GIS DATA IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR THE BASIS OF DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIONIn accordance with Federal and City guidelines this data should not be published or retransmitted. Keep in mind that this data-set represents known floorplan and or site information for said structures and or areas. Parties wishing to know comprehensively what infrastructure exists in the project area are advised to conduct their own site surveys and other due-diligence prior making decisions, analysis, and/or digging and demo. The contained data-sets are meant to serve as a reference file only, not a comprehensive site survey.DATA DISCLAIMERData contained on this Web page/site is Copyright © San Francisco City and County (CCSF), California. The GIS data are proprietary to CCSF and title to this information remains in CCSF. All applicable common law and statutory rights in the GIS data including, but not limited to, rights in copyright, shall and will remain the property of CCSF. Information shown on these maps are derived from public records that are constantly undergoing change and do not replace a site survey, and is not warranted for content or accuracy. CCSF does not guarantee the positional or thematic accuracy of the GIS data. The GIS data or cartographic digital files are not a legal representation of any of the features in which it depicts, and disclaims any assumption of the legal status of which it represents. The GIS data or cartographic digital files are not a legal representation of any of the features in which it depicts, and disclaims any assumption of the legal status of which it represents. Areas and/or boundaries contained in this dataset are approximate. Any implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, shall be expressly excluded. All the data on this web page, whether in written, numerical, or graphical form is derived from the San Francisco International Airport’s Asset Management Geospatial Information System (GIS) and is not guaranteed to be accurate. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) makes no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including any warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or any other matter. SFO is not responsible for errors, omissions, misuse, or misinterpretation in or of the material. SFO’s digital information is prepared for reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for, survey or engineering purposes. No representation is made concerning the legal status of any apparent route of access identified in digital or hardcopy mapping of geospatial information or data. The requestor acknowledges and accepts all limitations, including the fact that the data, information, and maps are being updated on an ongoing basis, and agrees not to hold SFO or the City and County of San Francisco responsible or liable for any damages that may arise from the use of the data. San Francisco International Airport. Infrastructure Information Management.

Tags are part of the information, commonly called metadata, that can be added when creating new items, authoring maps and apps, or creating new groups in your organization. They can be added to any item, can be edited, and are a useful way to boost search results and find specific content.Without proper forethought, tagging data will quickly become a subjective process with a mess of inconsistent tags existing within an organization. When sharing data publicly over a multi-organizational open data platform such as the Florida Geospatial Open Data Portal, these tags may be incompatible with tags used by other organizations.This webpage seeks to provide guidance to State of Florida organizations that participate in the Florida Geospatial Open Data Portal by highlighting how tagging data works in the ArcGIS Online platform, providing best practices for getting started tagging data in your own organization, and explaining how tagging works with the Florida Geospatial Open Data Portal.

GIS DATA IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR THE BASIS OF DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIONIn accordance with Federal and City guidelines this data should not be published or retransmitted. Keep in mind that this data-set represents known floorplan and or site information for said structures and or areas. Parties wishing to know comprehensively what infrastructure exists in the project area are advised to conduct their own site surveys and other due-diligence prior making decisions, analysis, and/or digging and demo. The contained data-sets are meant to serve as a reference file only, not a comprehensive site survey.DATA DISCLAIMERData contained on this Web page/site is Copyright © San Francisco City and County (CCSF), California. The GIS data are proprietary to CCSF and title to this information remains in CCSF. All applicable common law and statutory rights in the GIS data including, but not limited to, rights in copyright, shall and will remain the property of CCSF. Information shown on these maps are derived from public records that are constantly undergoing change and do not replace a site survey, and is not warranted for content or accuracy. CCSF does not guarantee the positional or thematic accuracy of the GIS data. The GIS data or cartographic digital files are not a legal representation of any of the features in which it depicts, and disclaims any assumption of the legal status of which it represents. The GIS data or cartographic digital files are not a legal representation of any of the features in which it depicts, and disclaims any assumption of the legal status of which it represents. Areas and/or boundaries contained in this dataset are approximate. Any implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, shall be expressly excluded. All the data on this web page, whether in written, numerical, or graphical form is derived from the San Francisco International Airport’s Asset Management Geospatial Information System (GIS) and is not guaranteed to be accurate. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) makes no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including any warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or any other matter. SFO is not responsible for errors, omissions, misuse, or misinterpretation in or of the material. SFO’s digital information is prepared for reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for, survey or engineering purposes. No representation is made concerning the legal status of any apparent route of access identified in digital or hardcopy mapping of geospatial information or data. The requestor acknowledges and accepts all limitations, including the fact that the data, information, and maps are being updated on an ongoing basis, and agrees not to hold SFO or the City and County of San Francisco responsible or liable for any damages that may arise from the use of the data. San Francisco International Airport. Infrastructure Information Management.

