Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

Washington State County Boundaries including Department of Natural Resources (DNR) county codes. This data is created from the WA Public Land Survey source data maintained by the DNR.WA County Boundaries Metadata

Geospatial data about Washington County, Pennsylvania Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Whatcom County, Washington County Boundary. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

The Atlas of Washington County, published in 2018, is a highly-detailed street atlas that includes streets with block numbers, terrain, rivers and streams, building footprints, schools, hospitals, places of worship, parks, trails, subdivisions, and much more. This atlas was created to take the place of the discontinued ADC Street Map Book. This collection of PDF's is available for download for printing. Please visit Avenzamaps.com for the mobile version.

Basemap datasets comprise six of the seven FGDC themes of geospatial data that are used by most GIS applications (Note: the seventh framework theme, orthographic imagery, is packaged in a separate NFIP Metadata Profile): cadastral, geodetic control, governmental unit, transportation, general structures, hydrography (water areas and lines). These data include an encoding of the geographic extent of the features and a minimal number of attributes needed to identify and describe the features. (Source: Circular A-16, p. 13)

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 All Roads Shapefile includes all features within the MTDB Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in MTDB that begins with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

Dewberry collected LiDAR for ~3,942 square miles in various Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland Counties. The acquisition was performed by Geodigital. This metadata covers the LiDAR produced for the Washington County project area. The nominal pulse spacing for this project is 1.6 ft (0.5 meters). This project was collected with a sensor which collects intensity values for each discrete pulse extracted from the waveform. GPS Week Time, Intensity, Flightline and echo number attributes were provided for each LiDAR point. Dewberry used proprietary procedures to classify the LAS according to contract specifications: 1-Unclassified, 2-Ground, 7-Noise, 9-Water, 10-Ignored Ground due to breakline proximity, and 11-Withheld. Dewberry produced 3D breaklines and combined these with the final LiDAR data to produce seamless hydro flattened DEMs for the 638 tiles (1500 m x 1500 m) that cover this deliverable.This is a MD iMAP hosted service. Find more information at https://imap.maryland.gov.Image Service Link: https://mdgeodata.md.gov/lidar/rest/services/Washington/MD_washington_slope_m/ImageServer

This map allows users to access a variety of survey and survey related information and documents by following various links associated with map features such as Control Points, Public Land Survey Corners, Certificates of Survey, Parcel Maps, and Section Worksheets. Disclaimer The information available on this web site is a compilation of Washington County Records. The Washington County Surveyor's Office is not responsible for inaccuracies or timeliness of any of the information presented on this web site. Alteration of the data on this web is strictly prohibited and could result in penalty under law.

Geospatial data about Washington County, Arkansas Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This data was developed in response to citizens’ road maintenance requests from across the state as to whom to contact as the official maintenance authority - be it MDOT State Highway Administration, MDOT Transportation Authority, a county, or a municipality.MDOT SHA Website

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Dewberry collected LiDAR for ~3,942 square miles in various Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland Counties. The acquisition was performed by Geodigital. This metadata covers the LiDAR produced for the Washington County project area. The nominal pulse spacing for this project is 1.6 ft (0.5 meters). This project was collected with a sensor which collects intensity values for each discrete pulse extracted from the waveform. GPS Week Time, Intensity, Flightline and echo number attributes were provided for each LiDAR point. Dewberry used proprietary procedures to classify the LAS according to contract specifications: 1-Unclassified, 2-Ground, 7-Noise, 9-Water, 10-Ignored Ground due to breakline proximity, and 11-Withheld. Dewberry produced 3D breaklines and combined these with the final LiDAR data to produce seamless hydro flattened DEMs for the 638 tiles (1500 m x 1500 m) that cover this deliverable.This is a MD iMAP hosted service. Find more information at https://imap.maryland.gov.Image Service Link: https://mdgeodata.md.gov/lidar/rest/services/Washington/MD_washington_aspect_m/ImageServer

Basemap datasets comprise six of the seven FGDC themes of geospatial data that are used by most GIS applications (Note: the seventh framework theme, orthographic imagery, is packaged in a separate NFIP Metadata Profile): cadastral, geodetic control, governmental unit, transportation, general structures, hydrography (water areas and lines). These data include an encoding of the geographic extent of the features and a minimal number of attributes needed to identify and describe the features. (Source: Circular A-16, p. 13)

