The Unpublished Digital Geologic-GIS Map of Parts of Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve (Sangre de Cristo Mountains and part of the Dunes), Colorado is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables in a 10.1 file geodatabase (gsam_geology.gdb), a 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (gsam_geology.mxd), individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files for each GIS data layer, an ancillary map information document (grsa_geology.pdf) which contains source map unit descriptions, as well as other source map text, figures and tables, metadata in FGDC text (.txt) and FAQ (.pdf) formats, and a GIS readme file (grsa_geology_gis_readme.pdf). Please read the grsa_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the file geodatabase and other map files. To request GIS data in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format contact Stephanie O'Meara (stephanie.omeara@colostate.edu; see contact information below). The data is also available as a 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. Google Earth software is available for free at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (gsam_geology_metadata.txt or gsam_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 feet of their actual _location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the _location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm). The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone 13N, however, for the KML/KMZ format the data is projected upon export to WGS84 Geographic, the native coordinate system used by Google Earth. The data is within the area of interest of Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve.

Important Note: This item is in mature support as of February 2023 and will be retired in December 2025. A new version of this item is available for your use. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to use the new version. This layer displays change in pixels of the Sentinel-2 10m Land Use/Land Cover product developed by Esri, Impact Observatory, and Microsoft. Available years to compare with 2021 are 2018, 2019 and 2020. By default, the layer shows all comparisons together, in effect showing what changed 2018-2021. But the layer may be changed to show one of three specific pairs of years, 2018-2021, 2019-2021, or 2020-2021.Showing just one pair of years in ArcGIS Online Map ViewerTo show just one pair of years in ArcGIS Online Map viewer, create a filter. 1. Click the filter button. 2. Next, click add expression. 3. In the expression dialogue, specify a pair of years with the ProductName attribute. Use the following example in your expression dialogue to show only places that changed between 2020 and 2021:ProductNameis2020-2021By default, places that do not change appear as a transparent symbol in ArcGIS Pro. But in ArcGIS Online Map Viewer, a transparent symbol may need to be set for these places after a filter is chosen. To do this:4. Click the styles button. 5. Under unique values click style options. 6. Click the symbol next to No Change at the bottom of the legend. 7. Click the slider next to "enable fill" to turn the symbol off.Showing just one pair of years in ArcGIS ProTo show just one pair of years in ArcGIS Pro, choose one of the layer's processing templates to single out a particular pair of years. The processing template applies a definition query that works in ArcGIS Pro. 1. To choose a processing template, right click the layer in the table of contents for ArcGIS Pro and choose properties. 2. In the dialogue that comes up, choose the tab that says processing templates. 3. On the right where it says processing template, choose the pair of years you would like to display. The processing template will stay applied for any analysis you may want to perform as well.How the change layer was created, combining LULC classes from two yearsImpact Observatory, Esri, and Microsoft used artificial intelligence to classify the world in 10 Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) classes for the years 2017-2021. Mosaics serve the following sets of change rasters in a single global layer: Change between 2018 and 2021Change between 2019 and 2021Change between 2020 and 2021To make this change layer, Esri used an arithmetic operation combining the cells from a source year and 2021 to make a change index value. ((from year * 16) + to year) In the example of the change between 2020 and 2021, the from year (2020) was multiplied by 16, then added to the to year (2021). Then the combined number is served as an index in an 8 bit unsigned mosaic with an attribute table which describes what changed or did not change in that timeframe. Variable mapped: Change in land cover between 2018, 2019, or 2020 and 2021 Data Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)Mosaic Projection: WGS84Extent: GlobalSource imagery: Sentinel-2Cell Size: 10m (0.00008983152098239751 degrees)Type: ThematicSource: Esri Inc.Publication date: January 2022What can you do with this layer?Global LULC maps provide information on conservation planning, food security, and hydrologic modeling, among other things. This dataset can be used to visualize land cover anywhere on Earth. This layer can also be used in analyses that require land cover input. For example, the Zonal Statistics tools allow a user to understand the composition of a specified area by reporting the total estimates for each of the classes. Land Cover processingThis map was produced by a deep learning model trained using over 5 billion hand-labeled Sentinel-2 pixels, sampled from over 20,000 sites distributed across all major biomes of the world. The underlying deep learning model uses 6 bands of Sentinel-2 surface reflectance data: visible blue, green, red, near infrared, and two shortwave infrared bands. To create the final map, the model is run on multiple dates of imagery throughout the year, and the outputs are composited into a final representative map. Processing platformSentinel-2 L2A/B data was accessed via Microsoft’s Planetary Computer and scaled using Microsoft Azure Batch.Class definitions1. WaterAreas where water was predominantly present throughout the year; may not cover areas with sporadic or ephemeral water; contains little to no sparse vegetation, no rock outcrop nor built up features like docks; examples: rivers, ponds, lakes, oceans, flooded salt plains.2. TreesAny significant clustering of tall (~15-m or higher) dense vegetation, typically with a closed or dense canopy; examples: wooded vegetation,
clusters of dense tall vegetation within savannas, plantations, swamp or mangroves (dense/tall vegetation with ephemeral water or canopy too thick to detect water underneath).4. Flooded vegetationAreas of any type of vegetation with obvious intermixing of water throughout a majority of the year; seasonally flooded area that is a mix of grass/shrub/trees/bare ground; examples: flooded mangroves, emergent vegetation, rice paddies and other heavily irrigated and inundated agriculture.5. CropsHuman planted/plotted cereals, grasses, and crops not at tree height; examples: corn, wheat, soy, fallow plots of structured land.7. Built AreaHuman made structures; major road and rail networks; large homogenous impervious surfaces including parking structures, office buildings and residential housing; examples: houses, dense villages / towns / cities, paved roads, asphalt.8. Bare groundAreas of rock or soil with very sparse to no vegetation for the entire year; large areas of sand and deserts with no to little vegetation; examples: exposed rock or soil, desert and sand dunes, dry salt flats/pans, dried lake beds, mines.9. Snow/IceLarge homogenous areas of permanent snow or ice, typically only in mountain areas or highest latitudes; examples: glaciers, permanent snowpack, snow fields. 10. CloudsNo land cover information due to persistent cloud cover.11. Rangeland Open areas covered in homogenous grasses with little to no taller vegetation; wild cereals and grasses with no obvious human plotting (i.e., not a plotted field); examples: natural meadows and fields with sparse to no tree cover, open savanna with few to no trees, parks/golf courses/lawns, pastures. Mix of small clusters of plants or single plants dispersed on a landscape that shows exposed soil or rock; scrub-filled clearings within dense forests that are clearly not taller than trees; examples: moderate to sparse cover of bushes, shrubs and tufts of grass, savannas with very sparse grasses, trees or other plants.CitationKarra, Kontgis, et al. “Global land use/land cover with Sentinel-2 and deep learning.” IGARSS 2021-2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE, 2021.AcknowledgementsTraining data for this project makes use of the National Geographic Society Dynamic World training dataset, produced for the Dynamic World Project by National Geographic Society in partnership with Google and the World Resources Institute.For questions please email environment@esri.com

