This file geodatabase contains parcel data including plat boundaries, tax parcels, easements and road right of ways. Attributed Parcel Point and Polygon data represent property descriptions (legal descriptions) and land ownership in Ramsey County joined to tax parcels.

The following links can be used to obtain individual metadata pages:

Attributed Parcel Point: plan_attributedparcelpoint.html
Attributed Parcel Poly: plan_attributedparcelpoly.html
Common Interest: plan_commoninterest.html
Subdivision: plan_subdivision.html
Tax Parcels: plan_taxparcel.html
Manufactured Home: plan_manufacturedhome.html
Personal Property: plan_personalproperty.html
Real Property: plan_realproperty.html
State Assessed Property: plan_stateassessedproperty.html
Conveyance Division: plan_conveyancedivision.html
Special Survey: plan_specialsurvey.html
Parcel Info: plan_parcelinfo.html
Easement: plan_easement.html
Landtie: plan_landtie.html
Right of Way: plan_rightofway.html
Historic Right of Way: plan_historicrightofway.html

This dataset contains miscellaneous linework that assists with map creation and clarification. Examples of graphical features represented in this database are: old or vacated lot lines, lines, right of way and plat boundary extension lines.The parcel information data layer represents various parcel related graphical elements, which aid in the understanding and interpretation of map features. It is not intended to be inclusive. It is intended to act as a visual aid to help with map interpretation.

This dataset contains linework that represents landties. These are lines with hooked ends that help define parcel ownership on maps. The landtie data represents graphical elements, which aid in the understanding and interpretation of map features. It is not intended to be inclusive. It is intended to act as a visual aid to help with map interpretation.

