|*** All data available from this page are referenced to the Mass. State Plane METERS coordinate system. If LOC_IDs are maintained in feet, prior to editing, the data must be projected from meters to feet. ***|
Beginning in July 2014, updates to either geometry, attributes, or both are being added in an unscheduled, ad-hoc fashion.
Downloads include ArcGIS 10 layer files and the file geodatabases include a 1-to-many relationship class linking each tax parcel polygon to one or more assessor database records. In addition, the attribute TAXPAR_ID was added to the OthLeg layer and populated where LEGAL_TYPE = 'FEE'. The values in TAXPAR_ID represent the LOC_ID values of the POLY_TYPE = 'TAX' parcel in the TaxPar layer that the OthLeg parcel is a constituent of. This should facilitate identifying the relationships between 'TAX' parcels in TaxPar and 'FEE' parcels in OthLeg. Please consult the Digital Parcel Standard for a better explanation of how these types of parcels correlate with each other.
NOTE: Data from some municipalities may fall short of one or more of the match rates between tax parcels and assessing data established by the MassGIS standard. This circumstance typically arises because the updated parcel mapping may be matched to a CAMA extract that does not yet have LOC_IDs from that update. These match rate shortfalls are generally tenths of a percentage point below what is required by the standard. In some communities, the match between tax records with a total value of less than $1,000 and their corresponding parcels is off by as much as two or three percentage points from the standard. This represents the currently best available information from these communities.
To Download: Right-click on each link and choose "Save Target" or "Save Link As" to save the file locally. There is a listing for every municipality; however, MASSGIS DOES NOT HAVE DATA FOR THE CITY OF BOSTON. 4
Once Downloaded: Each Shapefile .zip file contains all the necessary components for the shapefile format (.dbf, .shx, .shp files, etc.) for the three Level 3 feature classes, plus the assessor database extract for the municipality. The file geodatabase .zip contains a single ArcGIS 10 file GDB with all the data for each municipality. All downloads contain an ArcGIS 10 layer file (.lyr) to facilitate data display. The shapefile layer files also contain a 1-to-many relate linking each tax parcel polygon to one or more assessor database records; in the file GDBs, this relationship is modeled in a relationship class.
ArcGIS 9.x users may download a generic 9.0/9.1 layer file that may be used with the shapefile data to take advantage of MassGIS' symbology. The data sources will need to be reset, however, because the shapefiles for each town have unique names. Also, the relate must be re-established between the tax parcel polygon and the assess.dbf table, based on LOC_ID. The .lyr file will then need to be re-saved inside of ArcMap 9 for future use.
To extract the contents of the .zip files, use WinZip, the free 7-zip software, or any other standard file unzipping utility. Many versions of Windows can open the files with the Compressed Zip Folder tool. The 'unzip' command will work on Unix and Linux platforms.
For details on this layer (metadata) see the Datalayer Description.
The "Fiscal Year" field refers to the year of currency of the data. The "Posted Date" is when newer data was posted; if blank, data is original holding that has yet to be updated.
1 MassGIS' contractor used the most current assessor maps available from the Town of Savoy at the time they were working in Savoy. There were no source materials available from the town at that time to update the maps. Therefore, the match rates between the mapping and the assessing database extract do not meet the requirements of MassGIS' digital parcel standard. The missing updates also mean there are variety of other anomalies in this data set.
2 There is a known non-water boundary discrepancy between the parcel mapping for this community and that for at least one adjacent community. This discrepancy exists because the parcel mapping depicts the boundary differently from the MassGIS boundary developed from survey locations. These discrepancies are usually modest but noticeable. In most instances the communities are aware of this discrepancy. MassGIS will be working with the communities and with the Survey Section at MassDOT to try to resolve these discrepancies.
3 This data set is not fully compliant with the MassGIS Digital Parcel Standard for one of the following reasons: some parcel boundary mapping issues require further investigation by the community or one or more of the match rates (parcels to assessing data, assessing records with value less than $1,000 or assessing records with value greater than $1,000 match rates to parcels) do not meet the requirements of the standard.
4 Due to the longstanding advanced nature of Boston’s Assessor’s parcels, and all of the internal dependencies of that data within the City’s enterprise GIS, conversion of those files to the MassGIS Level 3 Standard is not forthcoming. However, the City has their own parcel data (with scant assessor fields) at this website.
5 Due to an on-going full re-construction of the town's parcel maps that will not finish until 2014, this version of the towns parcel mapping does not fully comply with the MassGIS standard; the match rates from parcels to assessing data and vice-versa do not meet requirements. In addition, until the remapping is complete, the representation of the Essex boundary with Ipswich through the salt marshes is not necessarily correct. Once the town’s re-mapping project is complete, MassGIS will receive a fully-compliant copy of the complete data set.
6 This data set does not meet the parcel standards requirements for match rates between the map and the tax list and vice versa. There are also several unexplained cases of one tax record linking to multiple apparently unrelated polygons. Town staff have put in considerable time on these issues working with MassGIS’ mapping vendor, but are were unable to provide the time needed to completely resolve all the issues
Last Updated 3/5/2015