This dataset lists cities which consists of above 15,000 inhabitants. Each city is associated with its country and sub-country to reduce the number of ambiguities. Subcountry can be the name of a state (eg in the United Kingdom or the United States of America) or the major administrative section (eg "region" in "France").

All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median household incomes for various household sizes in State Line City, IN, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in median household income with the size of the family unit, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different household sizes, aiding in data analysis and decision-making.

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, State Line City did not include 4, 5, 6, or 7-person households. Across the different household sizes in State Line City the mean income is $64,968, and the standard deviation is $33,244. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 51.17%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $36,144. It then further increased to $101,336 for 3-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/state-line-city-in-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="State Line City, IN median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Household Sizes:

• 1-person households
• 2-person households
• 3-person households
• 4-person households
• 5-person households
• 6-person households
• 7-or-more-person households

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Size: This column showcases 7 household sizes ranging from 1-person households to 7-or-more-person households (As mentioned above).
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific household size.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for State Line City median household income. You can refer the same here

List of major cities in the world, the data is extracted from geonames, a very exhaustive list of worldwide toponyms. This datasete only list cities above 15,000 inhabitants. Each city is associated with its country and subcountry to reduce the number of ambiguities. Subcountry can be the name of a state (eg in United Kingdom or the United States of America) or the major administrative section (eg ‘‘region’’ in France’’). See admin1 field on geonames website for further info about subcountry.

TABLE III. Deaths in 122 U.S. cities – 2016. 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System — Each week, the vital statistics offices of 122 cities across the United States report the total number of death certificates processed and the number of those for which pneumonia or influenza was listed as the underlying or contributing cause of death by age group (Under 28 days, 28 days –1 year, 1-14 years, 15-24 years, 25-44 years, 45-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ≥ 85 years). FOOTNOTE: U: Unavailable. —: No reported cases. * Mortality data in this table are voluntarily reported from 122 cities in the United States, most of which have populations of 100,000 or more. A death is reported by the place of its occurrence and by the week that the death certificate was filed. Fetal deaths are not included. † Pneumonia and influenza. § Total includes unknown ages.

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are mostly as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). These data have been made publicly available from an authoritative source other than this Atlas and data should be obtained directly from that source for any re-use. See the original metadata from the authoritative source for more information about these data and use limitations. The authoritative source of these data can be found at the following location: US Census TIGER/Line 2022

This dataset contains information about the demographics of all US cities and census-designated places with a population greater or equal to 65,000. This data comes from the US Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey. This product uses the Census Bureau Data API but is not endorsed or certified by the Census Bureau.

The Counties dataset was updated on October 31, 2023 from the United States Census Bureau (USCB) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are mostly as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

This city boundary shapefile was extracted from Esri Data and Maps for ArcGIS 2014 - U.S. Populated Place Areas. This shapefile can be joined to 500 Cities city-level Data (GIS Friendly Format) in a geographic information system (GIS) to make city-level maps.

Tree City USA is a national program that recognizes municipal commitment to community forestry. In return for meeting program requirements, Tree City USA participants expect social, economic, and/or environmental benefits. Understanding the geographic distribution and socioeconomic characteristics of Tree City USA communities at the national scale can offer insights into the motivations or barriers to program participation, and provide context for community forestry research at finer scales. In this study, researchers assessed patterns in Tree City USA participation for all U.S. communities with more than 2,500 people according to geography, community population size, and socioeconomic characteristics, such as income, education, and race. Nationally, 23.5% of communities studied were Tree City USA participants, and this accounted for 53.9% of the total population in these communities. Tree City USA participation rates varied substantially by U.S. region, but in each region participation rates were higher in larger communities, and long-term participants tended to be larger communities than more recent enrollees. In logistic regression models, owner occupancy rates were significant negative predictors of Tree City USA participation, education and percent white population were positive predictors in many U.S. regions, and inconsistent patterns were observed for income and population age. The findings indicate that communities with smaller populations, lower education levels, and higher minority populations are underserved regionally by Tree City USA, and future efforts should identify and overcome barriers to participation in these types of communities. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Berland , A., D. Herrmann , and M. Hopton. National Assessment of Tree City USA Participation According to Geography andSocioeconomic Characteristics. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL, USA, 42(2): 120-130, (2016).

