Dataset Information

A rasterized building footprint dataset for the United States.

ABSTRACT: Microsoft released a U.S.-wide vector building dataset in 2018. Although the vector building layers provide relatively accurate geometries, their use in large-extent geospatial analysis comes at a high computational cost. We used High-Performance Computing (HPC) to develop an algorithm that calculates six summary values for each cell in a raster representation of each U.S. state, excluding Alaska and Hawaii: (1) total footprint coverage, (2) number of unique buildings intersecting each cell, (3) number of building centroids falling inside each cell, and area of the (4) average, (5) smallest, and (6) largest area of buildings that intersect each cell. These values are represented as raster layers with 30?m cell size covering the 48 conterminous states. We also identify errors in the original building dataset. We evaluate precision and recall in the data for three large U.S. urban areas. Precision is high and comparable to results reported by Microsoft while recall is high for buildings with footprints larger than 200 m2 but lower for progressively smaller buildings.

SUBMITTER: Heris MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7324622 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A rasterized building footprint dataset for the United States.

Heris Mehdi P MP Foks Nathan Leon NL Bagstad Kenneth J KJ Troy Austin A Ancona Zachary H ZH

Scientific data 20200629 1

Microsoft released a U.S.-wide vector building dataset in 2018. Although the vector building layers provide relatively accurate geometries, their use in large-extent geospatial analysis comes at a high computational cost. We used High-Performance Computing (HPC) to develop an algorithm that calculates six summary values for each cell in a raster representation of each U.S. state, excluding Alaska and Hawaii: (1) total footprint coverage, (2) number of unique buildings intersecting each cell, (3) ...[more]

PMID: 32601298

Similar Datasets

Project description:Wetlands provide key functions in the landscape from improving water quality, to regulating flows, to providing wildlife habitat. Over half of the wetlands in the contiguous United States (CONUS) have been converted to agricultural and urban land uses. However, over the last several decades, research has shown the benefits of wetlands to hydrologic, chemical, biological processes, spurring the creation of government programs and private initiatives to restore wetlands. Initiatives tend to focus on individual wetland creation, yet the greatest benefits are achieved when strategic restoration planning occurs across a watershed or multiple watersheds. For watershed-level wetland restoration planning to occur, informative data layers on potential wetland areas are needed. We created an indicator of potential wetland areas (PWA), using nationally available datasets to identify characteristics that could support wetland ecosystems, including: poorly drained soils and low-relief landscape positions as indicated by a derived topographic data layer. We compared our PWA with the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) from 11 states throughout the CONUS to evaluate their alignment. The state-level percentage of NWI-designated wetlands directly overlapping the PWA ranged from 39 to 95%. When we included NWI that was immediately adjacent to the overlapping NWI, our range of correspondence to NWI ranged from 60 to 99%. Wetland restoration is more likely on certain landscapes (e.g., agriculture) than others due to the lack of substantive infrastructure and the potential for the restoration of hydrology; therefore, we combined the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) with the PWA to identify potentially restorable wetlands on agricultural land (PRW-Ag). The PRW-Ag identified a total of over 46 million ha with the potential to support wetlands. The largest concentrations of PRW-Ag occurred in the glaciated corn belt of the upper Mississippi River from Ohio to the Dakotas and in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. The PRW-Ag layer could assist land managers in identifying sites that may qualify for enrollment in conservation programs, where planners can coordinate restoration efforts, or where decision makers can target resources to optimize the services provided across a watershed or multiple watersheds.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet has become a popular platform for patients to obtain information and to review the health care providers they interact with. However, little is known about the digital footprint of vascular surgeons and their interactions with patients on social media.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the activity of academic vascular surgeons on physician rating websites.MethodsInformation on attending vascular surgeons affiliated with vascular residency or with fellowships in the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery (SAVS) was collected from public sources. A listing of websites containing physician ratings was obtained via literature reviews and Google search. Open access websites with either qualitative or quantitative evaluations of vascular surgeons were included. Closed access websites were excluded. Ranking scores from each website were converted to a standard 5-point scale for comparison.ResultsA total of 6238 quantitative and 967 qualitative reviews were written for 287 physicians (236 males, 82.2%) across 16 websites that met the inclusion criteria out of the 62 websites screened. The surgeons affiliated with the integrated vascular residency and vascular fellowship programs in SAVS had a median of 8 (IQR 7-10) profiles across 16 websites, with only 1 surgeon having no web presence in any of the websites. The median number of quantitative ratings for each physician was 17 (IQR 6-34, range 1-137) and the median number of narrative reviews was 3 (IQR 2-6, range 1-28). Vitals, WebMD, and Healthgrades were the only 3 websites where over a quarter of the physicians were rated, and those rated had more than 5 ratings on average. The median score for the quantitative reviews was 4.4 (IQR 4.0-4.9). Most narrative reviews (758/967, 78.4%) were positive, but 20.2% (195/967) were considered negative; only 1.4% (14/967) were considered equivocal. No statistical difference was found in the number of quantitative reviews or in the overall average score in the physician ratings between physicians with social media profiles and those without social media profiles (departmental social media profile: median 23 vs 15, respectively, P=.22; personal social media profile: median 19 vs 14, respectively, P=.08).ConclusionsThe representation of vascular surgeons on physician rating websites is varied, with the majority of the vascular surgeons represented only in half of the physician rating websites The number of quantitative and qualitative reviews for academic vascular surgeons is low. No vascular surgeon responded to any of the reviews. The activity of vascular surgeons in this area of social media is low and reflects only a small digital footprint that patients can reach and review.

Dataset Information

A rasterized building footprint dataset for the United States.

Publications

A rasterized building footprint dataset for the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets