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.

This is a 10 meter Hillshade file created by Metro from USGS DEM data provided by the BLM. It covers the 3-county area (Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties). Date of last data update: 2004 This is official RLIS data. Contact Person: Joe Gordon joe.gordon@oregonmetro.gov 503-797-1587 RLIS Metadata Viewer: https://gis.oregonmetro.gov/rlis-metadata/#/details/2162 RLIS Terms of Use: https://rlisdiscovery.oregonmetro.gov/pages/terms-of-use

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.

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 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.

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

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

Schools in Washington County, MN updated in 2019

Download .zipThe C, D Law Coal Permit Maps county coverage sets were developed using the original mine maps for over 2500 coal mining and reclamation permits issued under Ohio law and finalized (i.e. operations completed) between 1975 and December 2002.

Ohio started issuing coal mining licenses in the 1940s. The earliest license and permit requirements were minimal and did not include submittal of a map or other delineation of the mined area. Significant changes to legal requirements are reflected by the alphabetical designation of each subsequent law revision, i.e., earlier A-law permits (circa 1966) through contemporary D-law permits. The ODNR-Division of Mineral Resources Management (DMRM) has attempted to create as complete a database as possible from available archive records, however, research has identified missing permit files. Thus, this GIS data is known to be incomplete due to the loss of archival records.

The C and D law permit maps were scanned at a density of 200 dots per inch (dpi). The scanned image was then heads-up digitized using Microstation computer aided design software (CAD) to create design files grouped by county location. Data captured within the design file includes permit boundary, affected boundary, test hole locations, and associated attributes. The design file was then "placed-to-ground" using ODNR Division of Geological Survey's "ODNR Land Sub-division Background Design Files" NAD83 State Plane coverages and DOQQ aerial images obtained through the Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP)/Ohio Department of Administrative Services. The design file was then converted to ARC/INFO coverage and projected to State Plane Ohio Coordinates, NAD83:

Projected coordinate system name: NAD_1983_StatePlane_Ohio_South_FIPS_3402_Feet

Geographic coordinate system name: GCS_North_American_1983

A complete county coverage set consists of five data files for the permit area, affected area, and test hole locations. For example, the coverage for Athens County includes:

athens_c_permitted (Athens County, C-permit area polygons) athens_c_affected (Athens County, C-permit affected area polygons) athens_d_permitted (Athens County, D- permit area polygons) athens_d_affected (Athens County, D-permit affected area polygons) athens_testholes (Athens County, Test Hole points)

In addition to the ArcView shape files in the county data sets, the scanned TIF images for source documents are available at DMRM. The scanned mine map depicts information about the operations conducted, environmental resources, and extracted coal resources. If more detailed information is desired, the available archival record for each captured permit can be accessed at either the State Archives at the Ohio Historical Society or the ODNR-DMRM central office.Contact Information:GIS Support, ODNR GIS ServicesOhio Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Mineral Resources ManagementAbandoned Mine Land Program2045 Morse Rd, Bldg I-2Columbus, OH, 43229Telephone: 614-265-6462Email: gis.support@dnr.ohio.gov Data Update Frequency: As Needed

Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGA) as defined by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The annual update is conducted by collecting UGA polygons directly from each of Washington's 39 counties. As of 2025, there are 27 counties with UGAs.All UGA polygons are normalized against the Department of Revenue's (DOR) "City Boundaries" layer (shared to the Washington Geoportal a.k.a. the GIS Open Data site: geo.wa.gov). The City Boundaries layer was processed into this UGA layer such that any overlapping area of UGA polygons (from authoritative individual counties) was erased. Since DOR polygons and county-sourced UGA polygons do not have perfect topology, many slivers resulted after the erase operation. These are attempted to be irradicated by these processing steps. "Multipart To Singlepart" Esri tool; exploded all polygons to be individualSlivers were mathematically identified using a 4 acre area threshold and a 0.3 "thinness ratio" threshold as described by Esri's "Polygon Sliver" tool. These slivers are merged into the neighboring features using Esri's "Eliminate" tool.Polygons that are less than 5,000 sq. ft. and not part of a DOR city (CITY_NM = Null) were also merged via the "Eliminate" tool. (many very small slivers were manually found yet mathematically did not meet the thinness ratio threshold)The final 8 polygons less than 25 sq. ft. were manually deleted (also slivers but were not lined up against another feature and missed by the "Eliminate" tool runs)Dissolved all features back to multipart using all fieldsAll UGAs polygons remaining are unincorporated areas beyond the city limits. Any polygon with CITY_NM populated originated from the DOR "City Boundaries" layer. The DOR's City Boundaries are updated quarterly by DOR. For the purposes of this UGA layer, the city boundaries was downloaded one time (4/24/2025) and will not be updated quarterly. Therefore, if precise city limits are required by any user of UGA boundaries, please refer to the city boundaries layer and conduct any geoprocessing needed. The DOR's "City Boundaries" layer is available here:https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=69fcb668dc8d49ea8010b6e33e42a13aData is updated in conjunction with the annual statewide parcel layer update. Latest update completed April 2025.

