Parcel Sightings on Google Maps
Last week "parcel data" began appearing on Google Maps.
I’ve been collecting "parcel sightings" on Google Maps from Twitter and other sources (notably comments to James Fee’s post and Atanas Antchev’s post) in the hopes it can help determine the source of the data. (Yes, this is crowdsourcing, of a kind!) Note that some data seems to be from the jurisdictions themselves (per Google’s post, these include San Francisco and LA) and others are from the as yet undisclosed data provider. Also note, these comments have not been verified, just aggregated. Use them at your own risk!
Sweet, I just noticed that Google Maps outlines parcel boundaries for Snohomish Co. in the default map view. Not King or Pierce though.
Parcels now on google maps (zoom in)..20 of 29 Utah counties now have parcel display including Daggett (pop. ~1000)
Awesome, Google maps for Philly now has parcel-level data.
I just noticed that Google Maps have parcel layers in their maps for Pima and Maricopa counties in Arizona.
is this free for google? the attributes too? "Parcel boundaries based on data from City and County of San Francisco" http://bit.ly/3wVrxb (expand)
Franklin County parcel boundaries now on google maps. Much easier than auditor’s website
At least two urban Wisconsin counties now have parcel boundaries in Google Maps. One routinely and freely shares data. hmmm. #nsgic2009
San Antonio and Austin both have parcels too.
Most of the NJ counties that keep their parcel data online are now on Google Maps (with the exception of Camden County).
The City of Surrey, BC, Canada (cosmos.surrey.ca) gave their data to Google. They have integrated the 2008 Orthos, but still no parcels.
Interestingly, I asked @manomarks if they have a list of the new data items, but he said no.
Well at least for my County in California the parcels (as well as the roads)originate with the County. The same bad data exists in some places. We don’t care as the data is available to anyone but I don’t know if someone is aggregating them for Google. I guess I can say I work for google now. I did notice that Orange County and Santa Clara County (two of the counties that have been fighting to sell their parcel data) are parcel free.
I can tell you right now we’ve got issues here. Parcels are showing up for my region in Google’s map.
I didn’t approve this.
We can see by the parcels that this data is a couple years old so tracking down who gave it to Google will be difficult.
Obviously there are huge issues with this process and I have to question Google’s research on who actually has the right to give data to them. We don’t sell parcels, but if you are going to resell our data, then we’ve got a problem.
After a little bit of experimenting I determined that the Parcels in The Portland Area date from before Feb 2007. As I was querying addresses on lots added since feb 2007 I noticed that none of them geocoded. I suspect that googles new geocoder is somehow tied to the quality of the parcel data but can’t confirm this.
Strangely, It appears that parcel datasets from both late 2006 and early 2007 occupy the same space on the map in some areas.
Justin C. Houk
Hah… looks like Google decided that New York st, in Redlands is open to through traffic again. Funny… I could swear that there was a new ESRI building crossing that street a few hours ago.
I can confirm that up here in Northern end of Northern California, the parcel bases match the county bases exactly. Interestingly enough, we called the GIS director at one county and he didn’t know Google had his parcels, and a second county, which has repeatedly refused to share its parcels with anyone, has its parcels in Google too.
If you want to see the match, go to http://pv.enplan.com, switch to Maps view, and zoom in until you see parcels. You’ll see our tile layer from the county shapefiles overlay in white over Google’s dark grey parcel lines.
At least in Laredo, Texas, some of the data seems to be based on an older dump of OpenStreetMap (or someone copying from it). I recognize some of my own edits.
[Ed Note: several have noted that OSM data is NOT in use based on visual inspection and the fact that if it were it would not follow required licensing of OSM.]
What I am liking here is the fact that here I can see these are not actually my counties parcels, but even further. I live in a duplex that is one parcel; but Google is actually resolving my address and the other home to two different locations and not just a street offset.
Wright, David E.
The county I’m going to keep my eye on is Hamilton County, Ohio. If Google is able to get parcels for Hamilton, I’ll be expecting the sun to start rising in the west and birds flying backwards across the sky.
Parcel data for Hamilton is controlled by CAGIS (Cincinnati Area GIS). CAGIS is a consortium of land and infrastructure agencies and they charge exorbitant prices for access to their data- thousands of dollars.
I’m a GIS analyst for a city in California. We’ve added ~20,000 houses in the 10 years so I have a lot of metrics to go on here…
The aerials on Google are so old they are good for historical research. In panning around city the “new” Google parcels a few things have jumped out at me. The parcels here clearly did not come from any of the local gov’ts. First American would make sense as a source. There are tracts missing that have had houses on them for 3+ years. The road file (TeleAtlas?) they are using is 4ish years out of date.
And finally… it looks to me like they conflated their aerials to whatever road file they are using. The parcels don’t match the roads or the aerials in places by dozens of feet.