Vector polygon map data of property parcels from Kanawha County, West Virginia containing 117689 features.

​

Property parcel GIS map data consists of detailed information about individual land parcels, including their boundaries, ownership details, and geographic coordinates.

​

Property parcel data can be used to analyze and visualize land-related information for purposes such as real estate assessment, urban planning, or environmental management.

​

Available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

Vector polygon map data of property parcels from Berkeley County, West Virginia containing 54,024 features.

​

Property parcel GIS map data consists of detailed information about individual land parcels, including their boundaries, ownership details, and geographic coordinates.

​

Property parcel data can be used to analyze and visualize land-related information for purposes such as real estate assessment, urban planning, or environmental management.

​

Available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

The mapped area boundary, flood inundation extents, and depth rasters were created to provide an estimated extent of flood inundation along the Cherry River within the communities of Richwood and Fenwick, West Virginia. These geospatial data include the following items: 1. cherry_bnd; shapefile containing the polygon showing the mapped area boundary for the Cherry River flood maps, 2. cherry_hwm; shapefile containing high-water mark points, 3. polygon_cherry_hwm; shapefile containing mapped extent of flood inundation, derived from the water-surface elevation surveyed at high-water marks, 4. depth_hwm; raster file for the flood depths derived from the water-surface elevation surveyed at high-water marks, 5. polygon_cherry_dem; shapefile containing mapped extent of flood inundation, derived from the height above ground recorded at high-water marks and the digital elevation model (DEM) raster, 6. depth_dem; raster file for the flood depths derived from the height above ground recorded at high-water marks and the digital elevation model raster. The upstream and downstream mapped area extent is limited to the upstream-most and downstream-most high-water mark locations. In areas of uncertainty of flood extent, the mapped area boundary is lined up with the flood inundation polygon extent. The mapped area boundary polygon was used to extract the final flood inundation polygon and depth raster from the water-surface elevation raster file. Depth raster files were created using the "Topo to Raster" tool in ArcMap (ESRI, 2012). For this study two sets of inundation layers were generated for each reach. One raster file showing flood depths, "depth_hwm", was created by using high-water mark water-surface elevation values on the land surface and a digital elevation model. However, differences in elevation between the surveyed water-surface elevation values at HWM’s and the land-surface elevation from the digital elevation model data provided uncertainty in the inundation extent of the generated layers. Often times elevation differences of +/- 20 feet were noticed between the surveyed elevation from a HWM on the land surface and the digital elevation model land-surface elevation. Due to these elevation differences, we incorporated a second method of interpolating the water-surface layer. The recorded height above ground value from the surveyed HWM was added to the digital elevation model land-surface elevation at that point. This created a new water-surface elevation value to be used with the “Topo to Raster” interpolation method to create a second depth raster, "depth_dem". Both sets of inundation layers are provided.

This coverage contains land-cover information for all of Ohio and portions of Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York. This dataset was derived from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). NLCD raster grids were downloaded from the USGS EROS Data Center web server at http://landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.html, by state. These grids were then reprojected, mosaiced and clipped against a polygon coverage representing the study area. Grid cell resolution is approximately 30 meters or 1 arc-second.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public open space and voluntarily provided, private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastral Theme (http://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html). PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural, recreational or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The geodatabase maps and describes public open space and other protected areas. Most areas are public lands owned in fee; however, long-term easements, leases, and agreements or administrative designations documented in agency management plans may be included. The PAD-US database strives to be a complete “best available” inventory of protected areas (lands and waters) including data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The dataset is built in collaboration with several partners and data providers (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/stewards/). See Supplemental Information Section of this metadata record for more information on partnerships and links to major partner organizations. As this dataset is a compilation of many data sets; data completeness, accuracy, and scale may vary. Federal and state data are generally complete, while local government and private protected area coverage is about 50% complete, and depends on data management capacity in the state. For completeness estimates by state: http://www.protectedlands.net/partners. As the federal and state data are reasonably complete; focus is shifting to completing the inventory of local gov and voluntarily provided, private protected areas. The PAD-US geodatabase contains over twenty-five attributes and four feature classes to support data management, queries, web mapping services and analyses: Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Fee, Easements and Combined. The data contained in the MPA Feature class are provided directly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov ) tracking the National Marine Protected Areas System. The Easements feature class contains data provided directly from the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, http://conservationeasement.us ) The MPA and Easement feature classes contain some attributes unique to the sole source databases tracking them (e.g. Easement Holder Name from NCED, Protection Level from NOAA MPA Inventory). The "Combined" feature class integrates all fee, easement and MPA features as the best available national inventory of protected areas in the standard PAD-US framework. In addition to geographic boundaries, PAD-US describes the protection mechanism category (e.g. fee, easement, designation, other), owner and managing agency, designation type, unit name, area, public access and state name in a suite of standardized fields. An informative set of references (i.e. Aggregator Source, GIS Source, GIS Source Date) and "local" or source data fields provide a transparent link between standardized PAD-US fields and information from authoritative data sources. The areas in PAD-US are also assigned conservation measures that assess management intent to permanently protect biological diversity: the nationally relevant "GAP Status Code" and global "IUCN Category" standard. A wealth of attributes facilitates a wide variety of data analyses and creates a context for data to be used at local, regional, state, national and international scales. More information about specific updates and changes to this PAD-US version can be found in the Data Quality Information section of this metadata record as well as on the PAD-US website, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/history/.) Due to the completeness and complexity of these data, it is highly recommended to review the Supplemental Information Section of the metadata record as well as the Data Use Constraints, to better understand data partnerships as well as see tips and ideas of appropriate uses of the data and how to parse out the data that you are looking for. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/. To find more data resources as well as view example analysis performed using PAD-US data visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/resources/. The PAD-US dataset and data standard are compiled and maintained by the USGS Gap Analysis Program, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ . For more information about data standards and how the data are aggregated please review the “Standards and Methods Manual for PAD-US,” http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/standards/ .