Attributes (Fields) Defined:Site Name: A name for the site. Each parcel is part of a site. Sites are an assemblage of one or more parcels that generally share geographic proximity and are marketed together as a unit. Many sites are just one parcel, but when they are more than one parcel, the parcel name (above) reflects this. Parcels within a site will share the same basic name, but be differentiated by a "#1", "#2", "#3", etc. appended to the end of the parcel name. The site name is the parcel name without the numbering at the end. In this way, in ArcGIS, a dissolve on the site name field can be run to produce an analysis by site, instead of by parcel.Alternate Site Names: Names that have been commonly used for the site, beyond the name specified in the "Site Name" field.Address: An address for a site shared by all parcels that comprise a site. This is derived from one of the parcel addresses for parcels that comprise the site, or from the addresses assigned by Public Works within a parcel, as can be seen in AMANDA or the PED Staff Map. If all parcel addresses have a street number of "0" because they are vacant, this field is to include a rough description of where the site is located in the city.Alternate Site Addresses: Additional addresses used to describe the site. This is derived from one of the parcel addresses for parcels that comprise the site. Ward: The Ward in which the site is located. This field is updated every ten years to reflect changes to Ward boundaries due to redistricting. CHOICES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7Planning District: The number of the Planning District in which the Site is located. The City is divided into seventeen planning districts, each served by a city-funded and city-recognized District Council. CHOICES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17General Description: A general description of the site, its history, current circumstances, and anything else of a summary nature that would not easily fit in other fields.Classification: This is the core means of classifying HRA-owned properties, the way the sites are marketed or not marketed, and the HRA's intended destiny for the parcels. CHOICES: Commercial - Pending Sale: Properties that are generally zoned to allow a range of commercial uses, and currently have an active offer, option, or tentative developer status.Commercial - Sold: Properties that were generally zoned to allow a range of commercial uses when last owned by the HRA, were previously owned by the HRA but that have been sold, and where the HRA retains no ownership interest.Commercial - Vacant Land: Properties that are generally zoned to allow a range of commerical uses, and have no known building or other structure.Commercial - with Building(s): Properties that are generally zoned to allow a range of commercial uses, and contain a building or other structure.Long-Term Hold: Properties that, per contractual obligations, or for other reasons, are expected to be held by the City of Saint Paul for many years, and not generally available for purchase.Long-Term Hold - Parking: Properties that are expected to be held by the City of Saint Paul for many years as parking facilities, and are not generally available for purchaseResidential - Pending Sale: Properties that are generally zoned to allow mainly residential uses, and currently have an active offer, option, or tentative developer status.Residential - Sold: Properties that were generally zoned to allow mainly residential uses when last owned by the HRA, that were previously owned by the HRA but that have been sold, and where the HRA retains no ownership interest.Residential - Vacant Land: Properties that are generally zoned to allow mainly residential uses, and have no known building or other structure.Residential - With Building(s): Properties that are generally zoned to allow mainly residential uses, and contain a building or other structure.Transfer to Other Ownership: Properties that are intended for conveyance to other ownership, such as parkland that is ultimately intended to be conveyed to the Department of Parks & Recreation, or right-of-way that most appropriately would be held by the Department of Public Works.Current Project Manager: The name of the staff responsible for managing the parcel and its future. CHOICES: Names of PED staff.SharePoint Link: A link to SharePoint storage for files related to this specific site.CharacteristicsCharacteristics - Land Assembly Considerations: Are there special considerations that apply to this site around land assembly? CHOICES: Yes • No.Characteristics - Land Assembly Considerations - Challenges & Resolutions: A description of challenges and potential resolutions around land assembly.Characteristics - Title Type: A description of the type of legal title document(s) that apply to the site. A site may have multiple title documents because it can be comprised of multiple parcels. CHOICES: Abstract • Abstract & Unknown • Torrens • Torrens & Unknown • UnknownCharacteristics - Title Issues: Are there concerns with establishing appropriate title to the project? CHOICES: Yes • NoCharacteristics - Title Challenges and Resolutions: A description of the challenges and potential resolutions around title issues.Characteristics - Estimated Market Value - Tax Year: The year for which the estimated market values (EMVs) shown in subsequent fields is used to calculate the site's total tax liability.Characteristics - Estimated Market Value - EMV Year: The year to which the estimated market values (EMVs) shown in subsequent fields applied as a representation of the site's value.Characteristics - Estimated Market Value - Land: The estimated market value (EMV) of the site's land, as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor's office, and derived from the Ramsey County Parcel Service. The Site EMV Land is obtained by adding together the individual EMV Land values for each parcel within the site. This is updated at least once per year in order to stay reasonably current with any data updates.Characteristics - Estimated Market Value - Building: The estimated market value (EMV) of the site's built structure(s), as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor's office, and derived from the Ramsey County Parcel Service. The Site EMV Building is obtained by adding together the individual EMV Building values for each parcel within the site. This is updated at least once per year in order to stay reasonably current with any data updates.Characteristics - Estimated Market Value - Total: The estimated market value (EMV) of the site's land and built structure(s), added together, as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor's office and derived from the Ramsey County Parcel Service. The Site EMV Total is obtained by adding together the individual EMV Total values for each parcel within the site. This is updated at least once per year in order to stay reasonably current with any data updates.Characteristics - Estimated Market Value - Challenges & Resolutions: A description of challenges and potential resolutions around the site's estimated market value.Characteristics - Access to Site - Support for Redevelopment: Are there issues with site accessibility? CHOICES: Yes • NoCharacteristics - Access to Site - Challenges & Resolutions: A description of challenges and potential resolutions around how site access inhibits redevelopment.Characteristics - Dimensions - Acres: The acreage of the site, as derived from the parcel geometry in GIS.Characteristics - Dimensions - Maximum Depth: The maximum depth of the site(generally measured back perpendicular from the primary street frontage).Characteristics - Dimensions - Maximum Width: The maximum width of the site (generally measured as the distance parallel to the primary street frontage).Characteristics - Dimensions - Rectangular: Is the site generally rectangular in shape? CHOICES: Yes • NoCharacteristics - Dimensions - Challenges and Resolutions: A description of challenges and potential resolutions around how site dimensions may inhibit redevelopment.Characteristics - Existing Buildings - Total Square Feet: The total square footage of the existing building(s) on the site.Characteristics - Existing Buildings - Footprint Square Feet: The building footprint square footage of the existing building(s) on the site.Characteristics - Existing Buildings - Challenges & Resolutions: A description of challenges and potential resolutions around existing buildings on the site.Characteristics - Uses - Current Use: A description of the current use on the site's parcel(s) pulled from the "LandUseCodeDescription" in the parcel feature class of the parcels that are part of the site.Characteristics - Uses - Neighboring Uses: A description of the current use directly adjacent to the site's parcel(s) pulled from the "LandUseCodeDescription" in the parcel feature class of the parcels that are part of the site.Characteristics - Uses - Restrictions: A description of any use restrictions applicable to the site upon sale.Characteristics - Uses - Funds Used: A description of the funds used and amounts on the site for acquisition and other purposes. The date on which this analysis is valid is to be denoted within the narrative description. This field is a stopgap measure until we develop better reporting mechanisms from Quickbooks and/or Infor that would more optimally pull live data from these systems of record.Characteristics - Amount of CDBG Used: The total amount of CDBG funding that has been used by the HRA on the site(which should also be accounted for in the prior field). This field is a stopgap measure until we develop better reporting mechanisms from Quickbooks and/or Infor that would more optimally pull live data from these systems of record.Characteristics - Uses - Challenges & Resolutions: A description of challenges and potential resolutions related to the existing use of the

