The dataset contains the primary census abstract of the number of villages with the population of 10,000 and above between the years 2001 2011

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. A spatial representation of generalized Oakland County community master plans. These polygons were digitized from each of Oakland's 62 community's future land use map in their master plan. The data was completed in March of 2006 and will be updated as each community amends their plan. The key attribute is Composite Plan representing generalized, countywide future land uses.This data depicts a future land use based on each community's master plan as currently adopted. The data will be updated each time a community amends their master plan. Below is a list recording the master plan and date of adoption that was used to digitize each community. Township of Addison Addison Township Land Use Master Plan - 7/9/2002 City of Auburn Hills City of Auburn Hills Master Land Use Plan - 11/7/2002 Auburn Hills Opkyke Road Corridor Study - 2/1/2007 Auburn Hills Collier Road Area Land Use Study - 1/3/2008 City of Berkley City of Berkley, Michigan Master Plan Update - 1/23/2007 Village of Beverly Hills Village of Beverly Hills Master Plan - 3/28/2007 Village of Bingham Farms Village of Bingham Farms Master Plan - 9/13/2004 City of Birmingham The Birmingham Plan - 1/1/1979 Township of Bloomfield Charter Township of Bloomfield Master Plan Update - 3/26/2007 City of Bloomfield Hills Master Plan of Land Use City of Bloomfield Hills - 8/11/1987 Township of Brandon Brandon Township Land Use Plan Update - 3/14/2000 City of the Village of Clarkston Master Plan City of the Village of Clarkston - 8/4/1997City of Clawson Downtown Clawson Framework Urban Design Plan - 11/1/2004 Master Plan City of Clawson - 1/23/1990 Township of Commerce Commerce Charter Township Master Plan 2003 - 6/28/2004 Commerce Charter Township Master Plan Amendment - 11/27/2006 City of Farmington Master Plan City of Farmington - 2/1/1998 City of Farmington Hills Master Plan for Future Land Use City of Farmington Hills - 3/28/1996 City of Fenton Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 (Used the Holly Township Master Plan because Fenton's was unavailable) City of Ferndale City of Ferndale Land Use Plan - 6/1/1998 Village of Franklin Franklin Village Master Plan Update - 10/15/1997 Township of Groveland Master Plan for Future Land Use - 5/9/2005 City of Hazel Park Master Plan, Hazel Park Michigan - 3/21/2000 Township of Highland Highland Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2000-2020 - 7/6/2000 South Milford Road Corridor Micro-Area Analysis - 4/13/2005 East Highland Commercial District Micro Area Analysis - 12/19/2002 West Highland Micro-Area Analysis - 8/2/2001 North Hickory Ridge Road Micro-Area Analysis - 12/7/2006 Township of Holly Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 Village of Holly Village of Holly Master Plan - 1/24/2007 City of Huntington Woods Huntington Woods Master Plan - 12/17/2007 Township of Independence Independence Township Vision 2020 Master Plan - 12/9/1999 City of Keego Harbor City of Keego Harbor Comprehensive Master Plan - 9/5/2002 City of Lake Angelus City of Lake Angelus Master Plan - 7/25/1994 Village of Lake Orion Master Plan 2002-2022 - 1/6/2003 Amendment #1 to Lake Orion Master Plan - 3/3/2008 City of Lathrup Village The Lathrup Village Plan - 1/1/1981 Village of Leonard Master Plan Village of Leonard - 10/17/1991 Township of Lyon Charter Township of Lyon Master Plan - 3/27/2006 City of Madison Heights Madison Heights Master Plan: 1990, 2000, 2010 - 10/16/1990 Madison Heights Future Land Use Plan Amendment - 5/15/2007 Township of Milford Charter Township of Milford Land Use Plan Update - 5/27/1999 Village of Milford Village of Milford Master Plan - 3/1/1998 City of Northville City of Northville Master Plan - 2/22/2000 City of Novi City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use 2004 - 12/1/2004 City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use Amendments - 4/16/2008 Township of Novi None (Does not have a Master Plan, assumed to be Single Family Residential) City of Oak Park City of Oak Park Master Plan - 9/9/1996 City of Oak Park Master Plan Addition - Unknown Township of Oakland Oakland Charter Township A Community Master Plan - 1/4/2005 City of Orchard Lake Village Master Plan City of Orchard Lake Village - 6/6/2006 Township of Orion Orion Township Master Plan - 5/7/2003 Lapeer Road Master Plan Update - 4/19/2006 Village of Ortonville The Ortonville Plan - 1/1/1980 Township of Oxford Charter Township of Oxford Master Plan - 7/14/2005 Village of Oxford Village of Oxford Master Plan - 5/10/2005 City of Pleasant Ridge City of Pleasant Ridge Community Master Plan - 9/1/1999 City of Pontiac Pontiac 2010 A New Reality - 12/4/1991 City of Rochester Master Plan: 2000 City of Rochester - 6/3/2000 Downtown Development Area MP amendment - 5/2/2005 City of Rochester Hills Rochester Hills Master Land Use Plan 2007 - 2/6/2007 Township of Rose Master Plan Rose Township - 7/7/2005 City of Royal Oak Master Plan City of Royal Oak - 8/24/1999 Township of Royal Oak A Vision for the Year 2010 Master Plan 1996 Update - 12/11/1996 City of South Lyon Master Plan of Future Land Use City of South Lyon - 1/10/2002 City of Southfield Southfield Master Plan - 1/1/1988 Township of Southfield Southfield Township Master Plan - 11/25/2002 Township of Springfield Springfield Township Master Plan - 3/7/2002 City of Sylvan Lake Sylvan Lake Master Plan 2005 - 4/10/2007 City of Troy City of Troy Future Land Use Plan - 1/8/2002 City of Walled Lake City of Walled Lake Master Plan - 8/1/2002 Township of Waterford Waterford Master Plan 2003-2023 - 1/2/2003 Township of West Bloomfield West Bloomfield Township 2005 Master Land Use Plan Update - 7/26/2005 Township of White Lake White Lake Township Master Plan - 10/6/2006 City of Wixom City of Wixom Master Plan - 8/9/2005 Village of Wolverine Lake Village of Wolverine Lake Land Use Plan - 12/4/1985 Every category identified on the future land use map within each master plan was translated into a composite value. For example, one community may have two commercial districts- Local Commerical and General Commercial. Another community may have three commercial districts- Neighborhood Commercial, Hi-Tech Office, and Retail Commercial. A wide range of uses could be included in these categories, but for the purpose of this feature class, they are all translated into "Commercial/Office." In some cases a category on community's future land use map could not be translated into a single composite category. When this occurred, areas were manually translated into the appropriate generalized category. For example, a Public Lands class on a community's map would be manually translated into the Public/Institutional and Recreation/Conservation composite categories.