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1 cities in the Baltimore city, MD by Multi-Racial Asian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Multi-Racial Asian Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Baltimore city, MD by their Multi-Racial Asian population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Multi-Racial Asian Population: The Multi-Racial Asian population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Multi-Racial Asian. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Baltimore city Multi-Racial Asian Population: This tells us how much of the entire Baltimore city, MD Multi-Racial Asian population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

The 2020 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. A consolidated city is a unit of local government for which the functions of an incorporated place and its county or minor civil division (MCD) have merged. This action results in both the primary incorporated place and the county or MCD continuing to exist as legal entities, even though the county or MCD performs few or no governmental functions and has few or no elected officials. Where this occurs, and where one or more other incorporated places in the county or MCD continue to function as separate governments, even though they have been included in the consolidated government, the primary incorporated place is referred to as a consolidated city. The Census Bureau classifies the separately incorporated places within the consolidated city as place entities and creates a separate place (balance) record for the portion of the consolidated city not within any other place. The generalized boundaries of the consolidated cities in this file are based on those as of January 1, 2020, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

WARNING: This is a pre-release dataset and its fields names and data structures are subject to change. It should be considered pre-release until the end of March 2025. The schema changed in February 2025 - please see below. We will post a roadmap of upcoming changes, but service URLs and schema are now stable. For deployment status of new services in February 2025, see https://gis.data.ca.gov/pages/city-and-county-boundary-data-status. Additional roadmap and status links at the bottom of this metadata.This dataset is continuously updated as the source data from CDTFA is updated, as often as many times a month. If you require unchanging point-in-time data, export a copy for your own use rather than using the service directly in your applications.PurposeCity boundaries along with third party identifiers used to join in external data. Boundaries are from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). These boundaries are the best available statewide data source in that CDTFA receives changes in incorporation and boundary lines from the Board of Equalization, who receives them from local jurisdictions for tax purposes. Boundary accuracy is not guaranteed, and though CDTFA works to align boundaries based on historical records and local changes, errors will exist. If you require a legal assessment of boundary location, contact a licensed surveyor.This dataset joins in multiple attributes and identifiers from the US Census Bureau and Board on Geographic Names to facilitate adding additional third party data sources. In addition, we attach attributes of our own to ease and reduce common processing needs and questions. Finally, coastal buffers are separated into separate polygons, leaving the land-based portions of jurisdictions and coastal buffers in adjacent polygons. This feature layer is for public use.Related LayersThis dataset is part of a grouping of many datasets:Cities: Only the city boundaries and attributes, without any unincorporated areasWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal Buffers (this dataset)Counties: Full county boundaries and attributes, including all cities within as a single polygonWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCities and Full Counties: A merge of the other two layers, so polygons overlap within city boundaries. Some customers require this behavior, so we provide it as a separate service.With Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCity and County AbbreviationsUnincorporated Areas (Coming Soon)Census Designated PlacesCartographic CoastlinePolygonLine source (Coming Soon)Working with Coastal BuffersThe dataset you are currently viewing excludes the coastal buffers for cities and counties that have them in the source data from CDTFA. In the versions where they are included, they remain as a second polygon on cities or counties that have them, with all the same identifiers, and a value in the COASTAL field indicating if it"s an ocean or a bay buffer. If you wish to have a single polygon per jurisdiction that includes the coastal buffers, you can run a Dissolve on the version that has the coastal buffers on all the fields except OFFSHORE and AREA_SQMI to get a version with the correct identifiers.Point of ContactCalifornia Department of Technology, Office of Digital Services, odsdataservices@state.ca.govField and Abbreviation DefinitionsCDTFA_CITY: CDTFA incorporated city nameCDTFA_COUNTY: CDTFA county name. For counties, this will be the name of the polygon itself. For cities, it is the name of the county the city polygon is within.CDTFA_COPRI: county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering system. The boundary data originate with CDTFA's teams managing tax rate information, so this field is preserved and flows into this dataset.CENSUS_GEOID: numeric geographic identifiers from the US Census BureauCENSUS_PLACE_TYPE: City, County, or Town, stripped off the census name for identification purpose.GNIS_PLACE_NAME: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for area names published in the Geographic Name Information SystemGNIS_ID: The numeric identifier from the Board on Geographic Names that can be used to join these boundaries to other datasets utilizing this identifier.CDT_CITY_ABBR: Abbreviations of incorporated area names - originally derived from CalTrans Division of Local Assistance and now managed by CDT. Abbreviations are 4 characters. Not present in the county-specific layers.CDT_COUNTY_ABBR: Abbreviations of county names - originally derived from CalTrans Division of Local Assistance and now managed by CDT. Abbreviations are 3 characters.CDT_NAME_SHORT: The name of the jurisdiction (city or county) with the word "City" or "County" stripped off the end. Some changes may come to how we process this value to make it more consistent.AREA_SQMI: The area of the administrative unit (city or county) in square miles, calculated in EPSG 3310 California Teale Albers.OFFSHORE: Indicates if the polygon is a coastal buffer. Null for land polygons. Additional values include "ocean" and "bay".PRIMARY_DOMAIN: Currently empty/null for all records. Placeholder field for official URL of the city or countyCENSUS_POPULATION: Currently null for all records. In the future, it will include the most recent US Census population estimate for the jurisdiction.GlobalID: While all of the layers we provide in this dataset include a GlobalID field with unique values, we do not recommend you make any use of it. The GlobalID field exists to support offline sync, but is not persistent, so data keyed to it will be orphaned at our next update. Use one of the other persistent identifiers, such as GNIS_ID or GEOID instead.Boundary AccuracyCounty boundaries were originally derived from a 1:24,000 accuracy dataset, with improvements made in some places to boundary alignments based on research into historical records and boundary changes as CDTFA learns of them. City boundary data are derived from pre-GIS tax maps, digitized at BOE and CDTFA, with adjustments made directly in GIS for new annexations, detachments, and corrections. Boundary accuracy within the dataset varies. While CDTFA strives to correctly include or exclude parcels from jurisdictions for accurate tax assessment, this dataset does not guarantee that a parcel is placed in the correct jurisdiction. When a parcel is in the correct jurisdiction, this dataset cannot guarantee accurate placement of boundary lines within or between parcels or rights of way. This dataset also provides no information on parcel boundaries. For exact jurisdictional or parcel boundary locations, please consult the county assessor's office and a licensed surveyor.CDTFA's data is used as the best available source because BOE and CDTFA receive information about changes in jurisdictions which otherwise need to be collected independently by an agency or company to compile into usable map boundaries. CDTFA maintains the best available statewide boundary information.CDTFA's source data notes the following about accuracy:City boundary changes and county boundary line adjustments filed with the Board of Equalization per Government Code 54900. This GIS layer contains the boundaries of the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the state of California. The initial dataset was created in March of 2015 and was based on the State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates. The boundaries are continuously being revised to align with aerial imagery when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations. Boundary ProcessingThese data make a structural change from the source data. While the full boundaries provided by CDTFA include coastal buffers of varying sizes, many users need boundaries to end at the shoreline of the ocean or a bay. As a result, after examining existing city and county boundary layers, these datasets provide a coastline cut generally along the ocean facing coastline. For county boundaries in northern California, the cut runs near the Golden Gate Bridge, while for cities, we cut along the bay shoreline and into the edge of the Delta at the boundaries of Solano, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties.In the services linked above, the versions that include the coastal buffers contain them as a second (or third) polygon for the city or county, with the value in the COASTAL field set to whether it"s a bay or ocean polygon. These can be processed back into a single polygon by dissolving on all the fields you wish to keep, since the attributes, other than the COASTAL field and geometry attributes (like areas) remain the same between the polygons for this purpose.SliversIn cases where a city or county"s boundary ends near a coastline, our coastline data may cross back and forth many times while roughly paralleling the jurisdiction"s boundary, resulting in many polygon slivers. We post-process the data to remove these slivers using a city/county boundary priority algorithm. That is, when the data run parallel to each other, we discard the coastline cut and keep the CDTFA-provided boundary, even if it extends into the ocean a small amount. This processing supports consistent boundaries for Fort Bragg, Point Arena, San