This dataset is a compilation of tax parcel polygon and point layers from the seven Twin Cities, Minnesota metropolitan area counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. The seven counties were assembled into a common coordinate system. No attempt has been made to edgematch or rubbersheet between counties. A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. (See section 5 of the metadata). The attributes are the same for the polygon and points layers. Not all attributes are populated for all counties.

This is an annual version of the MetroGIS Regional Parcel Dataset that can be used with other annual versions to do change analysis and time series investigations. This dataset is intended to contain all updates to each county's parcel data through the end of 2004. It was originally published as the 'January 1, 2005' version of the dataset. See the Currentness Reference below and the Entity and Attribute information in Section 5 for more information about the dates for specific aspects of the dataset.

The polygon layer contains one record for each real estate/tax parcel polygon within each county's parcel dataset. Some counties will polygons for each individual condominium, and others do not. (See Completeness in Section 2 of the metadata for more information.) The points layer includes the same attribute fields as the polygon dataset. The points are intended to provide information in situations where multiple tax parcels are represented by a single polygon. The primary example of this is the condominium. Condominiums, by definition, are legally owned as individual, taxed real estate units. Records for condominiums may not show up in the polygon dataset. The points for the point dataset often will be randomly placed or stacked within the parcel polygon with which they are associated.

The polygon layer is broken into individual county shape files. The points layer is one file for the entire metro area.

In many places a one-to-one relationship does not exist between these parcel polygons or points and the actual buildings or occupancy units that lie within them. There may be many buildings on one parcel and there may be many occupancy units (e.g. apartments, stores or offices) within each building. Additionally, no information exists within this dataset about residents of parcels. Parcel owner and taxpayer information exists for many, but not all counties.

Polygon and point counts for each county are as follows (based on the January, 2005 dataset):

Anoka = 124,042 polygons, 124,042 points
Carver = 32,910 polygons, 32,910 points
Dakota = 130,989 polygons, 141,444 points
Hennepin = 353,759 polygons, 399,184 points
Ramsey = 148,266 polygons, 163,376 points
Scott = 49,958 polygons, 49,958 points
Washington = 93,794 polygons, 96,570 points

This is a MetroGIS Regionally Endorsed dataset.

Each of the seven Metro Area counties has entered into a multiparty agreement with the Metropolitan Council to assemble and distribute the parcel data for each county as a regional (seven county) parcel dataset.

A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. The attributes are identical for the point and polygon datasets. Not all attributes fields are populated by each county. Detailed information about the attributes can be found in the MetroGIS Regional Parcels Attributes 2004 document.

