Map showing the General Plan Land Use for the City of San Marcos. For additional information, please visit the City's website.

This Quarter Section feature class depicts PLSS Second Divisions . PLSS townships are subdivided in a spatial hierarchy of first, second, and third division. These divisions are typically aliquot parts ranging in size from 640 acres to 160 to 40 acres, and subsequently all the way down to 2.5 acres. The data in this feature class was translated from the PLSSSecondDiv feature class in the original production data model, which defined the second division for a specific parcel of land. MetadataThis record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService OGC WMS CSV Shapefile GeoJSON KML For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This dataset consists of the vector version of the Land Cover Map 2015 (LCM2015) for Great Britain. The vector data set is the core LCM data set from which the full range of other LCM2015 products is derived. It provides a number of attributes including land cover at the target class level (given as an integer value and also as text), the number of pixels within the polygon classified as each land cover type and a probability value provided by the classification algorithm (for full details see the LCM2015 Dataset Documentation). The 21 target classes are based on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Broad Habitats, which encompass the entire range of UK habitats. LCM2015 is a land cover map of the UK which was produced at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology by classifying satellite images from 2014 and 2015 into 21 Broad Habitat-based classes. LCM2015 consists of a range of raster and vector products and users should familiarise themselves with the full range (see related records, the CEH web site and the LCM2015 Dataset documentation) to select the product most suited to their needs. LCM2015 was produced at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology by classifying satellite images from 2014 and 2015 into 21 Broad Habitat-based classes. It is one of a series of land cover maps, produced by UKCEH since 1990. They include versions in 1990, 2000, 2007, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

To access parcel information:Enter an address or zoom in by using the +/- tools or your mouse scroll wheel. Parcels will draw when zoomed in.Click on a parcel to display a popup with information about that parcel.Click the "Basemap" button to display background aerial imagery.From the "Layers" button you can turn map features on and off.Complete Help (PDF)Parcel Legend:Full Map LegendAbout this ViewerThis viewer displays land property boundaries from assessor parcel maps across Massachusetts. Each parcel is linked to selected descriptive information from assessor databases. Data for all 351 cities and towns are the standardized "Level 3" tax parcels served by MassGIS. More details ...Read about and download parcel dataUpdatesV 1.1: Added 'Layers' tab. (2018)V 1.2: Reformatted popup to use HTML table for columns and made address larger. (Jan 2019)V 1.3: Added 'Download Parcel Data by City/Town' option to list of layers. This box is checked off by default but when activated a user can identify anywhere and download data for that entire city/town, except Boston. (March 14, 2019)V 1.4: Data for Boston is included in the "Level 3" standardized parcels layer. (August 10, 2020)V 1.4 MassGIS, EOTSS 2021