This Zoning feature class is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework statewide, Zoning spatial data. This version is authorized for public use. Attributes include zoning districts that have been generalized to state classes. As of June 30, 2023, this feature class contains zoning data from 229 local jurisdictions. DLCD plans to continue adding to and updating this statewide zoning dataset as they receive zoning information from the local jurisdictions. Jurisdictions included in the latest version of the statewide zoning geodatabase: Cities: Adams, Adrian, Albany, Amity, Antelope, Ashland, Astoria, Athena, Aurora, Banks, Barlow, Bay City, Beaverton, Bend, Boardman, Bonanza, Brookings, Brownsville, Burns, Butte Falls, Canby, Cannon Beach, Carlton, Cascade Locks, Cave Junction, Central Point, Chiloquin, Coburg, Columbia City, Coos Bay, Cornelius, Corvallis, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Culver, Dayton, Detroit, Donald, Drain, Dufur, Dundee, Dunes City, Durham, Eagle Point, Echo, Enterprise, Estacada, Eugene, Fairview, Falls City, Florence, Forest Grove, Fossil, Garibaldi, Gaston, Gates, Gearhart, Gervais, Gladstone, Gold Beach, Gold Hill, Grants Pass, Grass Valley, Gresham, Halsey, Happy Valley, Harrisburg, Helix, Hermiston, Hillsboro, Hines, Hood River, Hubbard, Idanha, Independence, Jacksonville, Jefferson, Johnson City, Jordan Valley, Junction City, Keizer, King City, Klamath Falls, La Grande, La Pine, Lafayette, Lake Oswego, Lebanon, Lincoln City, Lowell, Lyons, Madras, Malin, Manzanita, Maupin, Maywood Park, McMinnville, Medford, Merrill, Metolius, Mill City, Millersburg, Milton-Freewater, Milwaukie, Mitchell, Molalla, Monmouth, Moro, Mosier, Mount Angel, Myrtle Creek, Myrtle Point, Nehalem, Newberg, Newport, North Bend, North Plains, Nyssa, Oakridge, Ontario, Oregon City, Pendleton, Philomath, Phoenix, Pilot Rock, Port Orford, Portland, Prescott, Prineville, Rainier, Redmond, Reedsport, Rivergrove, Rockaway Beach, Rogue River, Roseburg, Rufus, Saint Helens, Salem, Sandy, Scappoose, Scio, Scotts Mills, Seaside, Shady Cove, Shaniko, Sheridan, Sherwood, Silverton, Sisters, Sodaville, Spray, Springfield, Stanfield, Stayton, Sublimity, Sutherlin, Sweet Home, Talent, Tangent, The Dalles, Tigard, Tillamook, Toledo, Troutdale, Tualatin, Turner, Ukiah, Umatilla, Vale, Veneta, Vernonia, Warrenton, Wasco, Waterloo, West Linn, Westfir, Weston, Wheeler, Willamina, Wilsonville, Winston, Wood Village, Woodburn, Yamhill. Counties: Baker County, Benton County, Clackamas County, Clatsop County, Columbia County, Coos County, Crook County, Curry County, Deschutes County, Douglas County, Harney County, Hood River County, Jackson County, Jefferson County, Josephine County, Klamath County, Lane County, Lincoln County, Linn County, Malheur County, Marion County, Multnomah County, Polk County, Sherman County, Tillamook County, Umatilla County, Union County, Wasco County, Washington County, Wheeler County, Yamhill County. R emaining jurisdictions either chose not to share data to incorporate into the public, statewide dataset or did not respond to DLCD’s request for data. These jurisdictions’ attributes are designated “not shared” in the orZDesc field and “NS” in the orZCode field.

The Potomac River Atlas of Washington County, first published in 2013, has been updated for 2020 and optimized for use with the Avenza App. This atlas is the most complete and detailed map ever created of the 83-miles of the Potomac River in Washington County. The 39 maps include the westernmost section at Sideling Hill Creek, along the river to just east of Weverton Cliffs and Knoxville. The atlas is all inclusive of every natural and manmade feature, with labels: roads, rail lines, bridges, all parks, trails, boat ramps, caves, power lines, tunnels, buildings, canal structures, and a great deal more. The maps include elevations, water flow, and subdivisions. Western Maryland Rail Trail and C&O Canal Towpath mile markers are included. West Virginia (Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson Counties) and Virginia (Loudoun County) are included.

Geospatial data about Washington County, Minnesota Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Washington County Maryland Interactive Parks Map

Geospatial data about Washington County, Arkansas City Boundaries. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

The undeveloped land layer represents lands appearing unimproved on aerial photography, without regard to developability and accessibility. On partially developed parcels, only undeveloped areas 1/2 acre or larger are included.

Metro's Vacant Land Definitions Every tax lot is determined to be vacant, partially vacant, or developed. Vacant tax lots are those that have no building, improvements or identifiable land use. Developed lots must have improvements and specific land uses. For example, a paved parking lot is developed but an unpaved lot where trucks are parked is vacant. Lots under site development show building activity, but development is incomplete and they are considered vacant. If a developed tax lot has 1/2 acre (20,000-sq. ft.) or greater portion that is vacant, the lot is considered to be partially vacant and partially developed. The vacant portion is added to the vacant land database. Parks and open spaces are treated as developed. During the assessment of each tax lot, no consideration is given to constrained land, suitability for building, or to redevelopment potential. Date of last data update: 1993-06-30 This is official RLIS data. Contact Person: Al Mowbray al.mowbray@oregonmetro.gov 503-797-1843 RLIS Metadata Viewer: https://gis.oregonmetro.gov/rlis-metadata/#/details/2932 RLIS Terms of Use: https://rlisdiscovery.oregonmetro.gov/pages/terms-of-use