otherwatersflow

That's fair, I'd like to see which ones. Listings update once a week (Mondays), so some will have sold since; each page shows when it was checked. The price is the listing's asking price, not an estimate. A gap like $59k vs $470k usually means one site just land and the other has a house. Or they matched different parcels. If you can paste a few of links I'll trace them.

Thanks for the example, and congratulations on the land. That sounds like exactly the kind of place this is for. That listing isn't in my data at all, so it's a coverage gap rather than a measurement miss: either it wasn't in this week's listings feed or it was listed after Monday's update. I'll trace it this weekend.

That's exactly it, thanks for explaining it better than I did. I ran into this early with Vermont ski-resort condos: every unit "had" the acreage of the whole resort. The lot-size field just doesn't fit condos well. The site already hides acreage on listings typed as condos and flags units that resolve to an association's common parcel, but some condos come through typed as townhouses or single-family, and those slip past. Checking the claimed acreage against the actual parcel size is the fix I'm working on.

Thank you, that's great to hear. Honestly, the number of properties next to BLM was one of the things that surprised me most when I started building this, there's ~2,700 right now. On the map you can set the land type to BLM to see just those. And since you're always looking: any search can send you a weekly email when new matches turn up (starts Monday). Curious what else you check for on BLM-adjacent land?

Good one, thanks. I think OpenStreetMap has decent bike-trail coverage, so "distance to the nearest trail" is quite doable. It's on the list.

Not yet. The public-land source (USGS PAD-US) does include county/city land, but most of it is small parks, and I set a 50-acre minimum. County forests and large preserves are a good idea though, I'll look at adding those.

Not that one. Parcels come from about 20 states' own statewide GIS services, and from Realie (licensed) for the rest. I'd want to check the license on that Kaggle dataset before using it, since county parcel data comes with all sorts of terms.

Same here, I found my land bordering state game lands in the Poconos for exactly that reason. I'm sorry to hear about the watershed woods; that's the risk with land that isn't actually protected. Fracking leases and mineral rights are a great point too. They're hard to see from public data, but worth thinking about.

Thank you, that's exactly the kind of report I need. Acreage comes from the listing data, which is messy: lot sizes arrive in square feet, or as the whole condo association's land, and my checks catch a lot of it but clearly not all. Could you share the links (here or [email protected])? I'll trace both and fix the rule that let them through, not just those two listings.

No, they're in. About 470 properties border or sit near NPS land (parks, monuments, recreation areas, lakeshores), e.g. a few along the edge of the Smokies. You're right that the headline copy only mentions national forest, BLM and state land, so that's misleading; I need to update the wording. The map's land-type filter has a "National Park Service" option if you want to see just those.

Very true. Bordering a big block of public land doesn't mean you can walk through it easily, and the acreage number says nothing about brush or deadfall. That's part of why the site only reports what it can measure (the shared edge, the size, whether a mapped road reaches the parcel) and doesn't promise anything about getting around once you're out there. Trail data would be a nice addition someday.

That matches my experience next to state game lands in PA. There's a few hunters in season who know where the lines, especially with OnX, Mostly quiet the rest of the year.