This web map created by the Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology GIS team, serves as a basemap specific to the state of Colorado. The basemap includes general layers such as counties, municipalities, roads, waterbodies, state parks, national forests, national wilderness areas, and trails.Layers:Layer descriptions and sources can be found below. Layers have been modified to only represent features within Colorado and are not up to date. Layers last updated February 23, 2023. Colorado State Extent: Description: “This layer provides generalized boundaries for the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Notes: This layer was filtered to only include the State of ColoradoSource: Esri Living Atlas USA States Generalized Boundaries Feature LayerState Wildlife Areas:Description: “This data was created by the CPW GIS Unit. Property boundaries are created by dissolving CDOWParcels by the property name, and property type and appending State Park boundaries designated as having public access. All parcel data correspond to legal transactions made by the CPW Real Estate Unit. The boundaries of the CDOW Parcels were digitized using metes and bounds, BLM's GCDB dataset, the PLSS dataset (where the GCDB dataset was unavailable) and using existing digital data on the boundaries.” Notes: The state wildlife areas layer in this basemap is filtered from the CPW Managed Properties (public access only) layer from this feature layer hosted in ArcGIS Online Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerMunicipal Boundaries:Description: "Boundaries data from the State Demography Office of Colorado Municipalities provided by the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)"Source: Colorado Information Marketplace Municipal Boundaries in ColoradoCounties:Description: “This layer presents the USA 2020 Census County (or County Equivalent) boundaries of the United States in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is updated annually as County (or County Equivalent) boundaries change. The geography is sources from US Census Bureau 2020 TIGER FGDB (National Sub-State) and edited using TIGER Hydrology to add a detailed coastline for cartographic purposes. Geography last updated May 2022.” Notes: This layer was filtered to only include counties in the State of ColoradoSource: Esri USA Census Counties Feature LayerInterstates:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: Interstates are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointU.S. Highways:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: U.S. Highways are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointState Highways:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: State Highways are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointMajor Roads:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing major roads Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Major Roads REST EndpointLocal Roads:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing local roads Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Local Roads REST EndpointRail Lines:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing rail lines Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Rail Lines REST EndpointCOTREX Trails:Description: “The Colorado Trail System, now titled the Colorado Trail Explorer (COTREX), endeavors to map every trail in the state of Colorado. Currently their are nearly 40,000 miles of trails mapped. Trails come from a variety of sources (USFS, BLM, local parks & recreation departments, local governments). Responsibility for accuracy of the data rests with the source.These data were last updated on 2/5/2019” Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerNHD Waterbodies:Description: “The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include waterbodies in the State of ColoradoSource: National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2.1 Feature LayerNHD Flowlines:Description: “The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include flowline features in the State of ColoradoSource: National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2.1 Feature LayerState Parks:Description: “This data was created by the CPW GIS Unit. Property boundaries are created by dissolving CDOWParcels by the property name, and property type and appending State Park boundaries designated as having public access. All parcel data correspond to legal transactions made by the CPW Real Estate Unit. The boundaries of the CDOW Parcels were digitized using metes and bounds, BLM's GCDB dataset, the PLSS dataset (where the GCDB dataset was unavailable) and using existing digital data on the boundaries.” Notes: The state parks layer in this basemap is filtered from the CPW Managed Properties (public access only) layer from this feature layer Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerDenver Parks:Description: "This dataset should be used as a reference to locate parks, golf courses, and recreation centers managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation in the City and County of Denver. Data is based on parcel ownership and does not include other areas maintained by the department such as medians and parkways. The data should be used for planning and design purposes and cartographic purposes only."Source: City and County of Denver Parks REST EndpointNational Wilderness Areas:Description: “A parcel of Forest Service land congressionally designated as wilderness such as National Wilderness Area.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include National Wilderness Areas in the State of ColoradoSource: United States Department of Agriculture National Wilderness Areas REST EndpointNational Forests: Description: “A depiction of the boundaries encompassing the National Forest System (NFS) lands within the original proclaimed National Forests, along with subsequent Executive Orders, Proclamations, Public Laws, Public Land Orders, Secretary of Agriculture Orders, and Secretary of Interior Orders creating modifications thereto, along with lands added to the NFS which have taken on the status of 'reserved from the public domain' under the General Exchange Act. The following area types are included: National Forest, Experimental Area, Experimental Forest, Experimental Range, Land Utilization Project, National Grassland, Purchase Unit, and Special Management Area.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include National Forests in the State of ColoradoSource: United States Department of Agriculture Original Proclaimed National Forests REST Endpoint

The purpose of the American Indian and Alaska Native Land Area Representation (AIAN-LAR) Geographic Information System (GIS) dataset is to depict the external extent of federal Indian reservations and the external extent of associated land held in “trust” by the United States, “restricted fee” or “mixed ownership” status for federally recognized tribes and individual Indians. This dataset includes other land area types such as Public Domain Allotments, Dependent Indian Communities and Homesteads. This GIS Dataset is prepared strictly for illustrative and reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for legal, survey, engineering or navigation purposes.No warranty is made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BIA. This GIS Dataset may contain errors. There is no impact on the legal status of the land areas depicted herein and no impact on land ownership. No legal inference can or should be made from the information in this GIS Dataset. The GIS Dataset is to be used solely for illustrative, reference and statistical purposes and may be used for government to government Tribal consultation. Reservation boundary data is limited in authority to those areas where there has been settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of the boundary. Absent settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of a reservation boundary, the BIA recommends consultation with the appropriate Tribe and then the BIA to obtain interpretations of the reservation boundary.The land areas and their representations are compilations defined by the official land title records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) which include treaties, statutes, Acts of Congress, agreements, executive orders, proclamations, deeds and other land title documents. The trust, restricted, and mixed ownership land area shown here, are suitable only for general spatial reference and do not represent the federal government’s position on the jurisdictional status of Indian country. Ownership and jurisdictional status is subject to change and must be verified with plat books, patents, and deeds in the appropriate federal and state offices.Included in this dataset are the exterior extent of off reservation trust, restricted fee tracts and mixed tracts of land including Public Domain allotments, Dependent Indian Communities, Homesteads and government administered lands and those set aside for schools and dormitories. There are also land areas where there is more than one tribe having an interest in or authority over a tract of land but this information is not specified in the AIAN-LAR dataset. The dataset includes both surface and subsurface tracts of land (tribal and individually held) “off reservation” tracts and not simply off reservation “allotments” as land has in many cases been subsequently acquired in trust.These data are public information and may be used by various organizations, agencies, units of government (i.e., Federal, state, county, and city), and other entities according to the restrictions on appropriate use. It is strongly recommended that these data be acquired directly from the BIA and not indirectly through some other source, which may have altered or integrated the data for another purpose for which they may not have been intended. Integrating land areas into another dataset and attempting to resolve boundary differences between other entities may produce inaccurate results. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. Users are cautioned that digital enlargement of these data to scales greater than those at which they were originally mapped can cause misinterpretation.The BIA AIAN-LAR dataset’s spatial accuracy and attribute information are continuously being updated, improved and is used as the single authoritative land area boundary data for the BIA mission. These data are available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Land Titles and Records, Branch of Geospatial Support.