Additional information may be available in the individual metadata for each county at the links listed below. Also, any questions or comments about suspected errors or omissions in this dataset can be addressed to the contact person listed in the individual county metadata.

Anoka = http://www.anokacounty.us/315/GIS

Caver = http://www.co.carver.mn.us/GIS

Dakota = http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/homeproperty/propertymaps/pages/default.aspx

Hennepin: http://www.hennepin.us/gisopendata

Ramsey = https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/open-government/research-data

Scott = http://www.scottcountymn.gov/1183/GIS-Data-and-Maps

Washington = http://www.co.washington.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=1606

UPDATED As of Sept 13, 2022 we have changed some of our attributes. The most significant changes involve fields that began with Primary Tax Payer and Alternate Tax Payer now start with Owner and Tax Payer, respectively.Attributed Parcel Polygons have boundaries that represent property descriptions (legal descriptions) and land ownership. The attribute fields are based on ones provided in Ramsey County Users Group shapefiles, ParPts and OnLineCore, and MetroGIS Parcel Datasets. These fields are populated from a compilation of records and information from various state, county and city offices, and other sources. This data is joined to Ramsey County's Parcel data using a property identification number (PIN) which is assigned to both polygons and points and is the primary link to county tax and assessment data. In 1986, parcels were digitized from hand drawn 1:2400 half and 1:1200 quarter section maps. In 1995, the parcel data layer was converted to ArcINFO format and held in the ArcStorm data base. Parcels were converted in 2005 to an ESRI ArcGIS GeoDatabase. In 2013, Attributes, which were previously joined only to Parcel Points, were added to Parcel Polygons. Parcel Points are used to represent the one-to-many relationship that Common Interest Communities (CIC), Apartment Ownerships or Condominiums, as well as Manufactured Homes and Apartment Units have with the Parcel Polygons. Polygons associated with CICs, Apartment Ownerships and Condominiums use the smallest Parcel Point PIN as their PIN and have attribute data limited information that is not unit specific (e.g., tax payer name and address information, tax and estimated market values are omitted). There are a few cases where polygons exist but there is no associated point, these include common areas associated with a CIC, parks or water; no official PIN exists for these polygons and there is no attribute data.

This layer is a component of Natural resources interactive map.

In 1986, parcel polygons [PARPOLY] were digitized from hand drawn 1:2400 half and 1:1200 quarter section maps. In 1995, the parcel data layer was converted to an ArcINFO format and held in an ArcStorm database. Parcel polygons were converted in 2005 to an ESRI ArcGIS SDE GeoDatabase; the name was changed to Parcel Components. In 2014, Ramsey County migrated to ESRI's Parcel Fabric; Conveyance Divisions were created from the Parcel Components.

This dataset includes all 7 metro counties that have made their parcel data freely available without a license or fees.

This dataset is a compilation of tax parcel polygon and point layers assembled into a common coordinate system from Twin Cities, Minnesota metropolitan area counties. No attempt has been made to edgematch or rubbersheet between counties. A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. The attributes are the same for the polygon and points layers. Not all attributes are populated for all counties.

NOTICE: The standard set of attributes changed to the MN Parcel Data Transfer Standard on 1/1/2019.
https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

See section 5 of the metadata for an attribute summary.

Detailed information about the attributes can be found in the Metro Regional Parcel Attributes document.

The polygon layer contains one record for each real estate/tax parcel polygon within each county's parcel dataset. Some counties have polygons for each individual condominium, and others do not. (See Completeness in Section 2 of the metadata for more information.) The points layer includes the same attribute fields as the polygon dataset. The points are intended to provide information in situations where multiple tax parcels are represented by a single polygon. One primary example of this is the condominium, though some counties stacked polygons for condos. Condominiums, by definition, are legally owned as individual, taxed real estate units. Records for condominiums may not show up in the polygon dataset. The points for the point dataset often will be randomly placed or stacked within the parcel polygon with which they are associated.

The polygon layer is broken into individual county shape files. The points layer is provided as both individual county files and as one file for the entire metro area.

In many places a one-to-one relationship does not exist between these parcel polygons or points and the actual buildings or occupancy units that lie within them. There may be many buildings on one parcel and there may be many occupancy units (e.g. apartments, stores or offices) within each building. Additionally, no information exists within this dataset about residents of parcels. Parcel owner and taxpayer information exists for many, but not all counties.

This is a MetroGIS Regionally Endorsed dataset.

Additional information may be available from each county at the links listed below. Also, any questions or comments about suspected errors or omissions in this dataset can be addressed to the contact person at each individual county.

Anoka = http://www.anokacounty.us/315/GIS
Caver = http://www.co.carver.mn.us/GIS
Dakota = http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/homeproperty/propertymaps/pages/default.aspx
Hennepin = https://gis-hennepin.hub.arcgis.com/pages/open-data
Ramsey = https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/open-government/research-data
Scott = http://opendata.gis.co.scott.mn.us/
Washington: http://www.co.washington.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=1606

The original Hennepin County Wetland Inventory (HCWI) was developed from the remote sensing of multiple years of orthophotograpy in combination with the analysis of related GIS layers and 10 years of Natural Resources Conservation Service slide reviews to identify and include farmed wetlands. The HCWI does not classify wetlands but merely locates them, whereas the NWI classifies wetlands based on the Cowardin methodology utilizing remotely gathered data and photo signature. For more information concerning detail on procedures followed to develop the HCWI contact Hennepin County Dept. of Environmental Services.National Wetland Inventory Metadata:The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) for east-central Minnesota were updated through multi-agency collaborative effort under leadership from the Minnesota DNR. Operational support for wetland mapping and classification was provided by Ducks Unlimited and support for methods development and field validation were provided by the Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Minnesota. Major funding was provided by the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The project area consists of 13 counties in east-central Minnesota including: Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Goodhue, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright Counties. The updated wetland inventory area included complete coverage for all USGS quarter quadrangles that intersect any of these counties (about 7,150 square mile). The NWI classification process for east-central Minnesota consisted of three basic steps: 1) creation of image segments (polygons), 2) RandomForest classification of the segments, and 3) photo-interpretation of the classified image segments. The updated NWI also contains a Simplified Plant Community Classification and a Simplified Hydrogemorphic Classification. Quality assurance of the data included a 100% visual inspection, automated checks for attribute validity and topologic consistency, as well as a formal accuracy assessment based on an independent field verified data set. Further details on the methods employed can be found in the technical procedures document for this project (provide URL). The updated NWI data are primarily based on aerial imagery acquired in 2010 and 2011 as well as other modern ancillary data. This data is intended to replace the original NWI data which was based on imagery acquired in the early 1980s. NWI data support effective wetland management, protection, and restoration. The data provide a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of wetland policies and management actions. These data are used at all levels of government, as well as by private industry and non-profit organizations for wetland regulation and management, land use and conservation planning, environmental impact assessment, and natural resource inventories.

Link to Attribute Table Information: http://gis.hennepin.us/OpenData/Metadata/Wetland%20Inventory.pdf

Use Limitations: This data (i) is furnished "AS IS" with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. General questions about this data set, including errors, omissions, corrections and/or updates should be directed to the Hennepin County Department of Environment & Energy (612-348-3777).

© Hennepin County Department of Environment & Energy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MN Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), US Fish & Wildlife Service, Board of Water and Soil Resources This layer is a component of Datasets for Hennepin County AGOL and Hennepin County Open Data..

Common Interest boundaries support many functions including automated half and quarter section map production, thematic mapping, land records and property assessment, and surveying and engineering projects.

Address points represent individual addressed locations as determined by the Local Addressing Authority. This authority rest in the municipal government in Ramsey County, and the municipalities assist in the maintenance of this information. The original source of many of these points came from the centroid of tax parcels with known situs addresses. In some locations this data has been enhanced to cases where a tax parcel may have multiple addresses (such as in some apartment units).

