Washington County, MN Tax Parcels. An independent manual check of the parcel data was made at the time of its initial development whereby all geo-coded parcel legal descriptions in a PLSS section were reinterpreted and examined for accuracy and completeness on the hard copy check plot. As each new plat or lot division occurs, a similar process is repeated for the new additions during the maintenance period. Multiple lines of ownership indicating ambiguity in property line location are merged into a single line if falling within 3 feet of each other. Gaps or overlaps in these situations are not shown. In some cases where two lines converge; e.g., where at one end the two lot lines are within 0.50 feet of each other and at the other end they are within 6.00 feet of each other they may be merged because the average discrepancy is 3 feet or less. Where gaps or overlaps exist in excess of approximately 3 feet in width, they are shown with text notation indicating APPARENT GAP or AREA OF DISCREPANCY.

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)

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.

Parcels and Land Ownership dataset current as of 2009. GIS parcels.

This data group represents Parcels for Washington County, Wisconsin in 2017. This is the final deliverable for the Version 3 Statewide Parcel Map Database Project (V3). This feature class represents a comprehensive, spatially referenced collection of parcel geometries as recognized by local-level governments within the State of Wisconsin (the feature class is aggregated from county level and municipal-level data). See the V3 Project Homepage for more detail on the parameters for how data was prepared and submitted to this project: http://www.sco.wisc.edu/parcels/submission/ Schema documentation can be found within this feature class metadata and here: http://www.sco.wisc.edu/parcels/data/assets/V3/V3_Wisconsin_Statewide_Parcels_Schema_Documentation.pdf Change log and known issues can be found here: http://www.sco.wisc.edu/parcels/data/assets/Wisconsin_Statewide_Parcels_Change_Log.pdf.

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) System (MTS). The MTS 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 MTS Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in the MTS 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.