The statewide dataset contains a combination of land cover mapping from 2016 aerial imagery and land use derived from standardized assessor parcel information for Massachusetts. The data layer is the result of a cooperative project between MassGIS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Coastal Management (OCM). Funding was provided by the Mass. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

This land cover/land use dataset does not conform to the classification schemes or polygon delineation of previous land use data from MassGIS (1951-1999; 2005).In this map service layer hosted at MassGIS' ArcGIS Server, all impervious polygons are symbolized by their generalized use code; all non-impervious land cover polygons are symbolized by their land cover category. The idea behind this method is to use both cover and use codes to provide a truer picture of how land is being used: parcel use codes may indicate allowed or assessed, not actual use; land cover alone (especially impervious) does not indicate actual use.

See the full datalayer description for more details.This map service is best displayed at large (zoomed in) scales. Also available are a Feature Service and a Tile Service (cache). The tile cache will display very quickly in in ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Desktop, and other applications that can consume tile services.

Donation sent to the University of Idaho Library Government Documents Librarian a CD containing General Land Office maps on it. A readme file on the CD contains this information:"I obtained the attached GLO maps from Mitch Price at River Design Group who obtained them from another source. These maps apparently do not have a date, I assume it was stripped off when they were rectified. These maps show the Great Northern Rail line, it arrived in Bonners Ferry in 1892. The Spokane International Railroad (Union Pacific purchased this line) built a bridge across the Kootenai R. in 1906." "I am a bit puzzled on the map dates, the Kootenai River Master Plan indicated these maps are 1862-65 but they also show the Great Northern Rail line but not the Spokane International Railroad which seems to place them somewhere between 1892 - 1906 unless perhaps they were revised at a later date."Gary Barton USGS Tacoma, WA 253-552-1613 officegbarton@usgs.gov

This dataset consists of the vector version of the Land Cover Map 1990 (LCM1990) for Great Britain. The vector data set is the core LCM data set from which the full range of other LCM1990 products are derived. It provides a number of attributes including land cover at the target class level (given as an integer value and also as text), the number of pixels within the polygon classified as each land cover type and a probability value provided by the classification algorithm (for full details see the LCM1990 Dataset Documentation). The 21 target classes are based on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Broad Habitats, which encompass the entire range of UK habitats. LCM1990 is a land cover map of the UK which was produced at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology by classifying satellite images (mainly from 1989 and 1990) into 21 Broad Habitat-based classes. It is the first in a series of land cover maps for the UK, which also includes maps for 2000, 2007, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019. LCM1990 consists of a range of raster and vector products and users should familiarise themselves with the full range (see related records, the UKCEH web site and the LCM1990 Dataset documentation) to select the product most suited to their needs. This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE programme delivering National Capability.

Cadastral Mapping Market Outlook

The global cadastral mapping market size was valued at approximately USD 4.2 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach around USD 7.9 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.2% during the forecast period. This market growth can be attributed to increasing urbanization, rapid advancements in geospatial technologies, and the growing need for efficient land management systems across various regions.

The expansion of urban areas and the corresponding increase in the need for effective land management infrastructure are significant growth factors driving the cadastral mapping market. As urbanization accelerates globally, local governments and planning agencies require sophisticated tools to manage and record land ownership, boundaries, and property information. Enhanced geospatial technologies, including Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing, are pivotal in facilitating accurate and efficient cadastral mapping, thus contributing to market growth.

Another key growth factor is the rising demand for infrastructure development. As nations invest in large-scale infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, and smart cities, there is an increased need for precise land data to ensure the proper allocation of resources and to avoid legal disputes. Cadastral mapping provides the critical data needed for these projects, hence its demand is surging. Additionally, governments worldwide are increasingly adopting digital platforms to streamline land administration processes, further propelling the market.