Use this web map to link to other geospatial datasets available through county and city sites (Not comprehensive). May need to zoom in to see the participating cities. The county boundaries and city points were published by Washington State agencies and downloaded from geo.wa.gov. Locations are approximate, and no warranties are made regarding this data. The canvas basemap has been compiled by Esri and the ArcGIS user community from a variety of best available sources. Want to have your data site listed? Contact the Geospatial Program Office.

This layer contains the boundaries and IDs of the Maryland tax maps produced by Maryland Department of Planning. Tax maps, also known as assessment maps, property maps or parcel maps, are a graphic representation of real property showing and defining individual property boundaries in relationship to contiguous real property.This is a MD iMAP hosted service layer. Find more information at https://imap.maryland.gov.Feature Service Layer Link:https://mdgeodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/PlanningCadastre/MD_PropertyData/MapServer/2

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.

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.

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 October 2008 dataset unless otherwise noted):

polygons / points
Anoka 129139 / 129138
Carver 38134 / 38133
Dakota 135925 / 150294
Hennepin 422976 / 446623
Ramsey 149169 / 168233
Scott 55191 / 55191
Washington 98915 / 103915

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 2008 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

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 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. The 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.

Polygon and point counts for each county are as follows (Updated annually, current as of 1/08/2016):

polygons / points
Anoka - 131121 / 131121
Carver - 40510 / 40509
Dakota - 140770 / 154109
Hennepin - 429241 / 429241
Ramsey - 154512 / 166225
Scott - 56219 / 56219
Washington - 106045 / 106045

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 2015 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

This map presents land cover and detailed topographic maps for the United States. It uses the USA Topographic Map service. The map includes the National Park Service (NPS) Natural Earth physical map at 1.24km per pixel for the world at small scales, i-cubed eTOPO 1:250,000-scale maps for the contiguous United States at medium scales, and National Geographic TOPO! 1:100,000 and 1:24,000-scale maps (1:250,000 and 1:63,000 in Alaska) for the United States at large scales. The TOPO! maps are seamless, scanned images of United States Geological Survey (USGS) paper topographic maps.

The maps provide a very useful basemap for a variety of applications, particularly in rural areas where the topographic maps provide unique detail and features from other basemaps.

To add this map service into a desktop application directly, go to the entry for the USA Topo Maps map service.

Tip: Here are some famous locations as they appear in this web map, accessed by including their location in the URL that launches the map:

Grand Canyon, Arizona

Golden Gate, California

The Statue of Liberty, New York

Washington DC

Canyon De Chelly, Arizona

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Area 51, Nevada

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.

Parcel Viewer makes searching for King County parcel information easy. You can search by address, search by parcel number, or you can just zoom in on the map and click on a parcel. Once a parcel is selected, you will get direct links to the King County Assessor’s eReal Property report and the Districts and Development Conditions report.

Digital data from VG2015-3 Springston, G, Thomas, E, and Kim, J, 2015,�Surficial Geologic Map of the Southern Two-Thirds of the Woodbury Quadrangle, Vermont, Washington County, Vermont: Vermont Geological Survey Open File Report VG2015-3. Data may include surficial geologic contacts, isopach contours lines, bedrock outcrop polygons, bedrock geologic contacts, hydrogeologic units and more. The surficial geologic materials data at a scale of 1:24,000 depict types of unconsolidated surficial and glacial materials overlying bedrock in Vermont. Data is created by mapping on the ground using standard geologic pace and compass techniques and/or GPS on a USGS 1:24000 topographic base map. The materials data is selected from the Vermont Geological Survey Open File Report (OFR) publication (https://dec.vermont.gov/geological-survey/publication-gis/ofr). The OFR contains more complete descriptions of map units, cross-sections, isopach maps and other information that may not be included in this digital data set.