This data set depicts lands selected by ANCSA village and regional corporations. Data attributes are a snapshot of the BLM-AK Land Information System Database and are only accurate as that database. Alaska, being a state within the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), describes land to the aliquot part (subsections of larger land plots) where ever possible. Where data is not able to be described with an aliquot part, the data is generalized to the nearest PLSS section (640 acres). In some instances lands have been mapped based on survey or digitized using a Master Title Plat (MTP).

(Link to Metadata) The BNDHASH dataset depicts Vermont villages, towns, counties, Regional Planning Commissions (RPC), and LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) boundaries. It is a composite of generally 'best available' boundaries from various data sources (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES attributes). However, this dataset DOES NOT attempt to provide a legally definitive boundary. The layer was originally developed from TBHASH, which was the master VGIS town boundary layer prior to the development and release of BNDHASH. By integrating village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries into a single layer, VCGI has assured vertical integration of these boundaries and simplified maintenance. BNDHASH also includes annotation text for town, county, and RPC names. BNDHASH includes the following feature classes: 1) VILLAGES = Vermont villages 2) TOWNS = Vermont towns 3) COUNTIES = Vermont counties 4) RPCS = Vermont's Regional Planning Commissions 5) LEPC = Local Emergency Planning Committee boundaries 6) VTBND = Vermont's state boundary The master BNDHASH layer is managed as ESRI geodatabase feature dataset by VCGI. The dataset stores villages, towns, counties, and RPC boundaries as seperate feature classes with a set of topology rules which binds the features. This arrangement assures vertical integration of the various boundaries. VCGI will update this layer on an annual basis by reviewing records housed in the VT State Archives - Secretary of State's Office. VCGI also welcomes documented information from VGIS users which identify boundary errors. NOTE - VCGI has NOT attempted to create a legally definitive boundary layer. Instead the idea is to maintain an integrated village/town/county/rpc boundary layer which provides for a reasonably accurate representation of these boundaries (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES). BNDHASH includes all counties, towns, and villages listed in "Population and Local Government - State of Vermont - 2000" published by the Secretary of State. BNDHASH may include changes endorsed by the Legislature since the publication of this document in 2000 (eg: villages merged with towns). Utlimately the Vermont Secratary of State's Office and the VT Legislature are responsible for maintaining information which accurately describes the location of these boundaries. BNDHASH should be used for general mapping purposes only. * Users who wish to determine which boundaries are different from the original TBHASH boundaries should refer to the ORIG_ARC field in the BOUNDARY_BNDHASH_LINE (line featue with attributes). Also, updates to BNDHASH are tracked by version number (ex: 2003A). The UPDACT field is used to track changes between versions. The UPDACT field is flushed between versions.