The Florida Department of Revenue’s Property Tax Oversight(PTO) program collects parcel level Geographic Information System (GIS) data files every April from all of Florida’s 67 county property appraisers’ offices. This GIS data was exported from these file submissions in August 2025. The GIS parcel polygon features have been joined with thereal property roll (Name – Address – Legal, or NAL)file. No line work was adjusted between county boundaries.The polygon data set represents the information property appraisers gathered from the legal description on deeds, lot layout of recorded plats, declaration of condominium documents, recorded and unrecorded surveys.Individual parcel data is updated continually by each county property appraiser as needed. The GIS linework and related attributions for the statewide parcel map are updated annually by the Department every August. The dataset extends countywide and is attribute by Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code.DOR reference with FIPS county codes and attribution definitions - https://fgio.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=55e830fd6c8948baae1601fbfc33a3b2If you discover the inadvertent release of a confidential record exempt from disclosure pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, public records laws, immediately notify the Department of Revenue at 850-717-6570 and your local Florida Property Appraisers’ Office. Please contact the county property appraiser with any parcel specific questions: Florida Property Appraisers’ Offices:Alachua County Property Appraiser – https://www.acpafl.org/Baker County Property Appraiser – https://www.bakerpa.com/Bay County Property Appraiser – https://baypa.net/Bradford County Property Appraiser – https://www.bradfordappraiser.com/Brevard County Property Appraiser – https://www.bcpao.us/Broward County Property Appraiser – https://bcpa.net/Calhoun County Property Appraiser – https://calhounpa.net/Charlotte County Property Appraiser – https://www.ccappraiser.com/Citrus County Property Appraiser – https://www.citruspa.org/Clay County Property Appraiser – https://ccpao.com/Collier County Property Appraiser – https://www.collierappraiser.com/Columbia County Property Appraiser – https://columbia.floridapa.com/DeSoto County Property Appraiser – https://www.desotopa.com/Dixie County Property Appraiser – https://www.qpublic.net/fl/dixie/Duval County Property Appraiser – https://www.coj.net/departments/property-appraiser.aspxEscambia County Property Appraiser – https://www.escpa.org/Flagler County Property Appraiser – https://flaglerpa.com/Franklin County Property Appraiser – https://franklincountypa.net/Gadsden County Property Appraiser – https://gadsdenpa.com/Gilchrist County Property Appraiser – https://www.qpublic.net/fl/gilchrist/Glades County Property Appraiser – https://qpublic.net/fl/glades/Gulf County Property Appraiser – https://gulfpa.com/Hamilton County Property Appraiser – https://hamiltonpa.com/Hardee County Property Appraiser – https://hardeepa.com/Hendry County Property Appraiser – https://hendryprop.com/Hernando County Property Appraiser – https://hernandocountypa-florida.us/Highlands County Property Appraiser – https://www.hcpao.org/Hillsborough County Property Appraiser – https://www.hcpafl.org/Holmes County Property Appraiser – https://www.qpublic.net/fl/holmes/Indian River County Property Appraiser – https://www.ircpa.org/Jackson County Property Appraiser – https://www.qpublic.net/fl/jackson/Jefferson County Property Appraiser – https://jeffersonpa.net/Lafayette County Property Appraiser – https://www.lafayettepa.com/Lake County Property Appraiser – https://www.lakecopropappr.com/Lee County Property Appraiser – https://www.leepa.org/Leon County Property Appraiser – https://www.leonpa.gov/Levy County Property Appraiser – https://www.qpublic.net/fl/levy/Liberty County Property Appraiser – https://libertypa.org/Madison County Property Appraiser – https://madisonpa.com/Manatee County Property Appraiser – https://www.manateepao.gov/Marion County Property Appraiser – https://www.pa.marion.fl.us/Martin County Property Appraiser – https://www.pa.martin.fl.us/Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser – https://www.miamidade.gov/pa/Monroe County Property Appraiser – https://mcpafl.org/Nassau County Property Appraiser – https://ncpafl.com/Okaloosa County Property Appraiser – https://okaloosapa.com/Okeechobee County Property Appraiser – https://www.okeechobeepa.com/Orange County Property Appraiser – https://ocpaweb.ocpafl.org/Osceola County Property Appraiser – https://www.property-appraiser.org/Palm Beach County Property Appraiser – https://www.pbcgov.org/papa/index.htmPasco County Property Appraiser – https://pascopa.com/Pinellas County Property Appraiser – https://www.pcpao.org/Polk County Property Appraiser – https://www.polkpa.org/Putnam County Property Appraiser – https://pa.putnam-fl.com/Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser – https://srcpa.gov/Sarasota County Property Appraiser – https://www.sc-pa.com/Seminole County Property Appraiser – https://www.scpafl.org/St. Johns County Property Appraiser – https://www.sjcpa.gov/St. Lucie County Property Appraiser – https://www.paslc.gov/Sumter County Property Appraiser – https://www.sumterpa.com/Suwannee County Property Appraiser – https://suwannee.floridapa.com/Taylor County Property Appraiser – https://qpublic.net/fl/taylor/Union County Property Appraiser – https://union.floridapa.com/Volusia County Property Appraiser – https://vcpa.vcgov.org/Wakulla County Property Appraiser – https://mywakullapa.com/Walton County Property Appraiser – https://waltonpa.com/Washington County Property Appraiser – https://www.qpublic.net/fl/washington/Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Oversight https://floridarevenue.com/property/Pages/Home.aspx

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) System (MTS). The MTS 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. County subdivisions are the primary divisions of counties and equivalent entities for the reporting of Census Bureau data. They include legally-recognized minor civil divisions (MCDs) and statistical census county divisions (CCDs), and unorganized territories. In MCD states where no MCD exists or is not defined, the Census Bureau creates statistical unorganized territories to complete coverage. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas are covered by county subdivisions. The boundaries of most legal MCDs are as of January 1, 2024, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The boundaries of all CCDs are those as reported as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

This dataset is a compilation of county parcel data from Minnesota counties that have opted-in for their parcel data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 59 counties that have opted-in as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Becker County, Benton County, Big Stone County, Carlton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Clearwater County, Cook County, Crow Wing County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Jackson County, Koochiching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Lake of the Woods County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Mille Lacs County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Norman County, Olmsted County, Otter Tail County, Pennington County, Pipestone County, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Red Lake County, Renville County, Rice County, Scott County, Sherburne County, St. Louis County, Stearns County, Steele County, Stevens County, Traverse County, Wabasha County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wilkin County, Winona County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