The USDA Long-Term Agroecosystem Research was established to develop national strategies for sustainable intensification of agricultural production. As part of the Agricultural Research Service, the LTAR Network incorporates numerous geographies consisting of experimental areas and locations where data are being gathered. Starting in early 2019, two working groups of the LTAR Network (Remote Sensing and GIS, and Data Management) set a major goal to jointly develop a geodatabase of LTAR Standard GIS Data Layers. The purpose of the geodatabase was to enhance the Network's ability to utilize coordinated, harmonized datasets and reduce redundancy and potential errors associated with multiple copies of similar datasets. Project organizers met at least twice with each of the 18 LTAR sites from September 2019 through December 2020, compiling and editing a set of detailed geospatial data layers comprising a geodatabase, describing essential data collection areas within the LTAR Network.
The LTAR Standard GIS Data Layers geodatabase consists of geospatial data that represent locations and areas associated with the LTAR Network as of late 2020, including LTAR site locations, addresses, experimental plots, fields and watersheds, eddy flux towers, and phenocams. There are six data layers in the geodatabase available to the public. This geodatabase was created in 2019-2020 by the LTAR network as a national collaborative effort among working groups and LTAR sites. The creation of the geodatabase began with initial requests to LTAR site leads and data managers for geospatial data, followed by meetings with each LTAR site to review the initial draft. Edits were documented, and the final draft was again reviewed and certified by LTAR site leads or their delegates. Revisions to this geodatabase will occur biennially, with the next revision scheduled to be published in 2023. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: LTAR Standard GIS Data Layers, 2020 version, File Geodatabase. File Name: LTAR_Standard_GIS_Layers_v2020.zipResource Description: This file geodatabase consists of authoritative GIS data layers of the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research Network. Data layers include: LTAR site locations, LTAR site points of contact and street addresses, LTAR experimental boundaries, LTAR site "legacy region" boundaries, LTAR eddy flux tower locations, and LTAR phenocam locations.Resource Software Recommended: ArcGIS,url: esri.com Resource Title: LTAR Standard GIS Data Layers, 2020 version, GeoJSON files. File Name: LTAR_Standard_GIS_Layers_v2020_GeoJSON_ADC.zipResource Description: The contents of the LTAR Standard GIS Data Layers includes geospatial data that represent locations and areas associated with the LTAR Network as of late 2020. This collection of geojson files includes spatial data describing LTAR site locations, addresses, experimental plots, fields and watersheds, eddy flux towers, and phenocams. There are six data layers in the geodatabase available to the public. This dataset was created in 2019-2020 by the LTAR network as a national collaborative effort among working groups and LTAR sites. Resource Software Recommended: QGIS,url: https://qgis.org/en/site/

The files linked to this reference are the geospatial data created as part of the completion of the baseline vegetation inventory project for the NPS park unit. Current format is ArcGIS file geodatabase but older formats may exist as shapefiles. The transfer process for the CHCU vegetation mapping project involved taking the interpreted line work and rendering it into a comprehensive digital network of attributed polygons. To accomplish this, we created an ArcInfo© GIS database using in-house protocols. The protocols consist of a shell (master file) of Arc Macro Language (AML) scripts and menus (nearly 100 files) that automate the transfer process, thus insuring that all spatial and attribute data are consistent and stored properly. The actual transfer of information from the interpreted orthophotos to a digital, geo-referenced format involved scanning, rasterizing, vectorizing, cleaning, building topology, and labeling each polygon.