Geospatial data about West Point, Virginia Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Corinth Mine Road cross streets in Terra Alta, WV.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Killarney Drive cross streets in Morgantown, WV.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Twin Cove Court cross streets in Harpers Ferry, WV.

This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

Geology was researched and compiled for use in studies of ecosystem health, environmental impact, soils, groundwater, land use, tectonics, crustal genesis, sedimentary provenance, and any others that could benefit from geographically referenced geological data.

The Washington DC Area geologic map database (DCDB) provides geologic map information of areas to the NW, W, and SW of Washington, DC to various professionals and private citizens who have uses for geologic data. Digital, geographically referenced, geologic data is more versatile than traditional hard copy maps, and facilitates the examination of relationships between numerous aspects of the geology and other types of data such as: land-use data, vegetation characteristics, surface water flow and chemistry, and various types of remotely sensed images. The DCDB was created by combining Arc/Info coverages, designing a Microsoft (MS) Access database, and populating this database. Proposed improvements to the DCDB include the addition of more geochemical, structural, and hydrologic data.

Data are provided in several common GIS formats and MS Access database files. The geologic data themes included are bedrock, surficial, faults and fold axes, neat line, structural data, and sinkholes; the base themes are political boundaries, roads, elevation contours, and hydrography.

Data were originally collected in UTM coordinates, zone 18, NAD 1927, and projected to geographic coordinates (Lat/Long), NAD 1983. The data base is accompanied by large format color maps, a readme.txt file, and a explanatory PDF pamphlet.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Willow Lane cross streets in Wheeling, WV.