This dataset may be a mix of two years and is updated as the data is released for each county. For example, one county may have data from 2014 while a neighboring county may have had a more recent release of 2016 data. For specific years, please check the service that specifies the year, i.e. California Important Farmland: 2016.Established in 1982, Government Code Section 65570 mandates FMMP to biennially report on the conversion of farmland and grazing land, and to provide maps and data to local government and the public.The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) provides data to decision makers for use in planning for the present and future use of California's agricultural land resources. The data is a current inventory of agricultural resources. This data is for general planning purposes and has a minimum mapping unit of ten acres.

Note: This is a large dataset. To download, go to ArcGIS Open Data Set and click the download button, and under additional resources select the shapefile or geodatabase option. America's private forests provide a vast array of public goods and services, including abundant, clean surface water. Forest loss and development can affect water quality and quantity when forests are removed and impervious surfaces, such as paved roads, spread across the landscape. We rank watersheds across the conterminous United States according to the contributions of private forest land to surface drinking water and by threats to surface water from increased housing density. Private forest land contributions to drinking water are greatest in the East but are also important in Western watersheds. Development pressures on these contributions are concentrated in the Eastern United States but are also found in the North-Central region, parts of the West and Southwest, and the Pacific Northwest; nationwide, more than 55 million acres of rural private forest land are projected to experience a substantial increase in housing density from 2000 to 2030. Planners, communities, and private landowners can use a range of strategies to maintain freshwater ecosystems, including designing housing and roads to minimize impacts on water quality, managing home sites to protect water resources, and using payment schemes and management partnerships to invest in forest stewardship on public and private lands.This data is based on the digital hydrologic unit boundary layer to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the continental United States. To focus this analysis on watersheds with private forests, only watersheds with at least 10% forested land and more than 50 acres of private forest were analyzed. All other watersheds were labeled ?Insufficient private forest for this analysis"and coded -99999 in the data table. This dataset updates forest and development statistics reported in the the 2011 Forests to Faucet analysis using 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States, Grid Values=41,42,43,95. and Theobald, Dr. David M. 10 March 2008. bhc2000 and bhc2030 (Housing density for the coterminous US in 2000 and 2030, respectively.) Field Descriptions:HUC_12: Twelve Digit Hydrologic Unit Code: This field provides a unique 12-digit code for each subwatershed.HU_12_DS: Sixth Level Downstream Hydrologic Unit Code: This field was populated with the 12-digit code of the 6th level hydrologic unit that is receiving the majority of the flow from the subwatershed.IMP1: Index of surface drinking water importance (Appendix Map). This field is from the 2011 Forests to Faucet analysis and has not been updated for this analysis.HDCHG_AC: Acres of housing density change on private forest in the subwatershed. HDCHG_PER: Percent of the watershed to experience housing density change on private forest. IMP_HD_PFOR: Index Private Forest importance to Surface Drinking Water with Development Pressure - identifies private forested areas important for surface drinking water that are likely to be affected by future increases in housing density, Ptle_IMP_HD: Private Forest importance to Surface Drinking Water with Development Pressure (Figure 7), percentile. Ptle_HDCHG: Percentage of each subwatershed to Experience an increase in House Density in Private Forest (Figure 6), percentile. FOR_AC: Acres forest (2006) in the subwatershed. PFOR_AC: Acres private forest (2006) in the subwatershed. PFOR_PER: Percent of the subwatershed that is private forest. HU12_AC: Acreage of the subwatershedFOR_PER: Percent of the subwatershed that is forest. PFOR_IMP: Index of Private Forest Importance to Surface Drinking Water. .Ptle_PFIMP: Private forest importance to surface drinking water(Figure 4), percentile. TOP100: Top 100 subwatersheds. 50 from the East, 50 from the west (using the Mississippi River as the divide.) Metadata