Furthermore, the agricultural sector is also significantly contributing to the growth of the cadastral mapping market. Modern agriculture relies heavily on accurate land parcel information for planning and optimizing crop production. By integrating cadastral maps with other geospatial data, farmers can improve land use efficiency, monitor crop health, and enhance yield predictions. This integration is particularly valuable in precision farming, which is becoming more prevalent as the world's population grows and the demand for food increases.

Regionally, Asia Pacific is expected to witness the highest growth in the cadastral mapping market. Factors such as rapid urbanization, extensive infrastructure development projects, and the need for improved land management are driving the demand in this region. Moreover, governments in countries like India and China are investing heavily in creating digital land records and implementing smart city initiatives, which further boosts the market. The North American and European markets are also substantial, driven by the advanced technological infrastructure and well-established land administration systems.

Component Analysis

The cadastral mapping market can be segmented by component into software, hardware, and services. The software segment holds a significant share in this market, driven by the increasing adoption of advanced GIS and mapping software solutions. These software solutions enable accurate land parcel mapping, data analysis, and integration with other geospatial data systems, making them indispensable tools for cadastral mapping. Companies are continuously innovating to provide more intuitive and comprehensive software solutions, which is expected to fuel growth in this segment.

Hardware components, including GPS devices, drones, and other surveying equipment, are also critical to the cadastral mapping market. The hardware segment is expected to grow steadily as technological advancements improve the accuracy and efficiency of these devices. Innovations such as high-resolution aerial imaging and LIDAR technology are enhancing the capabilities of cadastral mapping hardware, allowing for more detailed and precise data collection. This segment is particularly essential for field surveying and data acquisition, forming the backbone of cadastral mapping projects.

The services segment encompasses a wide range of offerings, including consulting, implementation, and maintenance services. Professional services are vital for the successful deployment and operation of cadastral mapping systems. Governments and private sector organizations often rely on specialized service providers to implement these systems, train personnel, and ensure ongoing support. As the complexity of cadastral mapping projects increases, the demand for expert services is also expected to rise, contributing to the growth of this segment.

Integration services are another critical component within the

Background and Data Limitations The Massachusetts 1830 map series represents a unique data source that depicts land cover and cultural features during the historical period of widespread land clearing for agricultural. To our knowledge, Massachusetts is the only state in the US where detailed land cover information was comprehensively mapped at such an early date. As a result, these maps provide unusual insight into land cover and cultural patterns in 19th century New England. However, as with any historical data, the limitations and appropriate uses of these data must be recognized: (1) These maps were originally developed by many different surveyors across the state, with varying levels of effort and accuracy. (2) It is apparent that original mapping did not follow consistent surveying or drafting protocols; for instance, no consistent minimum mapping unit was identified or used by different surveyors; as a result, whereas some maps depict only large forest blocks, others also depict small wooded areas, suggesting that numerous smaller woodlands may have gone unmapped in many towns. Surveyors also were apparently not consistent in what they mapped as ‘woodlands’: comparison with independently collected tax valuation data from the same time period indicates substantial lack of consistency among towns in the relative amounts of ‘woodlands’, ‘unimproved’ lands, and ‘unimproveable’ lands that were mapped as ‘woodlands’ on the 1830 maps. In some instances, the lack of consistent mapping protocols resulted in substantially different patterns of forest cover being depicted on maps from adjoining towns that may in fact have had relatively similar forest patterns or in woodlands that ‘end’ at a town boundary. (3) The degree to which these maps represent approximations of ‘primary’ woodlands (i.e., areas that were never cleared for agriculture during the historical period, but were generally logged for wood products) varies considerably from town to town, depending on whether agricultural land clearing peaked prior to, during, or substantially after 1830. (4) Despite our efforts to accurately geo-reference and digitize these maps, a variety of additional sources of error were introduced in converting the mapped information to electronic data files (see detailed methods below). Thus, we urge considerable caution in interpreting these maps. Despite these limitations, the 1830 maps present an incredible wealth of information about land cover patterns and cultural features during the early 19th century, a period that continues to exert strong influence on the natural and cultural landscapes of the region. Acknowledgements Financial support for this project was provided by the BioMap Project of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, the National Science Foundation, and the Andrew Mellon Foundation. This project is a contribution of the Harvard Forest Long Term Ecological Research Program.