The geospatial solutions market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing adoption of location intelligence across diverse sectors. The market, estimated at $100 billion in 2025, is projected to expand at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15% from 2025 to 2033, reaching approximately $350 billion by 2033. This significant expansion is fueled by several key factors. Firstly, advancements in technologies such as AI, machine learning, and big data analytics are enabling more sophisticated geospatial data analysis and applications. Secondly, the rising demand for precise location-based services across industries like transportation, logistics, agriculture, and urban planning is boosting market growth. Thirdly, governments worldwide are investing heavily in infrastructure development projects, demanding advanced geospatial solutions for efficient planning and management. Finally, the proliferation of smart devices and the Internet of Things (IoT) is generating an unprecedented volume of location data, creating a fertile ground for innovative geospatial applications. However, the market's growth trajectory is not without its challenges. Data security and privacy concerns are becoming increasingly prominent, requiring robust data protection measures. The high cost of acquiring and processing geospatial data can limit adoption, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Furthermore, the complexity of integrating geospatial technologies into existing systems can pose a barrier to entry for some organizations. Despite these restraints, the long-term outlook for the geospatial solutions market remains positive, with continued technological advancements and increasing demand expected to drive substantial market expansion in the coming years. The competitive landscape is marked by the presence of both established players and emerging innovators, creating a dynamic and evolving market. Key players include HERE Technologies, Esri, Hexagon, and Google, among others, constantly striving to innovate and meet the growing demands of various industries.

This project consists of 11 files: 1) a zipped folder with a geodatabase containing seven raster files and two shapefiles, 2) a zipped folder containing the same layers found in the geodatabase, but as standalone files, 3) 9 .xml files containing the metadata for the spatial datasets in the zipped folders. These datasets were generated in ArcPro 3.0.3. (ESRI). Six raster files (drainaged, geology, nlcd, precipitation, slope, solitexture) present spatially distributed information, ranked according to the relative importance of each class for groundwater recharge. The scale used for these datasets is 1-9, where low scale values are assigned to datasets with low relative importance for groundwater recharge, while high scale values are assigned to datasets with high relative importance for groundwater recharge. The seventh raster file contains the groundwater recharge potential map for the Anchor River Watershed. This map was calculated using the six raster datasets mentioned previously. Here, the values assigned represent Very Low to Very High groundwater recharge potential (scale 1 - 5, 1 being Very Low and 5 being Very High). Finally, the two shapefiles represent the groundwater wells and the polygons used for model validation. This data is part of the manuscript titled: Mapping Groundwater Recharge Potential in High Latitude Landscapes using Public Data, Remote Sensing, and Analytic Hierarchy Process, published in the journal remote sensing.

City of Cambridge, MA, GIS basemap development project encompasses the land area of City of Cambridge with a 200-foot fringe surrounding the area and Charles River shoreline towards Boston. The basemap data was developed at 1" = 40' mapping scale using digital photogrammetric techniques. Planimetric features; both man-made and natural features like vegetation, rivers have been depicted. These features are important to all GIS/mapping applications and publication. A set of data layers such as Buildings, Roads, Rivers, Utility structures, 1 ft interval contours are developed and represented in the geodatabase. The features are labeled and coded in order to represent specific feature class for thematic representation and topology between the features is maintained for an accurate representation at the 1:40 mapping scale for both publication and analysis. The basemap data has been developed using procedures designed to produce data to the National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) and is intended for use at 1" = 40 ' mapping scale. Where applicable, the vertical datum is NAVD1988.Explore all our data on the Cambridge GIS Data Dictionary.Attributes NameType DetailsDescription TYPE type: Stringwidth: 50precision: 0 Type of pavement marking (crosswalk, bike lane, turn arrow, parking space, ect)

GRADE type: Stringwidth: 50precision: 0

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release presents a digital database of geospatially enabled vector layers and tabular data transcribed from the geologic map of the Lake Owen quadrangle, Albany County, Wyoming, which was originally published as U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1304 (Houston and Orback, 1976). The 7.5-minute Lake Owen quadrangle is located in southeastern Wyoming approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers) southwest of Laramie in the west-central interior of southern Albany County, and covers most of the southern extent of Sheep Mountain, the southeastern extent of Centennial Valley, and a portion of the eastern Medicine Bow Mountains. This relational geodatabase, with georeferenced data layers digitized at the publication scale of 1:24,000, organizes and describes the geologic and structural data covering the quadrangle's approximately 35,954 acres and enables the data for use in spatial analyses and computer cartography. The data types presented in this release include geospatial features (points, lines, and polygons) with matching attribute tables, nonspatial descriptive and reference tables, and ancillary resource files for correct symbolization, in formats that conform to the Geologic Map Schema (GeMS) developed and released by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (GeMS, 2020). When reconstructed from the geodatabase's vector layers and tabular data that has been symbolized according to specifications encoded in the accompanying style file, and using the supplied Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) GeoAge font for labeling formations and GeoSym fonts for structural line decorations and orientation measurement symbols, this data release presents the Geologic Map as shown on the published GQ-1304 map sheet. These GIS data augment but do not supersede the information presented on GQ-1304. References: Houston, R.S., and Orback, C.J., 1976, Geologic Map of the Lake Owen Quadrangle, Albany County, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1304, scale 1:24,000, https://doi.org/10.3133/gq1304. U.S. Geological Survey National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, 2020, GeMS (Geologic Map Schema)- A standard format for the digital publication of geologic maps: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. B10, 74 p., https://doi.org//10.3133/tm11B10.

The Brazilian geospatial analytics market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing government investments in infrastructure projects, the expanding adoption of precision agriculture techniques, and the burgeoning need for advanced urban planning solutions. The market's Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7.33% from 2019 to 2024 indicates a significant upward trajectory. This growth is fueled by several key factors: the increasing availability of high-resolution satellite imagery and drone technology, providing richer data for analysis; the rising demand for real-time location intelligence across various sectors including defense, utilities, and transportation; and a growing awareness of the strategic value of geospatial data in improving operational efficiency and decision-making. Market segmentation reveals strong performance across sectors like agriculture (precision farming and resource management), utilities (network optimization and asset management), and government (urban planning and disaster response). While precise market sizing for Brazil in 2025 isn't explicitly provided, extrapolating from the CAGR and assuming a 2024 market size (which would need to be determined from external sources, given it's not included in the prompt), a reasonable estimate for the 2025 market size in millions can be calculated. Leading players such as Esri, Google, Hexagon, and Trimble are actively competing in this expanding market, alongside both local and international companies, indicating a competitive yet dynamic environment ripe for innovation and further growth. The forecast period (2025-2033) anticipates continued expansion, with growth potentially exceeding the historical CAGR due to technological advancements and increasing digitalization across various sectors. However, potential restraints include the need for robust data infrastructure and skilled professionals to effectively utilize geospatial analytics technologies. Overcoming these challenges will be crucial for sustained growth. Furthermore, the ongoing development of cloud-based geospatial analytics platforms and the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques are expected to further accelerate market growth in the coming years. This suggests that Brazil will become a major player in the Latin American geospatial analytics market. Specific challenges in the Brazilian market, such as varying levels of digital literacy across different user verticals, should be considered when analyzing the market's potential. Recent developments include: June 2023: Researchers from Brazil's National Space Research Institute (INPE) combined hydrodynamic models with models that forecast urban growth and changes in land use to develop a methodology that can identify flood-prone areas of cities, particularly those that are vulnerable to the effects of very heavy rainfall. The organization employed deep learning with extremely high-resolution spatial imagery., June 2023: PXGEO, a leading marine geophysical company, made an exciting announcement regarding its recent contract with Petrobras. The renowned Brazilian energy corporation has commissioned PXGEO to conduct a cutting-edge 3D ocean bottom node (OBN) study in the Campos Basin, Brazil. This project marks a significant step forward in the exploration and understanding of the region's offshore resources. According to PXGEO, the comprehensive survey is set to take place over an extensive period of ten months, delving deep into the ocean at an impressive depth of 2,300 meters.. Key drivers for this market are: Company Initiatives Coupled with Government Support to Drive the Market Growth, Increasing Demand for Location-Based Services. Potential restraints include: Company Initiatives Coupled with Government Support to Drive the Market Growth, Increasing Demand for Location-Based Services. Notable trends are: Company Initiatives Coupled with Government Support to Drive the Market Growth.

