Parcels with tax assessor data for SSMMA region. See Code Definitions for Cook County parcel classification details.CAVEAT EMPTOR: Cook County data from 2016, Will County data from 2017.We are currently in the process of collecting Cook County data and processing Will County data for 2019.For up-to-date parcel tax records, visit the Cook County GIS Viewer or Will County GIS Viewer, or access the Cook County Tax Assessor's databases [1] [2] or the Will County Tax Assessor's Office.Municipalities in SSMMA's GIS Consortium may contact the GIS staff if more recent data is available to display on municipal viewers.

Download In State Plane Projection Here. Boundaries of designated high quality ADID wetlands established as a result of a formal process under the direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Part 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the USEPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers to identify in advance of specific permit requests aquatic sites which will be considered as areas generally unsuitable for disposal of dredged or fill material. This process is called an Advanced Identification or ADID. Under the ADID process identification of an area as generally unsuitable for fill does not prohibit applications for permits to fill in these areas. Therefore the ADID designation of unsuitability is advisory not regulatory. An ADID designation lets a potential applicant know in advance that a proposal to fill such a site is not likely to be consistent with the 404(b)(1) guidelines, and the USEPA will probably request permit denial. ADID wetland information is also useful in watershed planning, land use planning, public land acquisition programs, natural resource studies and other purposes. The wetland selection criteria and methodology are documented in the publication entitled "Advanced Identification (ADID) Study, Lake County, Illinois. Final Report, November 1992" which is included in this download. Boundaries were delineated by the ADID project team on orthophotograph background with an intended usage scale of 1" = 400', a scale ratio of 1:4800.

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

This data identifies current as well as proposed zoning and land use designations that are adopted by ordinances for unincorporated Pierce County. Zoning for cities is not included in this dataset. Zones are adopted by ordinances with specific technicalities for each community. Land Use designations offer a broad spectrum of allowable uses within a community. It is used to create a Comprehensive Plan Map or used for a Generalized Proposed Land Use Map or GPLUM. This dataset is also used to create the Land Use Designations theme, which covers proposed zoning use. The meaning of proposed is that the property might not be currently used for the purpose stated. It should be noted that Council adopted amendments to land use designations/zoning that will be effective at the beginning of 2006. Also, the Council is in the process of adopting the Mid-County Community Plan which amends land use designations/zoning as well. The Cities polygons found in the zoning data does not necessarily match the current cities boundaries. This is because the zoning data is updated once a year per the "Pierce County Comprehensive Plan" and does not allow for changes to be made during the year. The Comprehensive Plan is generally updated in November and generally becomes effective the following March. Use the "Cities in Pierce County" data set to determine current city boundaries. City boundaries can change more often than the current adopted Pierce County Zoning data. The zoning data contains the "Cities in Pierce County" boundaries at the time that the Pierce County Zoning was adopted. When determining the current zoning of a parcel near a city, the current "Cities in Pierce County" data set needs to be reviewed. Zoning codes for parcels within incorporated cities are determined by the city that the parcel is within. Please read metadata for additional information (https://matterhorn.piercecountywa.gov/GISmetadata/pdbplan_zoning.html). Any use or data download constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use (https://matterhorn.piercecountywa.gov/disclaimer/PierceCountyGISDataTermsofUse.pdf).

This dataset is a compilation of county parcel data from Minnesota counties that have opted-in for their parcel data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 55 counties that have opted-in as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin, Anoka, Becker, Benton, Big Stone, Carlton, Carver, Cass, Chippewa, Chisago, Clay, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Dakota, Douglas, Fillmore, Grant, Hennepin, Houston, Isanti, Itasca, Jackson, Koochiching, Lac qui Parle, Lake, Lyon, Marshall, McLeod, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Mower, Murray, Norman, Olmsted, Otter Tail, Pennington, Pipestone, Polk, Pope, Ramsey, Renville, Rice, Saint Louis, Scott, Sherburne, Stearns, Stevens, Traverse, Waseca, Washington, Wilkin, Winona, Wright, and Yellow Medicine.

If you represent a county not included in this dataset and would like to opt-in, please contact Heather Albrecht (Heather.Albrecht@hennepin.us), co-chair of the Minnesota Geospatial Advisory Council (GAC)’s Parcels and Land Records Committee's Open Data Subcommittee. County parcel data does not need to be in the GAC parcel data standard to be included. MnGeo will map the county fields to the GAC standard.

County parcel data records have been assembled into a single dataset with a common coordinate system (UTM Zone 15) and common attribute schema. The county parcel data attributes have been mapped to the GAC parcel data standard for Minnesota: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

This compiled parcel dataset was created using Python code developed by Minnesota state agency GIS professionals, and represents a best effort to map individual county source file attributes into the common attribute schema of the GAC parcel data standard. The attributes from counties are mapped to the most appropriate destination column. In some cases, the county source files included attributes that were not mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, some county attribute fields were parsed and mapped to multiple GAC standard fields, such as a single line address. Each quarter, MnGeo provides a text file to counties that shows how county fields are mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, this text file shows the fields that are not mapped to the standard and those that are parsed. If a county shares changes to how their data should be mapped, MnGeo updates the compilation. If you represent a county and would like to update how MnGeo is mapping your county attribute fields to this compiled dataset, please contact us.

This dataset is a snapshot of parcel data, and the source date of the county data may vary. Users should consult County websites to see the most up-to-date and complete parcel data.

There have been recent changes in date/time fields, and their processing, introduced by our software vendor. In some cases, this has resulted in date fields being empty. We are aware of the issue and are working to correct it for future parcel data releases.

The State of Minnesota makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use or reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. THE DATA IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITH NO GUARANTEE OR REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACCURACY, CURRENCY, SUITABILITY, PERFORMANCE, MECHANTABILITY, RELIABILITY OR FITINESS OF THIS DATA FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This dataset is NOT suitable for accurate boundary determination. Contact a licensed land surveyor if you have questions about boundary determinations.

DOWNLOAD NOTES: This dataset is only provided in Esri File Geodatabase and OGC GeoPackage formats. A shapefile is not available because the size of the dataset exceeds the limit for that format. The distribution version of the fgdb is compressed to help reduce the data footprint. QGIS users should consider using the Geopackage format for better results.

HEPGIS is a web-based interactive geographic map server that allows users to navigate and view geo-spatial data, print maps, and obtain data on specific features using only a web browser. It includes geo-spatial data used for transportation planning. HEPGIS previously received ARRA funding for development of Economically distressed Area maps. It is also being used to demonstrate emerging trends to address MPO and statewide planning regulations/requirements , enhanced National Highway System, Primary Freight Networks, commodity flows and safety data . HEPGIS has been used to help implement MAP-21 regulations and will help implement the Grow America Act, particularly related to Ladder of Opportunities and MPO reforms.

A complete, historic universe of Cook County parcels with attached geographic, governmental, and spatial data.

When working with Parcel Index Numbers (PINs) make sure to zero-pad them to 14 digits. Some datasets may lose leading zeros for PINs when downloaded.

Additional notes:

• Non-taxing district data is attached via spatial join (st_contains) to each parcel's centroid.
• Tax district data (school district, park district, municipality, etc.) are attached by a parcel's assigned tax code.
• Centroids are based on Cook County parcel shapefiles.
• Older properties may be missing coordinates and thus also missing attached spatial data (usually they are missing a parcel boundary in the shapefile).
• Newer properties may be missing a mailing or property address, as they need to be assigned one by the postal service.
• This dataset contains data for the current tax year, which may not yet be complete or final. Assessed values for any given year are subject to change until review and certification of values by the Cook County Board of Review, though there are a few rare circumstances where values may change for the current or past years after that.
• Rowcount for a given year is final once the Assessor has certified the assessment roll all townships.
• Data will be updated monthly.
• Depending on the time of year, some third-party and internal data will be missing for the most recent year. Assessments mailed this year represent values from last year, so this isn't an issue. By the time the Data Department models values for this year, those data will have populated.
• Current property class codes, their levels of assessment, and descriptions can be found on the Assessor's website. Note that class codes details can change across time.
• Due to discrepancies between the systems used by the Assessor and Clerk's offices, tax_district_code is not currently up-to-date in this table.

Read about the Assessor's 2025 Open Data Refresh.

description: This dataset contains point features representing the approximate location of tax parcels contained in County Assessor tax rolls. Individual county data was integrated into this statewide publication by the Arkansas Geographic Information Office (AGIO). The Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) systems maintained in each county are used to populate the database attributes for each centroid feature. The entity attribute structure conforms to the Arkansas Cadastral Mapping Standard. The digital cadastral data is provided as a publication version that only represents a snapshot of the production data at the time it was received from the county. Published updates may be made to counties throughout the year. These will occur after new data is digitized or updates to existing data are finished. Production versions of the data exist in the various counties where daily and weekly updates occur. Users should consult the BEGIN_DATE attribute column to determine the age of the data for a given county. This column reflects the date when AGIO received the data from the county. Only parcels with an associated Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) record are provided. This means a CAMA record may exist, but no point geometry or vice-versa. Cadastral data is dynamic by its nature; therefore it is impossible for any county to ever be considered complete. The data is NOT topologically enforced. As a statewide integrator, AGIO publishes the data but does not make judgment calls about where points or polygon lines are meant to be located. Therefore each county data set is published without topology rules being enforced. GIS Technicians use best practices such as polygon closure and vertex snapping, however, topology is not built for each county. Users should be aware, by Arkansas Law (15-21-504 2 B) digital cadastral data does not represent legal property boundary descriptions, nor is it suitable for boundary determination of the individual parcels included in the cadastre. Users requiring a boundary determination should consult an Arkansas Registered Land Surveyor (http://www.arkansas.gov/pels/search/search.php) on boundary questions. The digital cadastral data is intended to be a graphical representation of the tax parcel only. Just because a county is listed does NOT imply the data represents county wide coverage. AGIO worked with each county to determine a level of production that warranted the data was ready to be published. For example, in some counties only the north part of the county was covered or in other cases only rural parcels are covered and yet in others only urban parcels. The approach is to begin incremental publishing as production blocks are ready, even though a county may not have county wide coverage. Each case represents a significant amount of data that will be useful immediately. Users should consult the BEGIN_DATE attribute column to determine the age of the data for a given county. This date reflects when the data was received from the county. Digital cadastral data users should be aware the County Assessor Mapping Program adopted a phased approach for developing cadastral data. Phase One includes the production of a parcel centroid for each parcel that bears the attributes prescribed by the state cadastral mapping standard. Phase Two includes the production of parcel polygon geometry and bears the standard attributes. The Arkansas standard closely mirrors the federal Cadastral Core Data Standard established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee, Subcommittee for Cadastral Data. Counties within this file include: Arkansas, Ashley, Baxter, Boone, Carroll, Chicot, Clark, Clay, Columbia, Conway, Craighead, Crawford, Cross, Desha, Faulkner, Franklin, Hot Spring, Howard, Izard, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lincoln, Little River, Logan, Lonoke, Madison, Mississippi, Montgomery, Nevada, Newton, Perry, Pike, Poinsett, Polk, Pope, Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Sebastian, Stone, Van Buren, Washington and White.; abstract: This dataset contains point features representing the approximate location of tax parcels contained in County Assessor tax rolls. Individual county data was integrated into this statewide publication by the Arkansas Geographic Information Office (AGIO). The Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) systems maintained in each county are used to populate the database attributes for each centroid feature. The entity attribute structure conforms to the Arkansas Cadastral Mapping Standard. The digital cadastral data is provided as a publication version that only represents a snapshot of the production data at the time it was received from the county. Published updates may be made to counties throughout the year. These will occur after new data is digitized or updates to existing data are finished. Production versions of the data exist in the various counties where daily and weekly updates occur. Users should consult the BEGIN_DATE attribute column to determine the age of the data for a given county. This column reflects the date when AGIO received the data from the county. Only parcels with an associated Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) record are provided. This means a CAMA record may exist, but no point geometry or vice-versa. Cadastral data is dynamic by its nature; therefore it is impossible for any county to ever be considered complete. The data is NOT topologically enforced. As a statewide integrator, AGIO publishes the data but does not make judgment calls about where points or polygon lines are meant to be located. Therefore each county data set is published without topology rules being enforced. GIS Technicians use best practices such as polygon closure and vertex snapping, however, topology is not built for each county. Users should be aware, by Arkansas Law (15-21-504 2 B) digital cadastral data does not represent legal property boundary descriptions, nor is it suitable for boundary determination of the individual parcels included in the cadastre. Users requiring a boundary determination should consult an Arkansas Registered Land Surveyor (http://www.arkansas.gov/pels/search/search.php) on boundary questions. The digital cadastral data is intended to be a graphical representation of the tax parcel only. Just because a county is listed does NOT imply the data represents county wide coverage. AGIO worked with each county to determine a level of production that warranted the data was ready to be published. For example, in some counties only the north part of the county was covered or in other cases only rural parcels are covered and yet in others only urban parcels. The approach is to begin incremental publishing as production blocks are ready, even though a county may not have county wide coverage. Each case represents a significant amount of data that will be useful immediately. Users should consult the BEGIN_DATE attribute column to determine the age of the data for a given county. This date reflects when the data was received from the county. Digital cadastral data users should be aware the County Assessor Mapping Program adopted a phased approach for developing cadastral data. Phase One includes the production of a parcel centroid for each parcel that bears the attributes prescribed by the state cadastral mapping standard. Phase Two includes the production of parcel polygon geometry and bears the standard attributes. The Arkansas standard closely mirrors the federal Cadastral Core Data Standard established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee, Subcommittee for Cadastral Data. Counties within this file include: Arkansas, Ashley, Baxter, Boone, Carroll, Chicot, Clark, Clay, Columbia, Conway, Craighead, Crawford, Cross, Desha, Faulkner, Franklin, Hot Spring, Howard, Izard, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lincoln, Little River, Logan, Lonoke, Madison, Mississippi, Montgomery, Nevada, Newton, Perry, Pike, Poinsett, Polk, Pope, Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Sebastian, Stone, Van Buren, Washington and White.