(Link to Metadata) The BNDHASH dataset depicts Vermont villages, towns, counties, Regional Planning Commissions (RPC), and LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) boundaries. It is a composite of generally 'best available' boundaries from various data sources (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES attributes). However, this dataset DOES NOT attempt to provide a legally definitive boundary. The layer was originally developed from TBHASH, which was the master VGIS town boundary layer prior to the development and release of BNDHASH. By integrating village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries into a single layer, VCGI has assured vertical integration of these boundaries and simplified maintenance. BNDHASH also includes annotation text for town, county, and RPC names. BNDHASH includes the following feature classes: 1) VILLAGES = Vermont villages 2) TOWNS = Vermont towns 3) COUNTIES = Vermont counties 4) RPCS = Vermont's Regional Planning Commissions 5) LEPC = Local Emergency Planning Committee boundaries 6) VTBND = Vermont's state boundary The master BNDHASH layer is managed as ESRI geodatabase feature dataset by VCGI. The dataset stores villages, towns, counties, and RPC boundaries as seperate feature classes with a set of topology rules which binds the features. This arrangement assures vertical integration of the various boundaries. VCGI will update this layer on an annual basis by reviewing records housed in the VT State Archives - Secretary of State's Office. VCGI also welcomes documented information from VGIS users which identify boundary errors. NOTE - VCGI has NOT attempted to create a legally definitive boundary layer. Instead the idea is to maintain an integrated village/town/county/rpc boundary layer which provides for a reasonably accurate representation of these boundaries (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES). BNDHASH includes all counties, towns, and villages listed in "Population and Local Government - State of Vermont - 2000" published by the Secretary of State. BNDHASH may include changes endorsed by the Legislature since the publication of this document in 2000 (eg: villages merged with towns). Utlimately the Vermont Secratary of State's Office and the VT Legislature are responsible for maintaining information which accurately describes the location of these boundaries. BNDHASH should be used for general mapping purposes only. * Users who wish to determine which boundaries are different from the original TBHASH boundaries should refer to the ORIG_ARC field in the BOUNDARY_BNDHASH_LINE (line featue with attributes). Also, updates to BNDHASH are tracked by version number (ex: 2003A). The UPDACT field is used to track changes between versions. The UPDACT field is flushed between versions.

The dataset contains year- and state-wise historically compiled data on the total number of road accidents which have happened, number of persons injured and killed, along with number of registered vehicles, road length and population

This data set depicts lands selected by ANCSA village and regional corporations. Data attributes are a snapshot of the BLM-AK Land Information System Database and are only accurate as that database. Alaska, being a state within the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), describes land to the aliquot part (subsections of larger land plots) where ever possible. Where data is not able to be described with an aliquot part, the data is generalized to the nearest PLSS section (640 acres). In some instances lands have been mapped based on survey or digitized using a Master Title Plat (MTP).

The dataset contains the primary census abstract statement of the percentage of population living in different population size.

Community Service Master Plan Update Process survey results for Incline Village/Crystal Bay, NV conducted by FlashVote

Abstract

The Village Law, enacted in 2014, mandated the transfer of funds to villages with the goals of reducing poverty and improving living standards in villages through village-led development and community empowerment. Village Law (VL) builds on Indonesia’s 17-year history of participatory and community-driven development (CDD) approaches such as under the Kecamatan Development Project (KDP) and Program Nasional Permberdayaan Masyarakat (PNPM). The changes consequent upon the closing down of PNPM and its replacement by Village Law transfers (Dana Desa and Alokasi Dana Desa) and implementation arrangements, form a critical backdrop to the report titled: Indonesia Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds.

