this class

A CSV file that contains all images available for this class at spatial purity of 100%, both the ones exported and the ones not exported, in case the user wants to export them. These CSV filenames end with "including_non_downloaded_images".

To clearly state the geographical coverage of images available in this dataset, we included in the version v2.1, a compressed folder called "Geographic_Representativeness.zip". This zip-compressed folder contains a csv file for each LULC class that provides the complete list of countries represented in that class. Each csv file has two columns, the first one gives the country code and the second one gives the number of images provided in that country for that LULC class. In addition to these 29 csv files, we provided another csv file that maps each ISO Alpha-2 country code to its original full country name.

© Sentinel2GlobalLULC Dataset by Yassir Benhammou, Domingo Alcaraz-Segura, Emilio Guirado, Rohaifa Khaldi, Boujemâa Achchab, Francisco Herrera & Siham Tabik is marked with Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)