The State Lands Commission has prepared the Significant Lands Inventory (report) for the California Legislature as a general identification and classification of those unconveyed State school lands and tide and submerged lands which possess significant environmental values. The publication incorporates evaluated and pertinent comments received on the initial draft report which was circulated statewide in February 1975.The absence of a particular digitized waterway in the dataset does not mean that the State does not claim ownership of that parcel or waterway, or that such specific parcel or waterway has no significant environmental values. This dataset is not intended to establish ownership, only to identify those parcels which possess significant environmental values. Staff was unable to physically inventory all of the considered lands; instead, the advice and participation of those with known enviornmental expertise was utilized as additional to staff survey.Tide and submerged lands are digitized in the WaterBody and WaterLine feature classes; WaterLines for coastal areas, WaterBody for inland areas. Tide and submerged lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission are those sovereign lands received from the Federal Government by virtue of California's admission to the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Such lands, and State interest therein, are generally the lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean (seaward to a three-mile limit); tidal bays, sloughs, estuaries; and, navigable lakes and streams within the State.School Lands are digitized in the SchoolLand feature class. State school lands under the jurisdiction of the Commission are largely composed of the 16th and 36th sections of each township. The Federal Government transferred these lands to the State in 1853, in order to establish a financial foundation for a public school system. In cases where the 16th and 36th sections were mineral in character, incomplete as to acreage total, or already claimed or granted by the Federal Government, the State was permitted to select other lands "in lieu" of the specific sections.The public trust of commerce, navigation and fisheries which the State retains on patented sovereign lands should also be considered included in this inventory. Wherever a waterway, or body of water, is listed or mapped, the common trust state interest in patented sovereign lands, if any, is also included.The State Lands Commission emphasized when it adopted this report at its December 1, 1975 meeting that all tide and submerged lands are significant by the nature of their public ownership. Only because of the methodology used for this report are all of these waterways not specifically listed in this inventory.It is the intent of the State Lands Commission that the Significant Lands Inventory be periodically updated. This dataset should be considered informational, to assist the Legislature, the Commission, and the public in considering the environmental aspects of a proposed project and the significant values to be protected therein.

This database and mapping tool was produced to allow the identification of sites important to this incredibly diverse range of grassland fungal species for which Scotland is important on a global scale. Promotion of this project could lead to a great amount of these vulnerable sites being managed for their waxcaps, leading directly to the conservation of biodiversity, including several species on the Scottish Biodiversity List.Included layers:Heatmap of grassland fungi to the 10km level. The fewest species per square is represented by the lightest colour and the highest species per square represented by darkest colour. ADVICE: This layer is ideal for giving an overview of records in the area, but it doesn’t mean the fungi are throughout the area, or that the whole area is unimproved grassland.Heatmap of grassland fungi to the 1km level. The fewest species per square is represented by the lightest colour and the highest species per square represented by darkest colour. ADVICE: 1km grid square layer may provide a false picture and a blank square does not necessarily mean that no grassland fungi are there. Accurate georeferencing of biological records before the age of GPS and specialist phone apps was rare with many blocks of records being given the same centroid grid reference. Also, it would be common for many recorders to record the first find of a species on a site and none thereafter. THE 10KM SQUARE SHOULD BE LOOKED AT ALONGSIDE THIS LAYER.Point layer showing the Waxcap Sites. Sites are based centroid grid references for a spread of records in the area. The sites do not have clear boundaries, and so some form of local habitat knowledge is needed to set actual site boundaries within the real-world boundaries of unimproved grassland.• RED: Any site passing any of the SSSI thresholds• AMBER: Any site not passing any of the SSSI thresholds but with more than 11 species of Hygrocybe s.l. or with more than 4 IUCN species or with more than 4 indicator species.• GREEN: Any other site that has records of grassland fungi.Complete metadata on spatialdata.gov.scot.Data was collected from data holders from January to July 2023This database uses SSSI lists from 2018 JNCC guidelinesThis database uses a 2013 Bolete Fungi Red ListTaxonomy choices are correct in 2023See report for full referencesThis database has collated records of grassland species from the various fungus record holding institutions, ‘cleaned’ them, classified ‘sites’, and then rates sites and grid squares their mycological diversity using both the SSSI guidelines and the CHEGD grassland fungi rating system to allow judgements on their richness. There is also data on other fungal features such as phenology, and the presence of Red Listed species. With the information in this database, sites that qualify for fungal SSSI designation can be identified, and tools such as interactive maps made to allow land users to recognise sites of importance.The database of information and the GIS layers were created by the contractor David Mitchel. This contractor has also made Grassland fungi databases for statutory nature organisations in Ireland, N. Ireland, Wales, and England, and the databases are intercompatible.The data was collected from a variety of recording groups, individuals and biological record centres. These sources can be found in the Research Report RR1372