The Hydrology Feature Dataset contains photogrammetrically compiled water drainage features and structures including rivers, streams, drainage canals, locks, dams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs and mooring cells. Rivers, Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs, Hidden Lakes, Reservoirs or Ponds: If greater than 25 feet and less than 30 feet wide, is captured as a double line stream. If greater than 30 feet wide it is captured as a river. Lakes are large standing bodies of water greater than 5 acres in size. Ponds are large standing bodies of water greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres in size. Polygons are created from Stream edges and River Edges. The Ohio River, Monongahela River and Allegheny River are coded as Major Rivers. All other River and Stream polygons are coded as River. If a stream is less than 25 feet wide it is placed as a single line and coded as a Stream. Both sides of the stream are digitized and coded as a Stream for Streams whose width is greater than 25 feet. River edges are digitized and coded as River.

A Drainage Canal is a manmade or channelized hydrographic feature. Drainage Canals are differentiated from streams in that drainage canals have had the sides and/or bottom stabilized to prevent erosion for the predominant length of the feature. Streams may have had some stabilization done, but are primarily in a natural state. Lakes are large standing bodies of water greater than five acres in size. Ponds are large standing bodies of water greater than one acre in size and less than five acres in size. Reservoirs are manmade embankments of water. Included in this definition are both covered and uncovered water tanks. Reservoirs that are greater than one acre in size are digitized. Hidden Streams, Hidden Rivers and Hidden Drainage Canal or Culverts are those areas of drainage where the water flows through a manmade facility such as a culvert. Hydrology Annotation is not being updated but will be preserved. If a drainage feature has been removed, as apparent on the aerial photography, the associated drainage name annotation will be removed. A Mooring Cell is a structure to which tows can tie off while awaiting lockage. They are normally constructed of concrete and steel and are anchored to the river bottom by means of gravity or sheet piling.

Mooring Cells do not currently exist in the Allegheny County dataset but will be added. Locks are devices that are used to control flow or access to a hydrologic feature. The edges of the Lock are captured. Dams are devices that are used to hold or delay the natural flow of water. The edges of the Dam are shown.

This dataset is harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal. The full metadata record for this dataset can also be found on Allegheny County's GIS portal. You can access the metadata record and other resources on the GIS portal by clicking on the “Explore” button (and choosing the "Go to resource" option) to the right of the "ArcGIS Open Dataset" text below.

Category: Environment

Department: Geographic Information Systems Group; Department of Administrative Services

Data Notes: Coordinate System: Pennsylvania State Plane South Zone 3702; U.S. Survey Foot

Development Notes: Original Lakes and Drainage datasets combined to create this layer. Data was updated as a result of a flyover in the spring of 2004. A database field has been defined for all map features named Update Year". This database field will define which dataset provided each map feature. Map features from the current map will be set to "2004". The earlier dataset map features the earlier dataset map features used to supplement the area near the county boundary will be set to "1993". All new or modified map data will have the value for "Update Year" set to "2004".