Human use of the land has a large effect on the structure of terrestrial ecosystems and the dynamics of biogeochemical cycles. For this reason, terrestrial ecosystem and biogeochemistry models require moderate resolution information on land use in order to make realistic predictions. Few such datasets currently exist.

This collection consists of output from models that estimate the spatial pattern of land use in four land-use categories by relating a high-resolution land-cover dataset to state-level census data on land use. The models have been parameterized using a goodness-of-fit measure.

The land cover product used was from the IGBP DISCover global product, derived from 1 km AVHRR imagery, with 16 land cover classes (Belward et al., 1999). Land-use data at state-level resolution came from the USDA's Major Land Uses database (USDA, 1996), aggregated into the four general land-use categories described below.

The model was used to generate maps of land use in 1992 for the conterminous U.S. at 0.5 degree spatial resolution. Two different parameterization schemes were used to spatially interpolate land use from land cover, based on the state-level land use census data: 1) a National Parameterization, and 2) a Regional Parameterization.

For the National Parameterization, a single parameterization relating aggregate land cover and state-level land use. For the Regional Parameterization, a separate parameterization was used for each of seven different regions. The seven regions include: Northeast, Southeast, East North-central, West North-central, Southern Plains, Mountain, and Pacific. These regions are substantially different in terms of land use and land cover. In both cases, the results are a nationally gridded map at 0.5 degrees of land use categories for cropland, pasture/range, forest, and other land use; the other land use category is also further spilt into three additional subcategories (forested, non-forested, non-vegetated).

This project is currently being extended to other regions of the globe, and for other time periods, where both land use census data and image-derived land cover data are available.

Available Datasets:

1) US Land Use - 1992 National Parameterization 2) US Land Use - 1992 Regional Parameterization

Each dataset has 4 major land use categories and 3 subcategories of the Other major land use category.

This layer displays a global map of land use/land cover (LULC) derived from ESA Sentinel-2 imagery at 10m resolution. Each year is generated with Impact Observatory’s deep learning AI land classification model, trained using billions of human-labeled image pixels from the National Geographic Society. The global maps are produced by applying this model to the Sentinel-2 Level-2A image collection on Microsoft’s Planetary Computer, processing over 400,000 Earth observations per year.The algorithm generates LULC predictions for nine classes, described in detail below. The year 2017 has a land cover class assigned for every pixel, but its class is based upon fewer images than the other years. The years 2018-2024 are based upon a more complete set of imagery. For this reason, the year 2017 may have less accurate land cover class assignments than the years 2018-2024.Variable mapped: Land use/land cover in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024Source Data Coordinate System: Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) WGS84Service Coordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere WGS84 (EPSG:3857)Extent: GlobalSource imagery: Sentinel-2 L2ACell Size: 10-metersType: ThematicAttribution: Esri, Impact ObservatoryWhat can you do with this layer?Global land use/land cover maps provide information on conservation planning, food security, and hydrologic modeling, among other things. This dataset can be used to visualize land use/land cover anywhere on Earth. This layer can also be used in analyses that require land use/land cover input. For example, the Zonal toolset allows a user to understand the composition of a specified area by reporting the total estimates for each of the classes. NOTE: Land use focus does not provide the spatial detail of a land cover map. As such, for the built area classification, yards, parks, and groves will appear as built area rather than trees or rangeland classes.Class definitionsValueNameDescription1WaterAreas where water was predominantly present throughout the year; may not cover areas with sporadic or ephemeral water; contains little to no sparse vegetation, no rock outcrop nor built up features like docks; examples: rivers, ponds, lakes, oceans, flooded salt plains.2TreesAny significant clustering of tall (~15 feet or higher) dense vegetation, typically with a closed or dense canopy; examples: wooded vegetation, clusters of dense tall vegetation within savannas, plantations, swamp or mangroves (dense/tall vegetation with ephemeral water or canopy too thick to detect water underneath).4Flooded vegetationAreas of any type of vegetation with obvious intermixing of water throughout a majority of the year; seasonally flooded area that is a mix of grass/shrub/trees/bare ground; examples: flooded mangroves, emergent vegetation, rice paddies and other heavily irrigated and inundated agriculture.5CropsHuman planted/plotted cereals, grasses, and crops not at tree height; examples: corn, wheat, soy, fallow plots of structured land.7Built AreaHuman made structures; major road and rail networks; large homogenous impervious surfaces including parking structures, office buildings and residential housing; examples: houses, dense villages / towns / cities, paved roads, asphalt.8Bare groundAreas of rock or soil with very sparse to no vegetation for the entire year; large areas of sand and deserts with no to little vegetation; examples: exposed rock or soil, desert and sand dunes, dry salt flats/pans, dried lake beds, mines.9Snow/IceLarge homogenous areas of permanent snow or ice, typically only in mountain areas or highest latitudes; examples: glaciers, permanent snowpack, snow fields.10CloudsNo land cover information due to persistent cloud cover.11RangelandOpen areas covered in homogenous grasses with little to no taller vegetation; wild cereals and grasses with no obvious human plotting (i.e., not a plotted field); examples: natural meadows and fields with sparse to no tree cover, open savanna with few to no trees, parks/golf courses/lawns, pastures. Mix of small clusters of plants or single plants dispersed on a landscape that shows exposed soil or rock; scrub-filled clearings within dense forests that are clearly not taller than trees; examples: moderate to sparse cover of bushes, shrubs and tufts of grass, savannas with very sparse grasses, trees or other plants.Classification ProcessThese maps include Version 003 of the global Sentinel-2 land use/land cover data product. It is produced by a deep learning model trained using over five billion hand-labeled Sentinel-2 pixels, sampled from over 20,000 sites distributed across all major biomes of the world.The underlying deep learning model uses 6-bands of Sentinel-2 L2A surface reflectance data: visible blue, green, red, near infrared, and two shortwave infrared bands. To create the final map, the model is run on multiple dates of imagery throughout the year, and the outputs are composited into a final representative map for each year.The input Sentinel-2 L2A data was accessed via Microsoft’s Planetary Computer and scaled using Microsoft Azure Batch.CitationKarra, Kontgis, et al. “Global land use/land cover with Sentinel-2 and deep learning.” IGARSS 2021-2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE, 2021.AcknowledgementsTraining data for this project makes use of the National Geographic Society Dynamic World training dataset, produced for the Dynamic World Project by National Geographic Society in partnership with Google and the World Resources Institute.

The BÜK1000 represents the distribution of soils throughout Germany and their socialization in a uniform form at the aggregation level of the lead soil associations. The map graphic is available in digital form. The text legend, which comprises 71 soil-related legend units, contains information on thoroughness, soil types, water conditions, source rocks as well as guide and accompanying soils. The parameters of the legend description and the 71 reference profiles (each containing 6 soil shapes and 19 horizons) are stored in a relational database. Version 2.1 is based on the topographical foundations of the Digital Topographic Map 1:1.000.000 (DTK1000-V) of the Federal Office of Cartography and Geodesy, which has been partially modified by the BGR. To improve the position accuracy, the geometry of the BÜK1000 was slightly revised on 23.12.2013.

COMPLETED 2010. The data was converted from the most recent (2010) versions of the adopted plans, which can be found at https://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/planning/plans/Supplemental Information: In March 2010, Pima Association of Governments (PAG), in cooperation with the City of Tucson (City), initiated the Planned Land Use Data Conversion Project. This 9-month effort involved evaluating mapped land use designations and selected spatially explicit policies for nearly 50 of the City's adopted neighborhood, area, and subregional plans and converting the information into a Geographic Information System (GIS) format. Further documentation for this file can be obtained from the City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department or Pima Association of Governments Technical Services. A brief summary report was provided, as requested, to the City of Tucson which highlights some of the key issues found during the conversion process (e.g., lack of mapping and terminology consistency among plans). The feature class "Plan_boundaries" represents the boundaries of the adopted plans. The feature class "Plan_mapped_land_use" represents the land use designations as they are mapped in the adopted plans. Some information was gathered that is implicit based on the land use designation or zones (see field descriptions below). Since this information is not explicitly stated in the plans, it should only be viewed by City staff for general planning purposes. The feature class "Plan_selected_policies" represents the spatially explicit policies that were fairly straightforward to map. Since these policies are not represented in adopted maps, this feature class should only be viewed by City staff for general planning purposes only.2010 - created by Jamison Brown, working as an independent contractor for Pima Association of Governments, created this file in 2010 by digitizing boundaries as depicted (i.e. for the mapped land use) or described in the plans (i.e. for the narrative policies). In most cases, this involved tracing based on parcel (paregion) or street center line (stnetall) feature classes. Snapping was used to provide line coincidence. For some map conversions, freehand sketches were drawn to mimick the freehand sketches in the adopted plan. Field descriptionsField descriptions for the "Plan_boundaries" feature class: Plan_Name: Plan name Plan_Type: Plan type (e.g., Neighborhood Plan) Plan_Num: Plan number ADOPT_DATE: Date of Plan adoption IMPORTANT: A disclaimer about the data as it is unofficial. URL: Uniform Resource Locator Field descriptions for the "Plan_mapped_land_use" feature class: Plan_Name: Plan name Plan_Type: Plan type (e.g., Neighborhood Plan) Plan_Num: Plan number LU_DES: Land use designation (e.g., Low density residential) LISTED_ALLOWABLE_ZONES: Allowable zones as listed in the Plan LISTED_RAC_MIN: Minimum residences per acre (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_RAC_TARGET: Target residences per acre (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_RAC_MAX: Maximum residences per acre (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_FAR_MIN: Minimum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_FAR_TARGET: Target Floor Area Ratio (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_FAR_MAX: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable), as listed in the Plan BUILDING_HEIGHT_MAX Building height maximum (ft.) if determined by Plan policy IMPORTANT: A disclaimer about the data as it is unofficial. URL: Uniform Resource Locator IMPLIED_ALLOWABLE_ZONES: Implied (not listed in the Plan) allowable zones IMPLIED_RAC_MIN: Implied (not listed in the Plan) minimum residences per acre (if applicable) IMPLIED_RAC_TARGET: Implied (not listed in the Plan) target residences per acre (if applicable) IMPLIED_RAC_MAX: Implied (not listed in the Plan) maximum residences per acre (if applicable) IMPLIED_FAR_MIN: Implied (not listed in the Plan) minimum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable) IMPLIED_FAR_TARGET: Implied (not listed in the Plan) target Floor Area Ratio (if applicable) IMPLIED_FAR_MAX: Implied (not listed in the Plan) maximum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable) IMPLIED_LU_CATEGORY: Implied (not listed in the Plan) general land use category. General categories used include residential, office, commercial, industrial, and other.PurposeLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Dataset ClassificationLevel 0 - OpenKnown UsesLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Known ErrorsLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Data ContactJohn BeallCity of Tucson Development Services520-791-5550John.Beall@tucsonaz.govUpdate FrequencyLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