Overview

This dataset contains all DOMI Street Closure Permit data in the Computronix (CX) system from the date of its adoption (in May 2020) until the present. The data in each record can be used to determine when street closures are occurring, who is requesting these closures, why the closure is being requested, and for mapping the closures themselves. It is updated hourly (as of March 2024).

Preprocessing/Formatting

It is important to distinguish between a permit, a permit's street closure(s), and the roadway segments that are referenced to that closure(s).

• The CX system identifies a street in segments of roadway. (As an example, the CX system could divide Maple Street into multiple segments.)

• A single street closure may span multiple segments of a street.

• The street closure permit refers to all the component line segments.

• A permit may have multiple streets which are closed. Street closure permits often reference many segments of roadway.

The roadway_id field is a unique GIS line segment representing the aforementioned segments of road. The roadway_id values are assigned internally by the CX system and are unlikely to be known by the permit applicant. A section of roadway may have multiple permits issued over its lifespan. Therefore, a given roadway_id value may appear in multiple permits.

The field closure_id represents a unique ID for each closure, and permit_id uniquely identifies each permit. This is in contrast to the aforementioned roadway_id field which, again, is a unique ID only for the roadway segments.

City teams that use this data requested that each segment of each street closure permit be represented as a unique row in the dataset. Thus, a street closure permit that refers to three segments of roadway would be represented as three rows in the table. Aside from the roadway_id field, most other data from that permit pertains equally to those three rows. Thus, the values in most fields of the three records are identical.

Each row has the fields segment_num and total_segments which detail the relationship of each record, and its corresponding permit, according to street segment. The above example produced three records for a single permit. In this case, total_segments would equal 3 for each record. Each of those records would have a unique value between 1 and 3.

The geometry field consists of string values of lat/long coordinates, which can be used to map the street segments.

All string text (most fields) were converted to UPPERCASE data. Most of the data are manually entered and often contain non-uniform formatting. While several solutions for cleaning the data exist, text were transformed to UPPERCASE to provide some degree of regularization. Beyond that, it is recommended that the user carefully think through cleaning any unstructured data, as there are many nuances to consider. Future improvements to this ETL pipeline may approach this problem with a more sophisticated technique.

Known Uses

These data are used by DOMI to track the status of street closures (and associated permits).

Further Documentation and Resources

An archived dataset containing historical street closure records (from before May of 2020) for the City of Pittsburgh may be found here: https://data.wprdc.org/dataset/right-of-way-permits

These are the main layers that were used in the mapping and analysis for the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 26, 2014, and certified by the California Coastal Commission on October 10, 2014. Below are some links to important documents and web mapping applications, as well as a link to the actual GIS data:

Plan Website – This has links to the actual plan, maps, and a link to our online web mapping application known as SMMLCP-NET. Click here for website. Online Web Mapping Application – This is the online web mapping application that shows all the layers associated with the plan. These are the same layers that are available for download below. Click here for the web mapping application. GIS Layers – This is a link to the GIS layers in the form of an ArcGIS Map Package, click here (LINK TO FOLLOW SOON) for ArcGIS Map Package (version 10.3). Also, included are layers in shapefile format. Those are included below.

Below is a list of the GIS Layers provided (shapefile format):

Recreation (Zipped - 5 MB - click here)

Coastal Zone Campground Trails (2012 National Park Service) Backbone Trail Class III Bike Route – Existing Class III Bike Route – Proposed

Scenic Resources (Zipped - 3 MB - click here)

Significant Ridgeline State-Designated Scenic Highway State-Designated Scenic Highway 200-foot buffer Scenic Route Scenic Route 200-foot buffer Scenic Element

Biological Resources (Zipped - 45 MB - click here)

National Hydrography Dataset – Streams H2 Habitat (High Scrutiny) H1 Habitat H1 Habitat 100-foot buffer H1 Habitat Quiet Zone H2 Habitat H3 Habitat

Hazards (Zipped - 8 MB - click here)

FEMA Flood Zone (100-year flood plain) Liquefaction Zone (Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential) Landslide Area (Earthquake-Induced Landslide Potential) Fire Hazard and Responsibility Area

Zoning and Land Use (Zipped - 13 MB - click here)

Malibu LCP – LUP (1986) Malibu LCP – Zoning (1986) Land Use Policy Zoning

Other Layers (Zipped - 38 MB - click here)

Coastal Commission Appeal Jurisdiction Community Names Santa Monica Mountains (SMM) Coastal Zone Boundary Pepperdine University Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Rural Village

Contact the L.A. County Dept. of Regional Planning's GIS Section if you have questions. Send to our email.