Data Dictionary: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16BWrRkoPtq2ANRkrbG7CrfQk2dUsWRiaS2Ee1mTn7l0/edit?usp=sharing

Data is refreshed Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov. To determine the last date edited, refer to the Date_Changed/GIS_Edit_Date fields for each individual layer. To see the latest refresh date, refer to the Item updated date noted in the AGO Item Description page.Property information attributes in parcel polygons are refreshed monthly.To download the full Cadastral Dataset for Milwaukee County click here * Note: download will begin when link is clicked*Other Property Information related layers:Milwaukee County Parcels with Property InformationMilwaukee County Owned ParcelsMilwaukee County Cadastral DatasetMilwaukee County Tax Exempt Parcels

This dataset is a compilation of tax parcel polygon and point layers from the seven Twin Cities, Minnesota metropolitan area counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. The seven counties were assembled into a common coordinate system. No attempt has been made to edgematch or rubbersheet between counties. A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. (See section 5 of the metadata). The attributes are the same for the polygon and points layers. Not all attributes are populated for all counties.

The polygon layer contains one record for each real estate/tax parcel polygon within each county's parcel dataset. Some counties will polygons for each individual condominium, and others do not. (See Completeness in Section 2 of the metadata for more information.) The points layer includes the same attribute fields as the polygon dataset. The points are intended to provide information in situations where multiple tax parcels are represented by a single polygon. The primary example of this is the condominium. Condominiums, by definition, are legally owned as individual, taxed real estate units. Records for condominiums may not show up in the polygon dataset. The points for the point dataset often will be randomly placed or stacked within the parcel polygon with which they are associated.

The polygon layer is broken into individual county shape files. The points layer is one file for the entire metro area.

In many places a one-to-one relationship does not exist between these parcel polygons or points and the actual buildings or occupancy units that lie within them. There may be many buildings on one parcel and there may be many occupancy units (e.g. apartments, stores or offices) within each building. Additionally, no information exists within this dataset about residents of parcels. Parcel owner and taxpayer information exists for many, but not all counties.

Polygon and point counts for each county are as follows (based on the January 2010 dataset unless otherwise noted):

polygons / points
Anoka - 129271 / 129271
Carver - 38205 / 38205
Dakota - 136067 / 150436
Hennepin - 424182 / 424182
Ramsey - 149101 / 168152
Scott - 55213 / 55213
Washington - 98933 / 104100 (October 2009)

This is a MetroGIS Regionally Endorsed dataset.

Each of the seven Metro Area counties has entered into a multiparty agreement with the Metropolitan Council to assemble and distribute the parcel data for each county as a regional (seven county) parcel dataset.

A standard set of attribute fields is included for each county. The attributes are identical for the point and polygon datasets. Not all attributes fields are populated by each county. Detailed information about the attributes can be found in the MetroGIS Regional Parcels Attributes 2009 document.

Additional information may be available in the individual metadata for each county at the links listed below. Also, any questions or comments about suspected errors or omissions in this dataset can be addressed to the contact person listed in the individual county metadata.

Anoka = http://www.anokacounty.us/315/GIS

Caver = http://www.co.carver.mn.us/GIS

Dakota = http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/homeproperty/propertymaps/pages/default.aspx

Hennepin: http://www.hennepin.us/gisopendata

Ramsey = https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/open-government/research-data

Scott = http://www.scottcountymn.gov/1183/GIS-Data-and-Maps

Washington = http://www.co.washington.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=1606

This dataset contains street centerlines for vehicular and foot traffic in Allegheny County.

Street Centerlines are classified as Primary Road, Secondary Road, Unpaved Road, Limited Access Road, Connecting Road, Jeep Trail, Walkway, Stairway, Alleyway and Unknown. A Primary Road is a street paved with either concrete or asphalt that has two (2) or more lanes in each direction. A Secondary Road is a residential type hard surface road, or any hard surface road with only one (1) lane in each direction. An Unpaved Road is any road covered with packed dirt or gravel. A Limited Access Road is one that can only be accessed from a Connecting Road such as an Interstate Highway. A Connecting Road is a ramp connecting a Limited Access Road to a surface street. A Walkway is a paved or unpaved foot track that connects two (2) roads together. Walkways within College Campuses will also be shown. Recreational pedestrian trails and walkways through parks and wooded areas are not considered transportation and will not be digitized during this update. Walkways will not have an Edge of Pavement feature. A Stairway is a paved or wooden structure that connects two (2) roads together. Recreational pedestrian trails and walkways through parks and wooded areas are not considered transportation and will not be digitized during this update. An Alleyway is a road, usually narrower than a Secondary Road that runs between, but parallel to, two (2) Secondary Roads. Generally, Outbuildings will be adjacent to Alleyways. A Jeep Trail is a vehicular trail used for recreation. A Jeep Trail will not have an associated edge of pavement feature. A road coded as Unknown is a road, which in the judgment of the photogrammetrist, does not fall into any of the categories listed.