We collected open and publicly available data resources from the web from administrative, county- or state-level institutions in the United States and integrated and harmonized cadastral parcel data, tax assessment data, and building footprint data for 33 counties, where building footprint data and building construction year information was available. The result of this effort is a unique dataset which we call the Multi-Temporal Building Footprint Dataset for 33 U.S. Counties (MTBF-33). MTBF-33 contains over 6.2 million building footprints including their construction year, and is available in ESRI Shapefile format (Spatial reference system: SR-ORG:7480), organized per county. We compared the MTBF-33 dataset quantitatively to other building footprint data sources, achieving an overall F-1 score of 0.93. Moreover, we compared the MTBF-33 dataset qualitatively to urban extents from historical maps and find high levels of agreement. The MTBF-33 dataset can be used to support historical building stock assessments, to derive retrospective depictions of built-up areas from 1900 to 2015, at fine spatial and temporal grain and can be used for data validation purposes, or to train statistical learning approaches aiming to extract historical information on human settlements from remote sensing data, historical maps, or similar data sources.

Data sources: Boulder County (Colorado) Open Data Catalog / Florida Geographic Data Library / Hillsborough County, Florida / City of Tampa / Manatee County, Florida / Sarasota County, Florida / City of Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana / Baltimore County Government, Maryland / Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services / City of Boston / MetroGIS, Minnesota Geospatial Commons, Minnesota Geospatial Information Office, Anoka County, Carver County, Dakota County, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and Washington County, Minnesota / Monmouth County, New Jersey / City of New York / Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Data scraping was performed in 2016.

This vector data set contains the rock unit polygons for the 1:24,000 scale statewide surficial geology. This layer was constructed by combining the available 1:24,000 scale rock unit polygons from the following Delaware Geological Survey (DGS) published maps: Geologic Map No. 8, Geologic Map of the Milford and Mispillion River Quandrangles: K.W. Ramsey, 1993. Geologic Map No. 10, Bedrock Geologic Map of the Piedmont of Delaware and Adjacent Pennsylvania: W. S. Schenck, M. O. Plank, and L. Srogi, 2000. Geologic Map No. 11, Geologic Map of the Ellendale and Milton Quadrangles, Delaware: K. W. Ramsey, 2001. Geologic Map No. 12, Geologic Map of the Lewes and Cape Henlopen Quadrangles, K.W. Ramsey, 2003. Geologic Map No. 15, Geologic Map of the Georgetown Quadrangle, Delaware: K.W. Ramsey, 2010. Geologic Map No. 16, Geologic Map of the Fairmount and Rehoboth Beach Quadrangles, Delaware: K.W. Ramsey, 2011. Geologic Map No. 17, Geologic Map of the Harbeson Quadrangle, Delaware: K.W. Ramsey and J.L. Tomlinson, 2011. Geologic Map No. 18, Geologic Map of the Bethany Beach and Assawoman Bay Quadrangles, Delaware: K.W. Ramsey and J.L. Tomlinson, 2012. Geologic Map No. 19, Geologic Map of the Frankford and Selbyville Quadrangles, Delaware: J.L. Tomlinson, K.W. Ramsey, and A.S. Andres, 2013. Geologic Map No. 20, Geologic Map of the Millsboro and Whaleysville Quadrangles, Delaware: K.W. Ramsey and J.L. Tomlinson, 2014. Geologic Map No. 21, Geologic Map of the Trap Pond and Pittsville Quadrangles, Delaware: J.L. Tomlinson and K.W. Ramsey, 2014. Geologic Map No. 22, Geologic Map of the Sharptown, Laurel, Hebron, and Delmar Quadrangles, Delaware: K.W. Ramsey and J.L. Tomlinson, 2014. Geologic Map No. 23, Geologic Map of the Seaford West and Seaford East Quadrangles, Delaware: J.L. Tomlinson and K.W. Ramsey, 2015. This statewide digital, 1:24,000 scale surficial geology layer represents the "current thinking" of the DGS and may be diferent than the original geologic interpretations portrayed on the published maps above.