A major objective of plant ecology research is to determine the underlying processes responsible for the observed spatial distribution patterns of plant species. Plants can be approximated as points in space for this purpose, and thus, spatial point pattern analysis has become increasingly popular in ecological research. The basic piece of data for point pattern analysis is a point location of an ecological object in some study region. Therefore, point pattern analysis can only be performed if data can be collected. However, due to the lack of a convenient sampling method, a few previous studies have used point pattern analysis to examine the spatial patterns of grassland species. This is unfortunate because being able to explore point patterns in grassland systems has widespread implications for population dynamics, community-level patterns and ecological processes. In this study, we develop a new method to measure individual coordinates of species in grassland communities. This method records plant growing positions via digital picture samples that have been sub-blocked within a geographical information system (GIS). Here, we tested out the new method by measuring the individual coordinates of Stipa grandis in grazed and ungrazed S. grandis communities in a temperate steppe ecosystem in China. Furthermore, we analyzed the pattern of S. grandis by using the pair correlation function g(r) with both a homogeneous Poisson process and a heterogeneous Poisson process. Our results showed that individuals of S. grandis were overdispersed according to the homogeneous Poisson process at 0-0.16 m in the ungrazed community, while they were clustered at 0.19 m according to the homogeneous and heterogeneous Poisson processes in the grazed community. These results suggest that competitive interactions dominated the ungrazed community, while facilitative interactions dominated the grazed community. In sum, we successfully executed a new sampling method, using digital photography and a Geographical Information System, to collect experimental data on the spatial point patterns for the populations in this grassland community.

Methods 1. Data collection using digital photographs and GIS

A flat 5 m x 5 m sampling block was chosen in a study grassland community and divided with bamboo chopsticks into 100 sub-blocks of 50 cm x 50 cm (Fig. 1). A digital camera was then mounted to a telescoping stake and positioned in the center of each sub-block to photograph vegetation within a 0.25 m2 area. Pictures were taken 1.75 m above the ground at an approximate downward angle of 90° (Fig. 2). Automatic camera settings were used for focus, lighting and shutter speed. After photographing the plot as a whole, photographs were taken of each individual plant in each sub-block. In order to identify each individual plant from the digital images, each plant was uniquely marked before the pictures were taken (Fig. 2 B).

Digital images were imported into a computer as JPEG files, and the position of each plant in the pictures was determined using GIS. This involved four steps: 1) A reference frame (Fig. 3) was established using R2V software to designate control points, or the four vertexes of each sub-block (Appendix S1), so that all plants in each sub-block were within the same reference frame. The parallax and optical distortion in the raster images was then geometrically corrected based on these selected control points; 2) Maps, or layers in GIS terminology, were set up for each species as PROJECT files (Appendix S2), and all individuals in each sub-block were digitized using R2V software (Appendix S3). For accuracy, the digitization of plant individual locations was performed manually; 3) Each plant species layer was exported from a PROJECT file to a SHAPE file in R2V software (Appendix S4); 4) Finally each species layer was opened in Arc GIS software in the SHAPE file format, and attribute data from each species layer was exported into Arc GIS to obtain the precise coordinates for each species. This last phase involved four steps of its own, from adding the data (Appendix S5), to opening the attribute table (Appendix S6), to adding new x and y coordinate fields (Appendix S7) and to obtaining the x and y coordinates and filling in the new fields (Appendix S8).

1. Data reliability assessment

To determine the accuracy of our new method, we measured the individual locations of Leymus chinensis, a perennial rhizome grass, in representative community blocks 5 m x 5 m in size in typical steppe habitat in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China in July 2010 (Fig. 4 A). As our standard for comparison, we used a ruler to measure the individual coordinates of L. chinensis. We tested for significant differences between (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, and (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler (see section 3.2 Data Analysis). If (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, and (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, did not differ significantly, then we could conclude that our new method of measuring the coordinates of L. chinensis was reliable.

We compared the results using a t-test (Table 1). We found no significant differences in either (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis or (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis. Further, we compared the pattern characteristics of L. chinensis when measured by our new method against the ruler measurements using a null model. We found that the two pattern characteristics of L. chinensis did not differ significantly based on the homogenous Poisson process or complete spatial randomness (Fig. 4 B). Thus, we concluded that the data obtained using our new method was reliable enough to perform point pattern analysis with a null model in grassland communities.