WARNING: This is a pre-release dataset and its fields names and data structures are subject to change. It should be considered pre-release until the end of 2024. Expected changes:Metadata is missing or incomplete for some layers at this time and will be continuously improved.We expect to update this layer roughly in line with CDTFA at some point, but will increase the update cadence over time as we are able to automate the final pieces of the process.This dataset is continuously updated as the source data from CDTFA is updated, as often as many times a month. If you require unchanging point-in-time data, export a copy for your own use rather than using the service directly in your applications.PurposeCounty and incorporated place (city) boundaries along with third party identifiers used to join in external data. Boundaries are from the authoritative source the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), altered to show the counties as one polygon. This layer displays the city polygons on top of the County polygons so the area isn"t interrupted. The GEOID attribute information is added from the US Census. GEOID is based on merged State and County FIPS codes for the Counties. Abbreviations for Counties and Cities were added from Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) data. Place Type was populated with information extracted from the Census. Names and IDs from the US Board on Geographic Names (BGN), the authoritative source of place names as published in the Geographic Name Information System (GNIS), are attached as well. Finally, coastal buffers are removed, leaving the land-based portions of jurisdictions. This feature layer is for public use.Related LayersThis dataset is part of a grouping of many datasets:Cities: Only the city boundaries and attributes, without any unincorporated areasWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCounties: Full county boundaries and attributes, including all cities within as a single polygonWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCities and Full Counties: A merge of the other two layers, so polygons overlap within city boundaries. Some customers require this behavior, so we provide it as a separate service.With Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal Buffers (this dataset)Place AbbreviationsUnincorporated Areas (Coming Soon)Census Designated Places (Coming Soon)Cartographic CoastlinePolygonLine source (Coming Soon)Working with Coastal BuffersThe dataset you are currently viewing includes the coastal buffers for cities and counties that have them in the authoritative source data from CDTFA. In the versions where they are included, they remain as a second polygon on cities or counties that have them, with all the same identifiers, and a value in the COASTAL field indicating if it"s an ocean or a bay buffer. If you wish to have a single polygon per jurisdiction that includes the coastal buffers, you can run a Dissolve on the version that has the coastal buffers on all the fields except COASTAL, Area_SqMi, Shape_Area, and Shape_Length to get a version with the correct identifiers.Point of ContactCalifornia Department of Technology, Office of Digital Services, odsdataservices@state.ca.govField and Abbreviation DefinitionsCOPRI: county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering systemPlace Name: CDTFA incorporated (city) or county nameCounty: CDTFA county name. For counties, this will be the name of the polygon itself. For cities, it is the name of the county the city polygon is within.Legal Place Name: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for area names published in the Geographic Name Information SystemGNIS_ID: The numeric identifier from the Board on Geographic Names that can be used to join these boundaries to other datasets utilizing this identifier.GEOID: numeric geographic identifiers from the US Census Bureau Place Type: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for boundary type published in the Geographic Name Information SystemPlace Abbr: CalTrans Division of Local Assistance abbreviations of incorporated area namesCNTY Abbr: CalTrans Division of Local Assistance abbreviations of county namesArea_SqMi: The area of the administrative unit (city or county) in square miles, calculated in EPSG 3310 California Teale Albers.COASTAL: Indicates if the polygon is a coastal buffer. Null for land polygons. Additional values include "ocean" and "bay".GlobalID: While all of the layers we provide in this dataset include a GlobalID field with unique values, we do not recommend you make any use of it. The GlobalID field exists to support offline sync, but is not persistent, so data keyed to it will be orphaned at our next update. Use one of the other persistent identifiers, such as GNIS_ID or GEOID instead.AccuracyCDTFA"s source data notes the following about accuracy:City boundary changes and county boundary line adjustments filed with the Board of Equalization per Government Code 54900. This GIS layer contains the boundaries of the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the state of California. The initial dataset was created in March of 2015 and was based on the State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates. The boundaries are continuously being revised to align with aerial imagery when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations. COUNTY = county name; CITY = city name or unincorporated territory; COPRI = county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the California State Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering system (for the purpose of this