If you represent a county not included in this dataset and would like to opt-in, please contact Heather Albrecht (Heather.Albrecht@hennepin.us), co-chair of the Minnesota Geospatial Advisory Council (GAC)’s Parcels and Land Records Committee's Open Data Subcommittee. County parcel data does not need to be in the GAC parcel data standard to be included. MnGeo will map the county fields to the GAC standard.

County parcel data records have been assembled into a single dataset with a common coordinate system (UTM Zone 15) and common attribute schema. The county parcel data attributes have been mapped to the GAC parcel data standard for Minnesota: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

This compiled parcel dataset was created using Python code developed by Minnesota state agency GIS professionals, and represents a best effort to map individual county source file attributes into the common attribute schema of the GAC parcel data standard. The attributes from counties are mapped to the most appropriate destination column. In some cases, the county source files included attributes that were not mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, some county attribute fields were parsed and mapped to multiple GAC standard fields, such as a single line address. Each quarter, MnGeo provides a text file to counties that shows how county fields are mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, this text file shows the fields that are not mapped to the standard and those that are parsed. If a county shares changes to how their data should be mapped, MnGeo updates the compilation. If you represent a county and would like to update how MnGeo is mapping your county attribute fields to this compiled dataset, please contact us.

This dataset is a snapshot of parcel data, and the source date of the county data may vary. Users should consult County websites to see the most up-to-date and complete parcel data.

There have been recent changes in date/time fields, and their processing, introduced by our software vendor. In some cases, this has resulted in date fields being empty. We are aware of the issue and are working to correct it for future parcel data releases.

The State of Minnesota makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use or reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. THE DATA IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITH NO GUARANTEE OR REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACCURACY, CURRENCY, SUITABILITY, PERFORMANCE, MECHANTABILITY, RELIABILITY OR FITINESS OF THIS DATA FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This dataset is NOT suitable for accurate boundary determination. Contact a licensed land surveyor if you have questions about boundary determinations.

DOWNLOAD NOTES: This dataset is only provided in Esri File Geodatabase and OGC GeoPackage formats. A shapefile is not available because the size of the dataset exceeds the limit for that format. The distribution version of the fgdb is compressed to help reduce the data footprint. QGIS users should consider using the Geopackage format for better results.

These GIS files represent geographic boundaries for lands that are under the protection of NYS Agricultural District Law, administered by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. The boundaries are derived from New York State Agricultural District, 1:24,000-scale, maps produced at county agencies. The district boundaries correspond to tax parcel data. District boundaries are joined into a file representing all of the Agricultural Districts within an entire county. Note that 2003 legislation allows lands to be added to districts on an annual basis. Electronic data provided here may predate those additions. Tax parcel detail and secondary rights-of-way are not included in this dataset. Rights-of-way for state and federal highways, railroads and utilities are only included when they are delineated on the original 1:24,000 scale maps. The data files are in ArcGIS shapefile format.

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) System (MTS). The MTS 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 MTS Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in the MTS 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.

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 Address Ranges Feature Shapefile (ADDRFEAT.dbf) contains the geospatial edge geometry and attributes of all unsuppressed address ranges for a county or county equivalent area. The term "address range" refers to the collection of all possible structure numbers from the first structure number to the last structure number and all numbers of a specified parity in between along an edge side relative to the direction in which the edge is coded. Single-address address ranges have been suppressed to maintain the confidentiality of the addresses they describe. Multiple coincident address range feature edge records are represented in the shapefile if more than one left or right address ranges are associated to the edge. The ADDRFEAT shapefile contains a record for each address range to street name combination. Address range associated to more than one street name are also represented by multiple coincident address range feature edge records. Note that the ADDRFEAT shapefile includes all unsuppressed address ranges compared to the All Lines Shapefile (EDGES.shp) which only includes the most inclusive address range associated with each side of a street edge. The TIGER/Line shapefile contain potential address ranges, not individual addresses. The address ranges in the TIGER/Line Files are potential ranges that include the full range of possible structure numbers even though the actual structures may not exist.