The global mapping software market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand across various sectors. While precise figures for market size and CAGR are absent from the provided data, a reasonable estimation can be made based on industry trends. Considering the presence of major players like Adobe, Autodesk, and Microsoft, and the consistent advancements in GIS technology and location-based services, a conservative estimate places the 2025 market size at approximately $15 billion USD. Assuming a steady growth trajectory influenced by factors like increasing adoption of cloud-based solutions, the integration of AI and machine learning for enhanced mapping capabilities, and the growing need for precise location data in logistics, urban planning, and environmental monitoring, a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 8-10% over the forecast period (2025-2033) seems plausible. This would project market values significantly higher by 2033. This growth is fueled by several key trends. The increasing availability of high-resolution satellite imagery and other geospatial data provides richer inputs for mapping applications. Furthermore, the rising adoption of mobile devices equipped with GPS technology and the proliferation of location-based services (LBS) are expanding the market's addressable user base. However, challenges remain, such as the high cost of advanced mapping software and the complexities associated with data integration and management. Nevertheless, the overall market outlook remains positive, with continued expansion anticipated across various segments and geographic regions. The competitive landscape is marked by a mix of established players and emerging startups, leading to innovation and the continuous improvement of mapping technologies.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Geospatial Open Data provides shared and trusted USACE geospatial data, services and applications for use by our partner agencies and the public.

Discover the booming France Geospatial Analytics market! Projected to reach €1.56 billion by 2033 with a 10.40% CAGR, this report analyzes market drivers, trends, and key players. Explore segmentations by type and end-user, including agriculture, defense, and utilities. Get insights for strategic decision-making. Recent developments include: July 2023: GeoCue, a leading provider of advanced geospatial software and hardware solutions, has partnered with Escadrone, an expert in autonomous robotics integration. This partnership marks an expansion of GeoCue's presence in the European market, particularly in France, where Escadrone will offer advanced-level TrueView 3D Imaging Sensors and LP360 LiDAR Processing Software. With this partnership, Escadrone will likely provide TrueView Lidar products and LP360 software, empowering its customers to enhance their surveying and mapping capabilities., January 2023: the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and the Government of Rwanda announced a new investment deal to harmonize and modernize the network infrastructure of local and central administrations to enhance the efficiency and capacity to provide digital public services. The project will support the installation of a geospatial hub, which will give centralized geospatial data infrastructure and services and advance Rwanda's drone sector. This new partnership was undertaken by AFD in 2022 as part of the European Union - African Union (EU-AU) Digital for Development Hub. This EU-funded project aims to increase collaboration in the digital field between Africa and Europe.. Key drivers for this market are: Advancement in Technology, Rising Awareness of Location Based Service. Potential restraints include: Advancement in Technology, Rising Awareness of Location Based Service. Notable trends are: Increasing Adoption of 5G in France is Boosting the Market Growth.

The Location Intelligence Analytics market is experiencing robust growth, driven by the increasing need for businesses to leverage location data for strategic decision-making. The market's expansion is fueled by several key factors. Firstly, the proliferation of readily available location data from various sources, including GPS, mobile devices, and IoT sensors, provides rich insights for businesses across diverse sectors. Secondly, advancements in technologies like AI and machine learning are enhancing the analytical capabilities of location intelligence platforms, enabling more sophisticated predictions and optimized resource allocation. This is further amplified by the growing adoption of cloud-based solutions offering scalability and cost-effectiveness. Finally, the demand for real-time insights and personalized experiences is driving companies to incorporate location intelligence into their operations, ranging from supply chain optimization and targeted marketing to risk management and urban planning. We estimate the market size in 2025 to be approximately $15 billion, considering the rapid technological advancements and high adoption rates across various industries. A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15% from 2025 to 2033 is projected, indicating significant market potential. However, despite the positive growth trajectory, the market faces certain challenges. Data privacy and security concerns are paramount, requiring robust compliance measures. The complexity of integrating disparate data sources and the need for skilled professionals to interpret the analytical outputs can hinder adoption for some businesses. Furthermore, the high initial investment costs associated with implementing location intelligence solutions may deter smaller organizations. Nevertheless, the strategic advantages of location intelligence are undeniable, and we expect the market to continue expanding significantly over the forecast period, with continued innovation in analytics technologies and expanding use cases driving its future growth. The competitive landscape is marked by a blend of established players like SAP, IBM, and Oracle, alongside emerging technology firms. This fosters innovation and provides a diverse range of solutions for businesses of all sizes.