The Technical Evaluation of Village Infrastructure evaluates the development process, quality, costs, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of 168 village infrastructure projects (VIPs) with budgets greater than USD 10,000, from 39 villages in six provinces. The five types of projects assessed were: A) buildings (33); B) bridges (15); C) water supply (14); D) roads and drainage (94); and E) irrigation (12). Assessors evaluated the physical structures and related files (budgets, design, approvals, etc.) implementation methods, and operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures. The technical evaluation covers VIPs in the same provinces as in 2012 under the PMPN program.

This collection of data is comprised of audit results from seven field tools, plus one administrative data file. The technical evaluation team collected data on five types of infrastructure projects, with total observations at 168, as described above. The seven field tools are included in this data deposit, for reference. Data were originally collected and assembled as eight data files; one for administrative data and one for each of the seven field tools. The technical evaluation team stored data primarily in binary format, using hundreds of variables per field tool to accommodate the options available for each question within each of the field tools. These data were reorganized into five data sets, one for each infrastructure type (compare to one for each field tool). The data were also consolidated from many sets of binary variables to encoded numeric variables, where applicable, for efficiency. Responses to open-ended questions were left as string variables. Responses to simple yes/no questions were left as binary numeric variables. The public versions of the datasets included here exclude variables containing PII, including: (1) name of infrastructure project inspector; (2) name or firm of infrastructure project design consultant; (3) narrative description of infrastructure project, in Indonesian; and (4) narrative description of infrastructure project, in English. Total infrastructure variables sum to 736 across all five datasets. All variables are named logically and include descriptions in their labels.

Geographic coverage

This sample includes observations (projects) from the following provinces: Aceh, West Kalimantan, West Java, East Nusa Tenggara, Maluku, West Sulawesi.

Analysis unit

Across the datasets, an observation represents one piece of infrastructure located fully within one village according to the Indonesia Statistical Agency (BPS) definition for village. Often more than one piece of infrastructure of the same type within the same village was evaluated.

Universe

The population of interest in this survey includes infrastructure projects built using Village Funds in Indonesia.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The 2018 technical evaluation assessed 165 VIPs infrastructure built from 2015-2017 with village funds in six of the provinces surveyed in the 2012 study. The evaluation team visited six of the provinces surveyed in 2012 (spread across the archipelago) and included a random selection of the same villages, aiming for a mix of villages considered Remote vs. Not Remote.

The VIPs were randomly chosen with an intention to spread the evaluation sample through the years of Village Law (2015, 2016, 2017). In other words, during the VIP selection process in the villages, the evaluation team made sure to choose a diverse range of VIPs in both type and year of construction. For this evaluation's results to be compared with the 2012 PNPM evaluation, the same classification system for VIP types was used. The VIP types identified for the study are as follows: building, bridge, water supply, road and drainage, and irrigation.

The approach used to identify the sample villages and infrastructure projects for this 2018 evaluation is similar to the approached used in the 2012 study. The assessors (many of whom also participated in the 2012 study) refined their techniques for the current evaluation. The application of a similar methodology in 2018 allows for, in some cases, comparing findings and results. There are some instances where comparison was meaningful and stark. To understand the approach used in 2018 it is helpful to understand the methodology employed in 2012. Instances where the 2018 approach differed from 2012 are noted in the body and relevant section.

PNPM 2012 Sampling vs. Village Law Sampling

The sampling of villages in the 2012 technical evaluation of PNPM was performed randomly within 12 provinces. In total, 1,765 VIPs were assessed in that study. The methodology used included the following steps:

A. A total of 12 provinces were selected ensuring that they would span Indonesia from west to east and north to south;

B. Both rich and poor provinces were included;

C. Sampling of districts (kabupaten) within provinces depended upon the total number of districts within each province;

D. A sampling of three districts was taken for those provinces having ten or more districts. Two districts were selected from those with less than 10 districts. The sole exception to this is Central Java which had four districts selected;

E. Four sub-districts (kecamatan) were sampled within each district. Sub-districts are rated in the BPS system as to level of difficulty of access - normal, hard, very hard and extreme. The random selection process ensured that all levels were represented;

F. The selection of the villages within each of these sub-districts was left to the technical evaluation team to determine at each UPK office in the sub-district.

The 2012 methodology is fully described in that report (Section 4: Site Selection Procedure for Technical Evaluation).