map, unincorporated areas are assigned 000 to indicate that the area is not within a city).Boundary ProcessingThese data make a structural change from the source data. While the full boundaries provided by CDTFA include coastal buffers of varying sizes, many users need boundaries to end at the shoreline of the ocean or a bay. As a result, after examining existing city and county boundary layers, these datasets provide a coastline cut generally along the ocean facing coastline. For county boundaries in northern California, the cut runs near the Golden Gate Bridge, while for cities, we cut along the bay shoreline and into the edge of the Delta at the boundaries of Solano, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties.In the services linked above, the versions that include the coastal buffers contain them as a second (or third) polygon for the city or county, with the value in the COASTAL field set to whether it"s a bay or ocean polygon. These can be processed back into a single polygon by dissolving on all the fields you wish to keep, since the attributes, other than the COASTAL field and geometry attributes (like areas) remain the same between the polygons for this purpose.SliversIn cases where a city or county"s boundary ends near a coastline, our coastline data may cross back and forth many times while roughly paralleling the jurisdiction"s boundary, resulting in many polygon slivers. We post-process the data to remove these slivers using a city/county boundary priority algorithm. That is, when the data run parallel to each other, we discard the coastline cut and keep the CDTFA-provided boundary, even if it extends into the ocean a small amount. This processing supports consistent boundaries for Fort Bragg, Point Arena, San Francisco, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, and Capitola, in addition to others. More information on this algorithm will be provided soon.Coastline CaveatsSome cities have buffers extending into water bodies that we do not cut at the shoreline. These include South Lake Tahoe and Folsom, which extend into neighboring lakes, and San Diego and surrounding cities that extend into San Diego Bay, which our shoreline encloses. If you have feedback on the exclusion of these items, or others, from the shoreline cuts, please reach out using the contact information above.Offline UseThis service is fully enabled for sync and export using Esri Field Maps or other similar tools. Importantly, the GlobalID field exists only to support that use case and should not be used for any other purpose (see note in field descriptions).Updates and Date of ProcessingConcurrent with CDTFA updates, approximately every two weeks, Last Processed: 12/17/2024 by Nick Santos using code path at https://github.com/CDT-ODS-DevSecOps/cdt-ods-gis-city-county/ at commit 0bf269d24464c14c9cf4f7dea876aa562984db63. It incorporates updates from CDTFA as of 12/12/2024. Future updates will include improvements to metadata and update frequency.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 5 cities in the Major County, OK by Some Other Race (SOR) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Other Race Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Major County, OK by their Some Other Race (SOR) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Other Race Population: The Other Race population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Other Race. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Major County Other Race Population: This tells us how much of the entire Major County, OK Other Race population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

This dataset contains FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard), GNIS (Geographic Name Information System common) codes for identifying Washington state counties cities and towns. This is an official list from OFM (Office of Financial Management).

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 5 cities in the Major County, OK by Non-Hispanic White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Non-Hispanic White Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Major County, OK by their Non-Hispanic White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Non-Hispanic White Population: The Non-Hispanic White population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Non-Hispanic White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Major County Non-Hispanic White Population: This tells us how much of the entire Major County, OK Non-Hispanic White population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

FEMA Framework Basemap datasets comprises six of the seven FGDC themes of geospatial data that are used by most GIS applications (Note: the seventh framework theme, orthographic imagery, is packaged in a separate NFIP Metadata Profile): cadastral, geodetic control, governmental unit, transportation, general structures, hydrography (water area & lines. These data include an encoding of the geographic extent of the features and a minimal number of attributes needed to identify and describe the features. (Source: Circular A16, p. 13)

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 241 cities in the Oregon by Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Black Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Oregon by their Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Black Population: The Black population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Oregon Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire Oregon Black population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.