This dataset will be moving! The City is working on a new Open Data Portal for GIS data. This dataset will soon be available at https://data-seattlecitygis.opendata.arcgis.com/. We apologize for any inconvenience, but this new platform will allow us to regularly update our data and provided better tools for our spatial data. https://gisrevprxy.seattle.gov/arcgis/rest/services/SDOT_EXT/DSG_datasharing/MapServer/62

This raster represents a continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI, created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) values for Nevada during spring, which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Summer included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated using R Software (v 3.13) for each subregion and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014

Utility GIS Data Quality Services Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the global Utility GIS Data Quality Services market size reached USD 1.29 billion in 2024, with a robust growth trajectory marked by a CAGR of 10.7% from 2025 to 2033. By the end of the forecast period, the market is projected to attain a value of USD 3.13 billion by 2033. This growth is primarily driven by the increasing need for accurate spatial data, the expansion of smart grid initiatives, and the rising complexity of utility network infrastructures worldwide.

The primary growth factor propelling the Utility GIS Data Quality Services market is the surging adoption of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for utility asset management and network optimization. Utilities are increasingly relying on GIS platforms to ensure seamless operations, improved decision-making, and regulatory compliance. However, the effectiveness of these platforms is directly linked to the quality and integrity of the underlying data. With the proliferation of IoT devices and the integration of real-time data sources, the risk of data inconsistencies and inaccuracies has risen, making robust data quality services indispensable. Utilities are investing heavily in data cleansing, validation, and enrichment to mitigate operational risks, reduce outages, and enhance customer satisfaction. This trend is expected to continue, as utilities recognize the strategic importance of data-driven operations in an increasingly digital landscape.

Another significant driver is the global movement towards smart grids and digital transformation across the utility sector. As utilities modernize their infrastructure, they are deploying advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and integrating distributed energy resources (DERs), which generate vast volumes of spatial and non-spatial data. Ensuring the accuracy, consistency, and completeness of this data is crucial for optimizing grid performance, minimizing losses, and enabling predictive maintenance. The need for real-time analytics and advanced network management further amplifies the demand for high-quality GIS data. Additionally, regulatory mandates for accurate reporting and asset traceability are compelling utilities to prioritize data quality initiatives. These factors collectively create a fertile environment for the growth of Utility GIS Data Quality Services, as utilities strive to achieve operational excellence and regulatory compliance.

Technological advancements and the rise of cloud-based GIS solutions are also fueling market expansion. Cloud deployment offers utilities the flexibility to scale data quality services, access advanced analytics, and collaborate across geographies. This has democratized access to sophisticated GIS data quality tools, particularly for mid-sized and smaller utilities that previously faced budgetary constraints. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in data quality solutions is enabling automated data cleansing, anomaly detection, and predictive analytics. These innovations are not only reducing manual intervention but also enhancing the accuracy and reliability of utility GIS data. As utilities continue to embrace digital transformation, the demand for cutting-edge data quality services is expected to surge, driving sustained market growth throughout the forecast period.

Utility GIS plays a pivotal role in supporting the digital transformation of the utility sector. By leveraging Geographic Information Systems, utilities can achieve a comprehensive understanding of their network infrastructures, enabling more efficient asset management and network optimization. The integration of Utility GIS with advanced data quality services ensures that utilities can maintain high standards of data accuracy and integrity, which are essential for effective decision-making and regulatory compliance. As utilities continue to modernize their operations and embrace digital technologies, the role of Utility GIS in facilitating seamless data integration and real-time analytics becomes increasingly critical. This not only enhances operational efficiency but also supports the strategic goals of sustainability and resilience in utility management.

Regionally, North America leads the Utility GIS Data Quality Services market, accounting for the largest share in 2024, followed closely by

Overview

The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.4 (published 24 February 2025). The 11.4 release contains updated boundary lines and data refinements designed to extend the functionality of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control.

National Geospatial Data Asset

This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDAID 194) managed by the Department of State. It is a part of the International Boundaries Theme created by the Federal Geographic Data Committee.

Dataset Source Details

Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions, as well as national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process includes analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground.