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.

Conservation planning in the Great Plains often depends on understanding the degree of fragmentation of the various types of grasslands and savannas that historically occurred in this region. To define ecological subregions of the Great Plains, we used a revised version of Kuchler’s (1964) map of the potential natural vegetation of the United States. The map was digitized from the 1979 physiographic regions map produced by the Bureau of Land Management, which added 10 physiognomic types. All analyses are based on data sources specific to the United States; hence, we only analyze the portion of the Great Plains occurring in the United States.We sought to quantify the current amount of rangeland in the US Great Plains converted due to 1) woody plant encroachment; 2) urban, exurban, and other forms of development (e.g., energy infrastructure); and 3) cultivation of cropland. At the time of this analysis, the most contemporary measure of land cover across the United States was the 2011 NLCD (Homer et al. 2015). One limitation of the NLCD is that some grasslands with high rates of productivity, such as herbaceous wetlands or grasslands along riparian zones, are misclassified as cropland. A second limitation is the inability to capture cropland conversion occurring after 2011 (Lark et al. 2015). Beginning in 2009 (and retroactively for 2008), the US Department of Agriculture - NASS has annually produced a Cropland Data Layer (CDL) for the United States from satellite imagery, which maps individual crop types at a 30-m spatial resolution. We used the annual CDLs from 2011 to 2017 to map the distribution of cropland in the Great Plains. We merged this map with the 2011 NLCD to evaluate the degree of fragmentation of grasslands and savannas in the Great Plains as a result of conversion to urban land, cropland, or woodland. We produced two maps of fragmentation (best case and worst case scenarios) that quantify this fragmentation at a 30 x 30 m pixel resolution across the US Great Plains, and make them available for download here. Resources in this dataset: Resource title: Data Dictionary for Figure 2 derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.csv Resource title: Figure 1. Potential natural vegetation of US portion of the North American Great Plains, adapted from Kuchler (1964). File name: Figure1_Kuchler_GPRangelands.zip Resource description: Extracted grassland, shrubland, savanna, and forest communities in the US Great Plains from the revised Kuchler natural vegetation map Resource title: Figure 2. Derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains. File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.zip Resource description: The fNLCD-CDL product estimates that 43.7% of the Great Plains still consists of grasslands and shrublands, with the remainder consisting of 40.6% cropland, 4.4% forests, 3.0% UGC, 3.0% developed open space, 2.9% improved pasture or hay fields, 1.2% developed land, 1.0% water, and 0.2% barren land, with important regional and subregional variation in the extent of rangeland loss to cropland, forests, and developed land. Resource title: Figure 3. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distance to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure3_bestcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a “best case” scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based only on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017), 2) all grass-dominated cover types including hay fields and improved pasture are considered rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by the National Land Cover Database) are assumed to not be a fragmenting land cover type. Resource title: Figure 4. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distances to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure4_worstcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a ‘worst case’ scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017) and the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD), 2) hay fields and improved pasture are not included as rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by NLCD) is included as a fragmenting land cover type.