A web map used to access tax parcel, boundary, ownership, acreage, survey, zoning and tax information. Errors and Omissions Do Exist.The information provided is for reference only and subject to independent verification. User assumes all responsibility for its use.https://www.fayette-co-oh.com/Fayette County ProfileFayette County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio. Its county seat is Washington Court House. Fayette County was formed on March 1, 1810 from portions of Highland County and Ross County. It was named after Marie-Joseph Motier, Marquis de La Fayette, a French general and politician who took the side of the Colonials during the American Revolutionary War and who played an important role in the French Revolution.Fayette County is a part of the Virginia Military survey, which was reserved in 1783, to be allotted to Virginia soldiers. This district includes the entire counties of Adams, Brown, Clermont, Clinton, Highland, Fayette, Madison and Union; and a portion of the counties of Scioto, Pike, Ross, Pickaway, Franklin, Delaware, Marion, Hardin, Logan, Champaign, Clarke, Greene, Warren and Hamilton.Fayette County was formed January 19, 1810 (took effect March 1st) from Ross and Highland counties. Beginning at the southwest corner of Pickaway, running north “with the line of said county to the corner of Madison; thence west with the line of said Madison county to the line of Greene county; thence south with the line of Greene county to the southeast corner thereof; thence east five miles; thence south to the line of Highland county; thence east with said line to Paint Creek; thence in a straight line to the beginning.” All the lower portion was taken from Highland and the upper from Ross.The first portion of land entered within the territory of what is now Fayette county, was a part of original surveys Nos. 243 and 772, lying partly in Clinton county. The first survey lying wholly within Fayette county was No. 463, in what is now Madison township, surveyed for Thomas Overton by John O’Bannon June 30, 1776.The original townships were Jefferson, Greene, Wayne, Madison, Paint and Union. Concord township was formed in April 1818, from Greene. Marion township was formed in June, 1840 from Madison. Perry township was formed June 4, 1845, from Wayne and Greene. Jasper township was formed from Jefferson and Concord December 2, 1845.Washington C.H. was laid out originally on a part of entry 757, which contained 1200 acres and belonged to Benjamin Temple, of Logan county, Kentucky, who donated 150 acres to Fayette county, on condition that it be used as the site of the county seat. The deed of conveyance was made December 1, 1810, by Thomas S. Hind, attorney for Temple, to Robert Stewart, who was appointed by the legislature as director for the town of Washington. The town was laid off some time between December 1, 1810, and February 26, 1811, the latter being the date of the record of the town plat.Bloomingburg (originally called New Lexington) was laid out in 1815, by Solomon Bowers, and originally contained 34 and ¾ acres. On March 4, 1816, Bowers laid out and added twenty more lots. The name of the town was later changed to Bloomingburg by act of the legislature. The town was incorporated by act of the legislature, February 5, 1847.Jeffersonville was laid out March 1, 1831, by Walter B. Write and Chipman Robinson, on 100 acres of land belonging to them, they started selling the lots at $5 each. The town incorporated March 17, 1838. The first house was erected by Robert Wyley.The first railroad, now the C. & M. V., was completed in 1852; the second, now the Detroit Southern, in 1875; the third, now the C.H. & D. in 1879; and the fourth, now the B. & O. S. W., in 1884.The first permanent settler (probably) was a Mr. Wolf who settled in what is now Wayne township, in about the year 1796. - Circa 1886 - Map of Fayette County, Ohio. Issued by the Fayette County Record.

1992 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) for the Baltimore MSA. The National Land Cover Dataset was compiled from Landsat satellite TM imagery (circa 1992) with a spatial resolution of 30 meters and supplemented by various ancillary data (where available). The analysis and interpretation of the satellite imagery was conducted using very large, sometimes multi-State image mosaics (i.e. up to 18 Landsat scenes). Using a relatively small number of aerial photographs for 'ground truth', the thematic interpretations were necessarily conducted from a spatially-broad perspective. Furthermore, the accuracy assessments (see below) correspond to 'federal regions' which are groupings of contiguous States. Thus, the reliability of the data is greatest at the State or multi-State level. The statistical accuracy of the data is known only for the region. Important Caution Advisory With this in mind, users are cautioned to carefully scrutinize the data to see if they are of sufficient reliability before attempting to use the dataset for larger-scale or local analyses. This evaluation must be made that the NLCD represents conditions in the early 1990s. The Maryland portion of the NLCD was created as part of land cover mapping activities for Federal Region III that includes the States of, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The NLCD classification contains 21 different land cover categories with a spatial resolution of 30 meters. The NLCD was produced as a cooperative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to produce a, land cover data layer for the conterminous U.S. using early 1990s Landsat thematic mapper (TM) data purchased by the Multi-resolution Characterization (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of federal agencies that produce or use land cover data. Partners include the USGS (National Mapping, Biological Resources, and Divisions), US EPA, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is part of a collection of 221 Baltimore Ecosystem Study metadata records that point to a geodatabase. The geodatabase is available online and is considerably large. Upon request, and under certain arrangements, it can be shipped on media, such as a usb hard drive. The geodatabase is roughly 51.4 Gb in size, consisting of 4,914 files in 160 folders. Although this metadata record and the others like it are not rich with attributes, it is nonetheless made available because the data that it represents could be indeed useful. This is part of a collection of 221 Baltimore Ecosystem Study metadata records that point to a geodatabase. The geodatabase is available online and is considerably large. Upon request, and under certain arrangements, it can be shipped on media, such as a usb hard drive. The geodatabase is roughly 51.4 Gb in size, consisting of 4,914 files in 160 folders. Although this metadata record and the others like it are not rich with attributes, it is nonetheless made available because the data that it represents could be indeed useful.