Cartographic Visualization

The LSIB is a geospatial dataset that, when used for cartographic purposes, requires additional styling. The LSIB download package contains example style files for commonly used software applications. The attribute table also contains embedded information to guide the cartographic representation. Additional discussion of these considerations can be found in the Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization section below.

Additional cartographic information pertaining to the depiction and description of international boundaries or areas of special sovereignty can be found in Guidance Bulletins published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues: https://data.geodata.state.gov/guidance/index.html

Contact

Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov. Direct download: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zip

Attribute Structure

The dataset uses the following attributes divided into two categories: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | Core CC1_GENC3 | Extension CC1_WPID | Extension COUNTRY1 | Core CC2 | Core CC2_GENC3 | Extension CC2_WPID | Extension COUNTRY2 | Core RANK | Core LABEL | Core STATUS | Core NOTES | Core LSIB_ID | Extension ANTECIDS | Extension PREVIDS | Extension PARENTID | Extension PARENTSEG | Extension

These attributes have external data sources that update separately from the LSIB: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | GENC CC1_GENC3 | GENC CC1_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY1 | DoS Lists CC2 | GENC CC2_GENC3 | GENC CC2_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY2 | DoS Lists LSIB_ID | BASE ANTECIDS | BASE PREVIDS | BASE PARENTID | BASE PARENTSEG | BASE

The core attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset. Removal of core attributes from the dataset will change the meaning of the lines. An attribute status of “Extension” represents a field containing data interoperability information. Other attributes not listed above include “FID”, “Shape_length” and “Shape.” These are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB.

Core Attributes

The eight core attributes listed above contain unique information which, when combined with the line geometry, comprise the LSIB dataset. These Core Attributes are further divided into Country Code and Name Fields and Descriptive Fields.

County Code and Country Name Fields

“CC1” and “CC2” fields are machine readable fields that contain political entity codes. These are two-character codes derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC), Edition 3 Update 18. “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC3” fields contain the corresponding three-character GENC codes and are extension attributes discussed below. The codes “Q2” or “QX2” denote a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with areas not contained within the GENC standard.

The “COUNTRY1” and “COUNTRY2” fields contain the names of corresponding political entities. These fields contain names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the ‘"Independent States in the World" and "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" lists maintained by the Department of State. To ensure maximum compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using common cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code "Q2" are descriptive and not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS denote independent states. Names rendered in normal text represent dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user.

Descriptive Fields

The following text fields are a part of the core attributes of the LSIB dataset and do not update from external sources. They provide additional information about each of the lines and are as follows: ATTRIBUTE NAME | CONTAINS NULLS RANK | No STATUS | No LABEL | Yes NOTES | Yes

Neither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" fields contain null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do. The "RANK" field is a numeric expression of the "STATUS" field. Combined with the line geometry, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line.

ATTRIBUTE NAME | | VALUE | RANK | 1 | 2 | 3 STATUS | International Boundary | Other Line of International Separation | Special Line

A value of “1” in the “RANK” field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the “STATUS” field. Values of ”2” and “3” correspond to “Other Line of International Separation” and “Special Line,” respectively.

The “LABEL” field contains required text to describe the line segment on all finished cartographic products, including but not limited to print and interactive maps.

The “NOTES” field contains an explanation of special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line.

Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization

Several of the Core Attributes provide information required for the proper cartographic representation of the LSIB dataset. The cartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundary lines. Specifically, this differentiation must be between:

• International Boundaries (Rank 1);
• Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and
• Special Lines (Rank 3).

Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Please consult the style files in the download package for examples of this depiction.

The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on cartographic products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product, a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field contains the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when they are incorporated into a map legend but is otherwise not to be used for labeling.

Use of

This shapefile represents habitat suitability categories (High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat) derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California formed from the multiplicative product of the spring, summer, and winter HSI surfaces. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution and created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014) as well as additional telemetry _location data from field sites in 2014. The dataset was then split according to calendar date into three seasons. Spring included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June; summer included locations (n = 11,743) from July to mid-October; winter included locations (n = 4862) from November to March. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion using R software (v 3.13) and season using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. For each season, subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell. The three seasonal HSI rasters were then multiplied to create a composite HSI. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry _location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset _location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection. Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014