Notice: this is not the latest Heat Island Severity image service. For 2023 data, visit https://tpl.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=db5bdb0f0c8c4b85b8270ec67448a0b6. This layer contains the relative heat severity for every pixel for every city in the United States. This 30-meter raster was derived from Landsat 8 imagery band 10 (ground-level thermal sensor) from the summers of 2018 and 2019.Federal statistics over a 30-year period show extreme heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States. Extreme heat exacerbated by urban heat islands can lead to increased respiratory difficulties, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. These heat impacts significantly affect the most vulnerable—children, the elderly, and those with preexisting conditions.The purpose of this layer is to show where certain areas of cities are hotter than the average temperature for that same city as a whole. Severity is measured on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a relatively mild heat area (slightly above the mean for the city), and 5 being a severe heat area (significantly above the mean for the city). The absolute heat above mean values are classified into these 5 classes using the Jenks Natural Breaks classification method, which seeks to reduce the variance within classes and maximize the variance between classes. Knowing where areas of high heat are located can help a city government plan for mitigation strategies.This dataset represents a snapshot in time. It will be updated yearly, but is static between updates. It does not take into account changes in heat during a single day, for example, from building shadows moving. The thermal readings detected by the Landsat 8 sensor are surface-level, whether that surface is the ground or the top of a building. Although there is strong correlation between surface temperature and air temperature, they are not the same. We believe that this is useful at the national level, and for cities that don’t have the ability to conduct their own hyper local temperature survey. Where local data is available, it may be more accurate than this dataset. Dataset SummaryThis dataset was developed using proprietary Python code developed at The Trust for Public Land, running on the Descartes Labs platform through the Descartes Labs API for Python. The Descartes Labs platform allows for extremely fast retrieval and processing of imagery, which makes it possible to produce heat island data for all cities in the United States in a relatively short amount of time.What can you do with this layer?This layer has query, identify, and export image services available. Since it is served as an image service, it is not necessary to download the data; the service itself is data that can be used directly in any Esri geoprocessing tool that accepts raster data as input.Using the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Image ServicesThe data is made available as an image service. There is a processing template applied that supplies the yellow-to-red or blue-to-red color ramp, but once this processing template is removed (you can do this in ArcGIS Pro or ArcGIS Desktop, or in QGIS), the actual data values come through the service and can be used directly in a geoprocessing tool (for example, to extract an area of interest). Following are instructions for doing this in Pro.In ArcGIS Pro, in a Map view, in the Catalog window, click on Portal. In the Portal window, click on the far-right icon representing Living Atlas. Search on the acronyms “tpl” and “uhi”. The results returned will be the UHI image services. Right click on a result and select “Add to current map” from the context menu. When the image service is added to the map, right-click on it in the map view, and select Properties. In the Properties window, select Processing Templates. On the drop-down menu at the top of the window, the default Processing Template is either a yellow-to-red ramp or a blue-to-red ramp. Click the drop-down, and select “None”, then “OK”. Now you will have the actual pixel values displayed in the map, and available to any geoprocessing tool that takes a raster as input. Below is a screenshot of ArcGIS Pro with a UHI image service loaded, color ramp removed, and symbology changed back to a yellow-to-red ramp (a classified renderer can also be used): Other Sources of Heat Island InformationPlease see these websites for valuable information on heat islands and to learn about exciting new heat island research being led by scientists across the country:EPA’s Heat Island Resource CenterDr. Ladd Keith, University of Arizona Dr. Ben McMahan, University of Arizona Dr. Jeremy Hoffman, Science Museum of Virginia Dr. Hunter Jones, NOAADaphne Lundi, Senior Policy Advisor, NYC Mayor's Office of Recovery and ResiliencyDisclaimer/FeedbackWith nearly 14,000 cities represented, checking each city's heat island raster for quality assurance would be prohibitively time-consuming, so The Trust for Public Land checked a statistically significant sample size for data quality. The sample passed all quality checks, with about 98.5% of the output cities error-free, but there could be instances where the user finds errors in the data. These errors will most likely take the form of a line of discontinuity where there is no city boundary; this type of error is caused by large temperature differences in two adjacent Landsat scenes, so the discontinuity occurs along scene boundaries (see figure below). The Trust for Public Land would appreciate feedback on these errors so that version 2 of the national UHI dataset can be improved. Contact Dale.Watt@tpl.org with feedback.