This data publication contains multiple maps of Puerto Rico scanned at 600 dots per inch: full map scans, scans clipped to mapped areas only, and georeferenced scans of 1:10,000-scale land-use maps from 1950-1951 that were produced by the Rural Land Classification Program of Puerto Rico, a project led by Dr. Clarence F. Jones of Northwestern University. These historical maps classified land use and land cover into 20 different classes, including 13 different types of crops, two classes of forests, four classes of grasslands and other areas, which is a general class for non-rural areas. This package includes maps from 76 out of the 78 municipalities of Puerto Rico, covering 422 quadrangles of a 443-quadrangle grid for mainland Puerto Rico. It excludes the island municipalities of Vieques and Culebra, Mona Island and minor outlying islands.The Rural Land Classification Program of Puerto Rico produced 430 1:10,000-scale maps. That program also produced one island-wide land-use map with more generalized delineations of land use. Previously, Kennaway and Helmer (2007) scanned and georeferenced the island-wide map, and they converted it to vector and raster formats with embedded georeferencing and classification. This data publication contains the higher-resolution maps, which will provide more precise historical context for forests. It will better inform management efforts for the sustainable use of forest lands and to build resilience and resistance to various future disturbances for these and other tropical forest landscapes.

The maps were scanned and georeferenced to help with the planning and application process for the USDA Forest Service (USDA) Forest Legacy Program, a competition-based program administered by the USDA Forest Service in partnership with State agencies to encourage the protection of privately owned forest lands through conservation easements or land purchases. Geospatial products and maps will also be used by personnel at the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources and partners in Non-Governmental Organizations working with the Forest Stewardship Program. This latter program provides technical assistance and forest management plans to private landowners for the conservation and effective management of private forests across the US. The information will provide local historical context on forest change patterns that will enhance the recommendations of forest management practices for private forest landowners. These data will also be useful for urban forest professionals to understand the land legacies as a basis for planning green infrastructure interventions.

Data depict the rural areas of Puerto Rico around 1951 and how they were classified by geographers then. Having it georeferenced allows managers, teachers, students, the public and scientists to compare how these classifications have changed throughout the years. It will allow more precise identification and mapping of the past land use of present forests, forest stand age, and the past juxtaposition of different land uses relative to each other. These factors can affect forest species composition, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Forest stand age, past land-use type and past disturbance type, forest example, help gauge current forest structure, carbon storage, or rates of carbon accumulation. Another example of how the maps are important is for understanding how watersheds have changed through time, which helps assess how forest ecosystem services related to hydrology evolve. These maps will also help gauge how the forests of Puerto Rico are responding to recent disturbances, and how past disturbances over a range of scales relate to these responses.For more information on the Rural Land Classification Program of Puerto Rico, generated maps, and the island-wide land-use map, please see Jones (1952), Jones and Berrios (1956), as well as Kennaway and Helmer (2007).

This is the 20m classified pixels dataset for the UKCEH Land Cover Map of 2017 (LCM2017) representing Great Britain. It describes Great Britain's land cover in 2017 using UKCEH Land Cover Classes, which are based on UK Biodiversity Action Plan broad habitats. This dataset is the Random Forest classification result from classifying a 20m pixel raster containing multi-season spectral information combined with context layers, which help to resolve spectral confusion. It is provided as a 2-band, 8-bit integer raster. The band-1 is the UKCEH Land Cover Class identifier, band-2 is an indicator of classification confidence. For a fuller description please refer to the product documentation. LCM2017 represents a suite of geospatial land cover datasets (raster and polygon) describing the UK land surface in 2017. These were produced at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology by classifying satellite images from 2017. LCM2017 was simultaneously released with LCM2018 and LCM2019. These are the latest in a series of UKCEH land cover maps, which began with the 1990 Land Cover Map of Great Britain (now usually referred to as LCM1990) followed by UK-wide land cover maps LCM2000, LCM2007 and LCM2015. This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE programme delivering National Capability. Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/f6f86b1a-af6d-4ed8-85af-21ee97ec5333