© Delaware Geological Survey Surficial Geology Layer, 2016, version 1.1, 1:24,000 scale

This data shows the rough location of all historic sites in the City of Saint Paul, along with basic information about each site. Importantly, these sites are drawn with boundaries that often follow parcel boundaries, but if true to the original nomination they would follow a dfferent geography that has not been taken into account here. To be certain about the exact boundaries for any one historic sites, one would need to refer to the appropriate documentation, which usually is included in the original designation materials. Attributes (Fields) Defined:Inventory ID: A unique identifier used by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office for each historic site.Related Inventory IDs: See Inventory ID above for a general description; this field captures any related sites under other Inventory IDs.PIN: The key Property Identification Number (PIN) used by Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue for the site (this field only last updated in about 2015).Name: The common name for the site.Address: The street address for the site, or if none is available, a general description of its geographic location.Historic Listing: This is the level on which the property is listed (local, state, national, or some combination of those).Year added as National Historic Landmark: The year that the property was added as a National Historic Landmark.Year added to National Register of Historic Places: The year that the property was added to the National Register of Historic Places.Year added to the State Register of Historic Places: The year that the property was added to the State Register of Historic Places.Year added as a Local Heritage Preservation Site: The year that the property was added as a Local Heritage Preservation Site.Maintenance and Update Frequency: In the case of local sites, this data would be updated as new historic sites are added. In the case of state or national designations, as new historic sites are made known to the City of Saint Paul, or as details about these sites change.

Surficial geology map.

This map shows the surficial geology of New Castle County, Delaware, at a scale of 1:100,000. Maps at this scale are useful for viewing general geologic framework on a county-wide basis, determining the geology of watersheds, and recognizing the relationship of geology to regional or county-wide environmental or land-use issues. The map was compiled from topographic and geologic maps, aerial photographs, geologists' and drillers' logs, geophysical logs, soils maps, and sample descriptions. Samples from drill holes and outcrops were examined for comparison with previous descriptions. Other than the Old College (Ramsey, 2005) and Bridgeton Formations (Owens, 1999; Owens et al., 1970), all geologic units were previously mapped or described in Delaware. Descriptions of geologic units, unless otherwise referenced, were generated by the author after examination of cores, outcrops, and samples from the Delaware Geological Survey Core and Sample Repository.

Fugro Horizons Inc. acquired highly accurate Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) elevation data for the Twin Cities metropolitan region in east-central Minnesota in Spring and Fall 2011, with some reflights in Spring 2012. The data cover Anoka, Benton, Carver, Dakota, Goodhue, Hennepin, Isanti, Kanabec, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne and Washington counties.

Most of the data was collected at 1.5 points/square meter. Smaller areas were collected with 2 points/square meter and with 8 points/square meter:
1. 1.5 points/square meter covers Morrison, Mille Lacs, Benton, Isanti, Sherburne, Anoka, Meeker, Hennepin, Washington, Carver, Scott, and Goodhue counties.
2. 2 points/square meter covers the Dakota Block (southern 2/3 of Dakota County)
3. 8 points/square meter covers portions of Minneapolis/St. Paul and the City of Maple Grove
See map of block boundaries: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/elevation/metro_data_delivery_dates.pdf

Data are in the UTM Zone 15 coordinate system, NAD83 (HARN), NAVD88 Geoid09, meters. The tiling scheme is 16th USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle tiles.

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

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

DNR staff quality-checked the data and created three additional products: two-foot contours, building outlines and hillshades.

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

This data set contains polygons that represent Municipal boundaries. The Municipal boundaries were originally digitized from MNDOT municipality maps. Over time, these boundaries have been edited to better match Ramsey County parcel data.

Easement boundaries support many functions including automated half and quarter section map production, thematic mapping, land records and property assessment and surveying and engineering projects.