Statistical analyses and maps representing mean, high, and low water-level conditions in the surface water and groundwater of Miami-Dade County were made by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, to help inform decisions necessary for urban planning and development. Sixteen maps were created that show contours of (1) the mean of daily water levels at each site during October and May for the 2000-2009 water years; (2) the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the daily water levels at each site during October and May and for all months during 2000-2009; and (3) the differences between mean October and May water levels, as well as the differences in the percentiles of water levels for all months, between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. The 80th, 90th, and 96th percentiles of the annual maximums of daily groundwater levels during 1974-2009 (a 35-year period) were computed to provide an indication of unusually high groundwater-level conditions. These maps and statistics provide a generalized understanding of the variations of water levels in the aquifer, rather than a survey of concurrent water levels. Water-level measurements from 473 sites in Miami-Dade County and surrounding counties were analyzed to generate statistical analyses. The monitored water levels included surface-water levels in canals and wetland areas and groundwater levels in the Biscayne aquifer. Maps were created by importing site coordinates, summary water-level statistics, and completeness of record statistics into a geographic information system, and by interpolating between water levels at monitoring sites in the canals and water levels along the coastline. Raster surfaces were created from these data by using the triangular irregular network interpolation method. The raster surfaces were contoured by using geographic information system software. These contours were imprecise in some areas because the software could not fully evaluate the hydrology given available information; therefore, contours were manually modified where necessary. The ability to evaluate differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 is limited in some areas because most of the monitoring sites did not have 80 percent complete records for one or both of these periods. The quality of the analyses was limited by (1) deficiencies in spatial coverage; (2) the combination of pre- and post-construction water levels in areas where canals, levees, retention basins, detention basins, or water-control structures were installed or removed; (3) an inability to address the potential effects of the vertical hydraulic head gradient on water levels in wells of different depths; and (4) an inability to correct for the differences between daily water-level statistics. Contours are dashed in areas where the locations of contours have been approximated because of the uncertainty caused by these limitations. Although the ability of the maps to depict differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 was limited by missing data, results indicate that near the coast water levels were generally higher in May during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999; and that inland water levels were generally lower during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999. Generally, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of water levels from all months were also higher near the coast and lower inland during 2000–2009 than during 1990-1999. Mean October water levels during 2000-2009 were generally higher than during 1990-1999 in much of western Miami-Dade County, but were lower in a large part of eastern Miami-Dade County.

RTB Maps is a cloud-based electronic Atlas. We used ArGIS 10 for Desktop with Spatial Analysis Extension, ArcGIS 10 for Server on-premise, ArcGIS API for Javascript, IIS web services based on .NET, and ArcGIS Online combining data on the cloud with data and applications on our local server to develop an Atlas that brings together many of the map themes related to development of roots, tubers and banana crops. The Atlas is structured to allow our participating scientists to understand the distribution of the crops and observe the spatial distribution of many of the obstacles to production of these crops. The Atlas also includes an application to allow our partners to evaluate the importance of different factors when setting priorities for research and development. The application uses weighted overlay analysis within a multi-criteria decision analysis framework to rate the importance of factors when establishing geographic priorities for research and development.Datasets of crop distribution maps, agroecology maps, biotic and abiotic constraints to crop production, poverty maps and other demographic indicators are used as a key inputs to multi-objective criteria analysis.Further metadata/references can be found here: http://gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/RTBmaps/DataAvailability_RTBMaps.htmlDISCLAIMER, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND PERMISSIONS:This service is provided by Roots, Tubers and Bananas CGIAR Research Program as a public service. Use of this service to retrieve information constitutes your awareness and agreement to the following conditions of use.This online resource displays GIS data and query tools subject to continuous updates and adjustments. The GIS data has been taken from various, mostly public, sources and is supplied in good faith.RTBMaps GIS Data Disclaimer• The data used to show the Base Maps is supplied by ESRI.• The data used to show the photos over the map is supplied by Flickr.• The data used to show the videos over the map is supplied by Youtube.• The population map is supplied to us by CIESIN, Columbia University and CIAT.• The Accessibility map is provided by Global Environment Monitoring Unit - Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Accessibility maps are made for a specific purpose and they cannot be used as a generic dataset to represent "the accessibility" for a given study area.• Harvested area and yield for banana, cassava, potato, sweet potato and yam for the year 200, is provided by EarthSat (University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment-Global Landscapes initiative and McGill University’s Land Use and the Global Environment lab). Dataset from Monfreda C., Ramankutty N., and Foley J.A. 2008.• Agroecology dataset: global edapho-climatic zones for cassava based on mean growing season, temperature, number of dry season months, daily temperature range and seasonality. Dataset from CIAT (Carter et al. 1992)• Demography indicators: Total and Rural Population from Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) and CIAT 2004.• The FGGD prevalence of stunting map is a global raster datalayer with a resolution of 5 arc-minutes. The percentage of stunted children under five years old is reported according to the lowest available sub-national administrative units: all pixels within the unit boundaries will have the same value. Data have been compiled by FAO from different sources: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), UNICEF MICS, WHO Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition, and national surveys. Data provided by FAO – GIS Unit 2007.• Poverty dataset: Global poverty headcount and absolute number of poor. Number of people living on less than $1.25 or $2.00 per day. Dataset from IFPRI and CIATTHE RTBMAPS GROUP MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR GUARANTEES, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, OR CORRECTNESS OF THE DATA PORTRAYED IN THIS PRODUCT NOR ACCEPTS ANY LIABILITY, ARISING FROM ANY INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN. ALL INFORMATION, DATA AND DATABASES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITH NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. By accessing this website and/or data contained within the databases, you hereby release the RTB group and CGCenters, its employees, agents, contractors, sponsors and suppliers from any and all responsibility and liability associated with its use. In no event shall the RTB Group or its officers or employees be liable for any damages arising in any way out of the use of the website, or use of the information contained in the databases herein including, but not limited to the RTBMaps online Atlas product.APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT:• Desktop and web development - Ernesto Giron E. (GeoSpatial Consultant) e.giron.e@gmail.com• GIS Analyst - Elizabeth Barona. (Independent Consultant) barona.elizabeth@gmail.comCollaborators:Glenn Hyman, Bernardo Creamer, Jesus David Hoyos, Diana Carolina Giraldo Soroush Parsa, Jagath Shanthalal, Herlin Rodolfo Espinosa, Carlos Navarro, Jorge Cardona and Beatriz Vanessa Herrera at CIAT, Tunrayo Alabi and Joseph Rusike from IITA, Guy Hareau, Reinhard Simon, Henry Juarez, Ulrich Kleinwechter, Greg Forbes, Adam Sparks from CIP, and David Brown and Charles Staver from Bioversity International.Please note these services may be unavailable at times due to maintenance work.Please feel free to contact us with any questions or problems you may be having with RTBMaps.