At the villages the evaluators were generally greeted by the Village Head and provided with a list of infrastructure projects financed under the Village Law. From the lists, evaluators chose a variety of VIPs to more closely examine, up to three in each village. Road improvement VIPs tended make up the majority of village lists, followed by buildings. For a more diverse sample, evaluators selected bridges, water supply and irrigation VIPs when they did appear on village lists.

This study did not have access to a master database of all Village Law VIPs and cannot state that this evaluation's relative percentages of infrastructure types is representative.

For additional sampling information, see the report titled Indonesia Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds, Section 2: Technical evaluation methodology provided under Documentation.

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

Research instrument

The field tools for the 2018 Village Law Technical Evaluation were structured questionnaires based on the 2012 PNPM questionnaires with some modifications and additions.

A series of field tools was administered for each infrastructure project, which collected for the following: administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, and process assessment.

Cleaning operations

Data editing took place at a number of stages throughout the processing, including:

• Office editing and coding • During data entry • Structure checking and completeness • Secondary editing • Structural checking of STATA data files

Village Greens and Registered Common Lands in York

*Please note that the data published within this dataset is a live API link to CYC's GIS server. Any changes made to the master copy of the data will be inmediately reflected in the resources of this dataset.The date shown in the "Last Updated" field of each GIS resource reflects when the data was first published.

Oakland Mills Village Center Master Plan 2007

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Scripps Ranch Villages Master Association

This hosted feature layer has been published in RI State Plane Feet NAD 83.Census Designated Places (CDP) delineated by the US Census Bureau to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. Most boundaries represented by this shapefile are as of January 1, 2013, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). Limited updates that occurred after January 1, 2013, such as newly incorporated places, are also included. The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2010 Census.The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation.

The Places dataset was published on August 31, 2022 from the United States Census Bureau (USCB) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2022, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census, but some CDPs were added or updated through the 2022 BAS as well.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The boundaries of all incorporated places are as of January 1, 2013 as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2010 Census.

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census, but some CDPs were added or updated through the 2023 BAS as well.

The BNDHASH dataset depicts Vermont villages, towns, counties, Regional Planning Commissions (RPC), and LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) boundaries. It is a composite of generally 'best available' boundaries from various data sources (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES attributes). However, this dataset DOES NOT attempt to provide a legally definitive boundary. The layer was originally developed from TBHASH, which was the master VGIS town boundary layer prior to the development and release of BNDHASH. By integrating village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries into a single layer, VCGI has assured vertical integration of these boundaries and simplified maintenance. BNDHASH also includes annotation text for town, county, and RPC names. BNDHASH includes the following feature classes: 1) VILLAGES = Vermont villages 2) TOWNS = Vermont towns 3) COUNTIES = Vermont counties 4) RPCS = Vermont's Regional Planning Commissions 5) LEPC = Local Emergency Planning Committee boundaries 6) VTBND = Vermont's state boundary The master BNDHASH layer is managed as ESRI geodatabase feature dataset by VCGI. The dataset stores villages, towns, counties, and RPC boundaries as seperate feature classes with a set of topology rules which binds the features. This arrangement assures vertical integration of the various boundaries. VCGI will update this layer on an annual basis by reviewing records housed in the VT State Archives - Secretary of State's Office. VCGI also welcomes documented information from VGIS users which identify boundary errors. NOTE - VCGI has NOT attempted to create a legally definitive boundary layer. Instead the idea is to maintain an integrated village/town/county/rpc boundary layer which provides for a reasonably accurate representation of these boundaries (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES). BNDHASH includes all counties, towns, and villages listed in "Population and Local Government - State of Vermont - 2000" published by the Secretary of State. BNDHASH may include changes endorsed by the Legislature since the publication of this document in 2000 (eg: villages merged with towns). Utlimately the Vermont Secratary of State's Office and the VT Legislature are responsible for maintaining information which accurately describes the location of these boundaries. BNDHASH should be used for general mapping purposes only. * Users who wish to determine which boundaries are different from the original TBHASH boundaries should refer to the ORIG_ARC field in the BOUNDARY_BNDHASH_LINE (line featue with attributes). Also, updates to BNDHASH are tracked by version number (ex: 2003A). The UPDACT field is used to track changes between versions. The UPDACT field is flushed between versions.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population.

The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2021, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The TIGER/Line shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2013, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). Limited updates that occurred after January 1, 2013, such as newly incorporated places, are also included. The boundaries of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2010 Census.