Wright County basemap projected in NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Wright.

Wright County basemap projected in NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Wright.

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.

Wright County, Minnesota 2023 Building Footprints

The original Hennepin County Wetland Inventory (HCWI) was developed from the remote sensing of multiple years of orthophotograpy in combination with the analysis of related GIS layers and 10 years of Natural Resources Conservation Service slide reviews to identify and include farmed wetlands. The HCWI does not classify wetlands but merely locates them, whereas the NWI classifies wetlands based on the Cowardin methodology utilizing remotely gathered data and photo signature. For more information concerning detail on procedures followed to develop the HCWI contact Hennepin County Dept. of Environmental Services.National Wetland Inventory Metadata:The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) for east-central Minnesota were updated through multi-agency collaborative effort under leadership from the Minnesota DNR. Operational support for wetland mapping and classification was provided by Ducks Unlimited and support for methods development and field validation were provided by the Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Minnesota. Major funding was provided by the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The project area consists of 13 counties in east-central Minnesota including: Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Goodhue, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright Counties. The updated wetland inventory area included complete coverage for all USGS quarter quadrangles that intersect any of these counties (about 7,150 square mile). The NWI classification process for east-central Minnesota consisted of three basic steps: 1) creation of image segments (polygons), 2) RandomForest classification of the segments, and 3) photo-interpretation of the classified image segments. The updated NWI also contains a Simplified Plant Community Classification and a Simplified Hydrogemorphic Classification. Quality assurance of the data included a 100% visual inspection, automated checks for attribute validity and topologic consistency, as well as a formal accuracy assessment based on an independent field verified data set. Further details on the methods employed can be found in the technical procedures document for this project (provide URL). The updated NWI data are primarily based on aerial imagery acquired in 2010 and 2011 as well as other modern ancillary data. This data is intended to replace the original NWI data which was based on imagery acquired in the early 1980s. NWI data support effective wetland management, protection, and restoration. The data provide a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of wetland policies and management actions. These data are used at all levels of government, as well as by private industry and non-profit organizations for wetland regulation and management, land use and conservation planning, environmental impact assessment, and natural resource inventories.

Link to Attribute Table Information: http://gis.hennepin.us/OpenData/Metadata/Wetland%20Inventory.pdf

Use Limitations: This data (i) is furnished "AS IS" with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. General questions about this data set, including errors, omissions, corrections and/or updates should be directed to the Hennepin County Department of Environment & Energy (612-348-3777).

© Hennepin County Department of Environment & Energy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MN Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), US Fish & Wildlife Service, Board of Water and Soil Resources This layer is a component of Datasets for Hennepin County AGOL and Hennepin County Open Data..

This dataset is a compilation of address point data from Minnesota suppliers that have opted-in for their address point data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 44 suppliers that have opted-in to share their data openly as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Benton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Cook County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Koochinching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Le Sueur County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Otter Tail County, Pipestone County, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Renville County, Rock County, Saint Louis County, Scott County, Sherburne County, Stearns, Stevens County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

The two sources of address point data are the Minnesota Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) Program, in collaboration with local data suppliers, and the MetroGIS Metro Address Points Dataset which is on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons:

The Minnesota NG9-1-1 Program enterprise database provides the data outside of the Metro Region which is provide by the suppliers. The data have been aggregated into a single dataset which implements the MN NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model (https://ng911gis-minnesota.hub.arcgis.com/documents/79beb1f9bde84e84a0fa9b74950f7589/about ).

Only data which have meet the requirements for supporting NG9-1-1 are in the statewide aggregate GIS data. MnGeo extracts the available data, applies domain translations, and transforms it to UTM Zone 15 to comply with the GAC Address Point attribute schema: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/address/address_standard.html.

The MetroGIS Metro Address Points Dataset was created by a joint collaborative project involving the technical and managerial GIS staff from the ten Metropolitan Counties (Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, and Washington), the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, MetroGIS and the Metropolitan Council. The data are pulled in from the Minnesota Geospatial Commons: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-loc-address-points

‘Supplier’ is a term used throughout this document. A supplier will typically be a county, but it could also be a public safety answering point (PSAP), region, or tribal nation. The supplier is the agency which provides the individual datasets for the aggregated dataset. The loc_addresses_open_metadata feature layer will contain the geometry/shape of the supplier boundaries, supplier name, supplier type, and feature count.

Aggregation Process:
1. Transfer NG9-1-1 data from the DPS Enterprise database.
2. Download the latest data from the Geospatial Commons for MetroGIS.
3. Extract, Translate, and Load (ETL) the data to the GAC Address Point Standard schema.
4. Combine NG9-1-1 data with MetroGIS data.
5. Filter the data for the Opt-In suppliers

This dataset is a compilation of road centerline data from Minnesota suppliers that have opted-in for their road centerline data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 43 suppliers that have opted-in to share their data openly as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Benton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Cook County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Koochinching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Le Sueur County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Otter Tail County, Pipestone County, Pope County, Polk County, Ramsey County, Renville County, Rock County, Saint Louis County, Scott County, Sherburne County, Stearns, Stevens County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

The two sources of road centerline data are the Minnesota Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) Program, in collaboration with local data suppliers, and the MetroGIS Road Centerlines (Geospatial Advisory Council Schema) which is on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons:

The Minnesota NG9-1-1 Program enterprise database provides the data outside of the Metro Region which is provide by the suppliers. The data have been aggregated into a single dataset which implements the MN NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model (https://ng911gis-minnesota.hub.arcgis.com/documents/79beb1f9bde84e84a0fa9b74950f7589/about ).

Only data which have meet the requirements for supporting NG9-1-1 are in the statewide aggregate GIS data. MnGeo extracts the available data, applies domain translations, and transforms it to UTM Zone 15 to comply with the GAC road centerline attribute schema: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/roadcenterline/index.html.

The MetroGIS Road Centerlines data was created by a joint collaborative project involving the technical and managerial GIS staff from the the Metropolitan Counties (Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, and Washington), the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, MetroGIS and the Metropolitan Council. The data are pulled from the Minnesota Geospatial Commons: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-trans-road-centerlines-gac

‘Supplier’ is a term used throughout this document. A supplier will typically be a county, but it could also be a public safety answering point (PSAP), region, or tribal nation. The supplier is the agency which provides the individual datasets for the aggregated dataset. The trans_road_centerlines_open_metadata feature layer will contain the geometry/shape of the supplier boundaries, supplier name, supplier type, and feature count.

Aggregation Process:
1. Extract NG9-1-1 data from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) Enterprise database.
2. Download the latest MetroGIS data from the Geospatial Commons.
3. Extract, Translate, and Load (ETL) the DPS data to the GAC schema.
4. Combine NG9-1-1 data with MetroGIS data.
5. Filter the data for the Opt-In Open data counties

The Transit Routes layer contains all fixed routes serving the Twin Cities regional metropolitan area. One shape and one corresponding record exists for each individual transit route.

The line work for the dataset was derived from MRCC Street Centerlines and NCompass Centerlines for Sherburne and Wright County areas. A small number of line segments have been added to completely depict the network traveled by fixed-route transit vehicles.