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 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.

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

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.

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

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

DO NOT DELETE OR MODIFY THIS ITEM. This item is managed by the ArcGIS Hub application. To make changes to this site, please visit https://hub.arcgis.com/admin/

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)

Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information - HB113. This is the reason we have this dataset. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want those other attributes you need to contact the county recorder.

Geospatial data about Washington County, Arkansas Future Land Use. 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.

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.

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

The use of data from Washington County indicates the acceptance of and agreement to be legally bound by the terms of Washington County printed below. Disclaimer. Washington County has provided these Geographic Information System maps and data as a public information service. Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of these maps and associated data. However, the maps and data being provided herein are intended for informational purposes only. No guarantee is made as to the accuracy of the maps and data and they should not be relied upon for any purpose other than general information. No LiabilityWashington County assumes no liability arising from the use of these maps or data. The maps and data are provided without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Furthermore, Washington County assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the cause of such or for any decision made, action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or data provided herein. Please consult official County maps and records for official information. IndemnificationIf user disseminates said data in any form or fashion to a third party, the user agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Washington County and its officials and employees from any and all claims, liability, damages, injuries, and suits, including court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, arising from the use of the Washington County data by the user and any third party.

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

Data available online through the Arkansas Spatial Data Infrastructure (http://gis.arkansas.gov). Arkansas Cities: This data set contains all of the city limit boundaries within the state of Arkansas. These boundaries were developed by the staff in the Mapping Section of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department with the exception of Benton and Washington Counties. Benton and Washington County officials have provided the city limits for their respected cities. All boundaries were digitally plotted from legal descriptions obtained from the city itself or through the Arkansas Secretary of State's Office.

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.

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

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

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