Centerlines will be visually placed between the edges of pavement. One (1) centerline will be placed between each edge of pavement. Roads with medial strips, such as Limited Access Roads, will have two (2) centerlines for those portions of the road where the medial strip is present. For roads that terminate with a cul-de-sac, the centerline shall continue through the center of the cul-de-sac and stop at the edge of pavement.

All attribute data will remain for all Street Centerlines that are not updated. For Street Centerlines that are new, the only attribute field that will be populated is the FeatureCode and UPDATE_YEAR. If a Street Centerline is graphically modified, the existing attribute data will remain and the UPDATE_YEAR will be set to 2004. The attribute values for 2004 Street Centerlines should be considered suspicious until verified.

The ArcInfo Street Centerline coverage that is being updated has 800 segments of Paper Streets, 66 segments of Vacated Streets and 78 segments of Steps. Street Centerlines that are coded as Paper Streets in the OWNER field will remain unchanged in the updated dataset unless the area has been developed. In the event the area has been developed, the Street Centerlines will be modified to reflect the true condition of the visible roads. Street Centerlines that are coded as Vacated in the OWNER field will also remain unchanged in the updated dataset. In the event the area coinciding with the Vacated Streets has been developed, the Vacated Street Centerlines will be removed in order to reflect the true condition of the area. Street Centerlines that are coded as Steps in the OWNER field will be updated to reflect the current condition of the area. The Street Centerlines dataset consists of an external table that links to the supplied coverages and the Geodatabase created for this project using the "-ID" (UserID) field. In order to maintain the link to the external table and not loose valuable data the decision was made to keep all database information currently in the Street Centerline dataset. When a Street Centerline is modified during the update process, the field "UPDATE_YEAR" is set to 2004. All other database attributes will remain unchanged from the original values. All Street Centerline database data with an "UPDATE_YEAR" of 2004 should be verified before used. In some occasions the Street Centerline was divided into two (2) sections to allow for a new road intersection. Both sections of the resulting Street Centerline will have the same database attributes including Address Range. All new Street Centerlines will have zero (0) for "SystemID" and "UserID".

This dataset was previously harvested from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal. The new authoritative source for this data is now the PASDA page (https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=1224), which includes links to historical versions of the shapefile representations of this data.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

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

Cook County 10-digit parcels with attached distances to various spatial features.

When working with 10-digit Parcel Index Numbers (PINs) make sure to zero-pad them to 10 digits. Some datasets may lose leading zeros for PINs when downloaded. 10-digit PINs do not identify individual condominium units.

Additional notes:

• Centroids are based on Cook County parcel shapefiles.
• Older properties may be missing coordinates and thus also missing attached spatial data (usually they are missing a parcel boundary in the shapefile).
• Attached spatial data does NOT all go back to 2000. It is only available for more recent years, primarily those after 2012.
• This dataset contains data for the current tax year, which may not yet be complete or final. Assessed values for any given year are subject to change until review and certification of values by the Cook County Board of Review, though there are a few rare circumstances where values may change for the current or past years after that.
• Rowcount for a given year is final once the Assessor has certified the assessment roll all townships.
• Data will be updated annually as new parcel shapefiles are made available.

Read about the Assessor's 2025 Open Data Refresh.

To access the tax lot layer you will need to contact the county Assessor's office. ORMAP is a statewide digital cadastral base map that is publicly accessible, continually maintained, supports the Oregon property tax system, supports a multi-purpose land information system, strives to comply with appropriate state and national standards, and will continue to be improved over time.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

This database was designed in response to the Director Memorandum - "Effective January 1, 2019 all structure greater than 120 square feet in the State Responsibility Area (SRA) damaged by wildfire will be inspected and documented in the DINS Collector App."To document and structure damaged or destroyed by the Mosquito wildland fire open the associated Field Map app.NOTE - this feature service is configured to not allow record deletion. If a record needs to be deleted contact the program manager below.This is the schema developed and used by the CAL FIRE Office of State Fire Marshal to assess and record structure damage on wildland fire incidents. The schema is designed to be configured in the Esri Collector/Field Maps app for data collection during or after an incident.