The schema of this dataset pretty much follows that of MassGIS/EOEEA. Not all data represented here is protected in perpetuity. It is important to view the attribute table and review the MassGIS website documentation to fully understand this dataset. A departure from the MassGIS schema is a related table (tbl_info4_ICP). This table has 1-to-1 relationship with the primary feature class. The tbl_info4_ICP contains a lot of funny codes & IDs for the purposes of utilizing these data on the TrailsMV App and the Martha's Vineyard Land Bank website map. Look for other 'views' of this feature layer to see the data symbolized according to various attribute categories.

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

Scale reduction from source to target maps inevitably leads to conflicts of map symbols in cartography and geographic information systems (GIS). Displacement is one of the most important map generalization operators and it can be used to resolve the problems that arise from conflict among two or more map objects. In this paper, we propose a combined approach based on constraint Delaunay triangulation (CDT) skeleton and improved elastic beam algorithm for automated building displacement. In this approach, map data sets are first partitioned. Then the displacement operation is conducted in each partition as a cyclic and iterative process of conflict detection and resolution. In the iteration, the skeleton of the gap spaces is extracted using CDT. It then serves as an enhanced data model to detect conflicts and construct the proximity graph. Then, the proximity graph is adjusted using local grouping information. Under the action of forces derived from the detected conflicts, the proximity graph is deformed using the improved elastic beam algorithm. In this way, buildings are displaced to find an optimal compromise between related cartographic constraints. To validate this approach, two topographic map data sets (i.e., urban and suburban areas) were tested. The results were reasonable with respect to each constraint when the density of the map was not extremely high. In summary, the improvements include (1) an automated parameter-setting method for elastic beams, (2) explicit enforcement regarding the positional accuracy constraint, added by introducing drag forces, (3) preservation of local building groups through displacement over an adjusted proximity graph, and (4) an iterative strategy that is more likely to resolve the proximity conflicts than the one used in the existing elastic beam algorithm.

NOTICE TO PROVISIONAL 2023 LAND USE DATA USERS: Please note that on December 6, 2024 the Department of Water Resources (DWR) published the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset. The link for the shapefile format of the data mistakenly linked to the wrong dataset. The link was updated with the appropriate data on January 27, 2025. If you downloaded the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset in shapefile format between December 6, 2024 and January 27, we encourage you to redownload the data. The Map Service and Geodatabase formats were correct as posted on December 06, 2024.

Thank you for your interest in DWR land use datasets.

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been collecting land use data throughout the state and using it to develop agricultural water use estimates for statewide and regional planning purposes, including water use projections, water use efficiency evaluations, groundwater model developments, climate change mitigation and adaptations, and water transfers. These data are essential for regional analysis and decision making, which has become increasingly important as DWR and other state agencies seek to address resource management issues, regulatory compliances, environmental impacts, ecosystem services, urban and economic development, and other issues. Increased availability of digital satellite imagery, aerial photography, and new analytical tools make remote sensing-based land use surveys possible at a field scale that is comparable to that of DWR’s historical on the ground field surveys. Current technologies allow accurate large-scale crop and land use identifications to be performed at desired time increments and make possible more frequent and comprehensive statewide land use information. Responding to this need, DWR sought expertise and support for identifying crop types and other land uses and quantifying crop acreages statewide using remotely sensed imagery and associated analytical techniques. Currently, Statewide Crop Maps are available for the Water Years 2014, 2016, 2018- 2022 and PROVISIONALLY for 2023.

Historic County Land Use Surveys spanning 1986 - 2015 may also be accessed using the CADWR Land Use Data Viewer: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer.

For Regional Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/region-land-use-surveys.

For County Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/county-land-use-surveys.

For a collection of ArcGIS Web Applications that provide information on the DWR Land Use Program and our data products in various formats, visit the DWR Land Use Gallery: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/dd14ceff7d754e85ab9c7ec84fb8790a.

Recommended citation for DWR land use data: California Department of Water Resources. (Water Year for the data). Statewide Crop Mapping—California Natural Resources Agency Open Data. Retrieved “Month Day, YEAR,” from https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/statewide-crop-mapping.