These are lands still within the District of Columbia that has never been subdivided into either Record or Tax Lots through the two offices that manage land records (OS & RPTA), this land is referred to as Parcels, expressed as fractions (Ex Parcel 117/36). In this example, the number “36” would be the 36th out conveyance from original Parcel 117. The tracking of parcels was started in 1905 when, by Act of Congress, all the District’s unsubdivided properties which were mostly rural farms at the time were given parcel numbers. Their boundaries were also depicted (in many cases approximated), in large books in DCRA's Office of the Surveyor. Until the late 1960s, building permits were routinely issued by the city for new construction on Parcels, but today all Parcels, like Tax Lots, must be converted into subdivision Lots of Record before permits will be issued for exterior work. Parcels are only found in the old “County of Washington,” north of Florida Ave and east of the Anacostia River. There are no Parcels found within the original city limits or Georgetown. Parcels are not in Squares. There are examples where parcel land may be physically located in the middle of a city Square, but Parcels are not considered part of a Square until they are duly subdivided by the D.C. Surveyor’s Office.

County assessor's online applications for searching and rviewing data about parcels and proprties.

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.

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 2010 dataset unless otherwise noted):

polygons / points
Anoka - 129271 / 129271
Carver - 38205 / 38205
Dakota - 136067 / 150436
Hennepin - 424182 / 424182
Ramsey - 149101 / 168152
Scott - 55213 / 55213
Washington - 98933 / 104100 (October 2009)

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 2009 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

Tax parcel polygons throughout Pierce County, including condos, but not including mobile homes which can be found in the "Mobile Home" layer instead. Parcel number is the unique identifier and additional parcel attribution can be found here (https://www.piercecountywa.gov/736/Data-Downloads) Click the link for Use Code Descriptions (https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/604/Use-Code-Listing?bidId=) Please read metadata (https://matterhorn.piercecountywa.gov/GISmetadata/pdbparc_taxparcel.html) for additional information. Any data download constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use (https://matterhorn.piercecountywa.gov/Disclaimer/PierceCountyGISDataTermsofUse.pdf) If you have questions or need supplemental information, please call the Assessor-Treasurer Operations Team at 253-798-3134.

Parcels view for Open Data Hub.

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 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 Address Ranges Feature Shapefile (ADDRFEAT.dbf) contains the geospatial edge geometry and attributes of all unsuppressed address ranges for a county or county equivalent area. The term "address range" refers to the collection of all possible structure numbers from the first structure number to the last structure number and all numbers of a specified parity in between along an edge side relative to the direction in which the edge is coded. Single-address address ranges have been suppressed to maintain the confidentiality of the addresses they describe. Multiple coincident address range feature edge records are represented in the shapefile if more than one left or right address ranges are associated to the edge. The ADDRFEAT shapefile contains a record for each address range to street name combination. Address range associated to more than one street name are also represented by multiple coincident address range feature edge records. Note that the ADDRFEAT shapefile includes all unsuppressed address ranges compared to the All Lines Shapefile (EDGES.shp) which only includes the most inclusive address range associated with each side of a street edge. The TIGER/Line shapefile contain potential address ranges, not individual addresses. The address ranges in the TIGER/Line Files are potential ranges that include the full range of possible structure numbers even though the actual structures may not exist.

Please read all metadata before accessing the dataset. Note that records shown here are updated at different frequencies from data in products from MDP and SDAT. Please see the full documentation at https://opendata.maryland.gov/api/views/ed4q-f8tm/files/WtRzMltUzm25OasOCYtu7PgOGUfrplWsZTalSH4Iukg?download=true&filename=Real%20Property%20Records%20Documentation.pdf and review the dedicated metadata site (https://opendata.maryland.gov/dataset/Beta-Maryland-Statewide-Real-Property-Assessments-/ed4q-f8tm/about).