The Digital Geomorphic-GIS Map of the Great Swash to Quork Hammock Area (1:10,000 scale 2006 mapping), North Carolina is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (gsqh_geomorphology.gdb), and a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (gsqh_geomorphology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (gsqh_geomorphology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) A GIS readme file (caha_fora_wrbr_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (caha_fora_wrbr_geomorphology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (gsqh_geomorphology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the caha_fora_wrbr_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri,htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: East Carolina University. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (gsqh_geomorphology_metadata.txt or gsqh_geomorphology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:10,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 8.5 meters or 27.8 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

City of Cambridge, MA, GIS basemap development project encompasses the land area of City of Cambridge with a 200-foot fringe surrounding the area and Charles River shoreline towards Boston. The basemap data was developed at 1" = 40' mapping scale using digital photogrammetric techniques. Planimetric features; both man-made and natural features like vegetation, rivers have been depicted. These features are important to all GIS/mapping applications and publication. A set of data layers such as Buildings, Roads, Rivers, Utility structures, 1 ft interval contours are developed and represented in the geodatabase. The features are labeled and coded in order to represent specific feature class for thematic representation and topology between the features is maintained for an accurate representation at the 1:40 mapping scale for both publication and analysis. The basemap data has been developed using procedures designed to produce data to the National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) and is intended for use at 1" = 40 ' mapping scale. Where applicable, the vertical datum is NAVD1988.Explore all our data on the Cambridge GIS Data Dictionary.Attributes NameType DetailsDescription TYPE type: Stringwidth: 50precision: 0 Type of dock (floating or fixed)

Important Note: This item is in mature support as of June 2021 and is no longer updated.

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

This dataset was updated April, 2024.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes: Clipping input datasets to the California boundary Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc) Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California. Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only. Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs) In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset.Data Sources: GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.htmlData Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

MCGD_Data_V2.2 contains all the data that we have collected on locations in modern China, plus a number of locations outside of China that we encounter frequently in historical sources on China. All further updates will appear under the name "MCGD_Data" with a time stamp (e.g., MCGD_Data2023-06-21)

You can also have access to this dataset and all the datasets that the ENP-China makes available on GitLab: https://gitlab.com/enpchina/IndexesEnp

Altogether there are 464,970 entries. The data include the name of locations and their variants in Chinese, pinyin, and any recorded transliteration; the name of the province in Chinese and in pinyin; Province ID; the latitude and longitude; the Name ID and Location ID, and NameID_Legacy. The Name IDs all start with H followed by seven digits. This is the internal ID system of MCGD (the NameID_Legacy column records the Name IDs in their original format depending on the source). Locations IDs that start with "DH" are data points extracted from China Historical GIS (Harvard University); those that start with "D" are locations extracted from the data points in Geonames; those that have only digits (8 digits) are data points we have added from various map sources.

One of the main features of the MCGD Main Dataset is the systematic collection and compilation of place names from non-Chinese language historical sources. Locations were designated in transliteration systems that are hardly comprehensible today, which makes it very difficult to find the actual locations they correspond to. This dataset allows for the conversion from these obsolete transliterations to the current names and geocoordinates.

From June 2021 onward, we have adopted a different file naming system to keep track of versions. From MCGD_Data_V1 we have moved to MCGD_Data_V2. In June 2022, we introduced time stamps, which result in the following naming convention: MCGD_Data_YYYY.MM.DD.

UPDATES

MCGD_Data2025_02_28 includes a major change with the duplication of all the locations listed under Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Chongqing (北京, 上海, 天津, 重慶) and their listing under the name of the provinces to which they belonge origially before the creation of the four special municipalities after 1949. This is meant to facilitate the matching of data from historical sources. Each location has a unique NameID. Altogether there are 472,818 entries

MCGD_Data2025_02_27 inclues an update on locations extracted from Minguo zhengfu ge yuanhui keyuan yishang zhiyuanlu 國民政府各院部會科員以上職員錄 (Directory of staff members and above in the ministries and committees of the National Government). Nanjing: Guomin zhengfu wenguanchu yinzhuju 國民政府文官處印鑄局國民政府文官處印鑄局, 1944). We also made corrections in the Prov_Py and Prov_Zh columns as there were some misalignments between the pinyin name and the name in Chines characters. The file now includes 465,128 entries.

MCGD_Data2024_03_23 includes an update on locations in Taiwan from the Asia Directories. Altogether there are 465,603 entries (of which 187 place names without geocoordinates, labelled in the Lat Long columns as "Unknown").

MCGD_Data2023.12.22 contains all the data that we have collected on locations in China, whatever the period. Altogether there are 465,603 entries (of which 187 place names without geocoordinates, labelled in the Lat Long columns as "Unknown"). The dataset also includes locations outside of China for the purpose of matching such locations to the place names extracted from historical sources. For example, one may need to locate individuals born outside of China. Rather than maintaining two separate files, we made the decision to incorporate all the place names found in historical sources in the gazetteer. Such place names can easily be removed by selecting all the entries where the 'Province' data is missing.