This is a vector polyline file showing trails at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM). The data was collected using a Trimble Pro XR GPS receiver with a Trimble Compact Dome Antenna and a Trimble Asset Surveyor hand held data logger. The trail system a Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one of the most important man-made recreational features of the Park. This dataset represents the most comprehensive inventory of both locational and attribute information about the trails systems to date and is considered on of the most important base data layers for the Park. As such GRSM staff will strive to the both spatial and attribute information stored within this dataset up to date in order to best reflect the current status of the trails system at the Park Only Trails that are shown on the official park visitor map and/or listed in the park maintenance system are contained in this dataset. Other trails, while known to the park to exist and clearly used for access to permanent features (e.g. cemeteries, overlooks), are not contained in this dataset due to the parks desire to ensure safety of visitors on park trails. These data are formatted for use by park staff in the park 1:24,000-scale topographic map series, and are classified using the "FCSubtype" field, which classifies a trail segment based on primary use.

This is a vector polyline file showing trails at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM). The data was collected using a Trimble Pro XR GPS receiver with a Trimble Compact Dome Antenna and a Trimble Asset Surveyor hand held data logger. The trail system a Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one of the most important man-made recreational features of the Park. This dataset represents the most comprehensive inventory of both locational and attribute information about the trails systems to date and is considered on of the most important base data layers for the Park. As such GRSM staff will strive to the both spatial and attribute information stored within this dataset up to date in order to best reflect the current status of the trails system at the Park Only Trails that are shown on the official park visitor map and/or listed in the park maintenance system are contained in this dataset. Other trails, while known to the park to exist and clearly used for access to permenant features (e.g. cemeteries, overlooks), are not contained in this dataset due to the parks desire to ensure safety of visitors on park trails. These data are formated for use by park staff in the park 1:24,000-scale topographic map series, and are classified using the "FCSubtype" field, which classifies a trail segment based on primary use.

The Equestrian Facilities Location database contains information about physical and cultural geographic features of all types with Great Smoky Mountains National Park, current and historical, but not including roads and highways. The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Other attributes include feature designations, feature classification, historical and descriptive information, and for some categories the geometric boundaries. To display the broad collection of Points of Interest within the park footprint. These data borrow from the GNIS names schema, yet are heavily modified to allow for the display of points of interest within the park of interest to the public. These data are authoritative data published by the National Park Service.

The Digital Geologic Units of Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Vicinity, Tennessee and North Carolina consists of geologic units mapped as area (polygon) features. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Evaluation (GRE) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). The data were captured, grouped and attributed as per the NPS GRE Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 1.3.1. (available at: https://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm). The data layer is available as a feature class in a 9.1 personal geodatabase (grsm_geology.mdb). Attributed geologic contact lines that define the geologic unit polygons are present within the Geologic Contacts (GRSMGLGA) data layer. The Geologic Units (GRSMGLG) GIS data layer is also available as a coverage export (.E00) file (GRSMGLG.E00), and as a shapefile (.SHP) file (GRSMGLG.SHP). Each GIS data format has an ArcGIS 9.1 layer (.LYR) file (GRSMGLG_GDB.LYR (geodatabase feature class), GRSMGLG_COV.LYR (coverage), GRSMGLG_SHP.LYR (shapefile) with map symbology that is included with the GIS data. See the Distribution Information section for additional information on data acquisition. The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone 17N. That data is within the area of interest of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This dataset is just one component of the Digital Geologic Map of Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Vicinity, Tennessee and North Carolina. The data layers (feature classes) that comprise the Digital Geologic Map of Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Vicinity, Tennessee and North Carolina include: GRSMAML (Alteration and Metamorphic Lines), GRSMATD (Geologic Attitude and Observation Points), GRSMFLD (Folds), GRSMFLT (Faults), GRSMGLG (Geologic Units), GRSMGLGA (Geologic Contacts), GRSMGPT (Point Geologic Features), GRSMGSL (Geologic Sample Localities), GRSMMIN (Mine Point Features), GRSMSEC (Cross Section Lines), GRSMSUR (Surficial Geologic Units), GRSMSURA (Surficial Contacts) and GRSMSYM (Fault Symbology). There are three additional ancillary map components, the Geologic Unit Information (GRSMGLG1) Table, the Source Map Information (GRSMMAP) Table and the Map Help File (GRSM_GEOLOGY.HLP). Refer to the NPS GRE Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 1.3.1 (available at: https://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm) for detailed data layer (feature class) and table specifications including attribute field parameters, definitions and domains, and implemented topology rules and relationship classes.

This database includes all data related to long-term vegetation monitoring performed by GRSM I&M staff from 2003-2009. Data collection methods follow Jenkins 2008 protocol, and are generally referred to as the GRSM Vegetation Monitoring plots. This program ended in 2009 and was replaced with the Vital Signs program, however, this database will still occasionally be updated as research partners revisit plots.

This is a vector polygon file showing the historic range forest types at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The data was collected from a historic map drawn by Frank Miller, Assistant Forester, in 1938. The map was scanned using a Vidar color scanner and the digital images were brought into ArcMap. The map was originally divided into 4 separate panels, thus there were 4 separate image files. Each image was Georectified, Clipped and then the Mosaic tool was employed to create one large map image. Two feature classes, one a point feature class and the other a polyline feature class, were then created. The polyline class was used to digitize the boundary of each area of vegetation and a point containing the attributes of each area was placed within. After digitizing, the polyline layer was converted to a polygon feature class and the attribute table from the point layer was joined to the corresponding polygon within the feature class.

BRIDGES IN PARKS include foot, bridle trail, and vehicle bridges of widely varying widths, spans, heights, and types of construction. In the interest of limiting the classifications within this compilation, the less frequent underpass and the minor culvert are embraced within this section.In outward appearance, the bridge calls most importantly for visible assurance of strength and stability. To be entirely successful, it is not enough for the bridge to be functionally adequate within the exact knowledge of the engineer; it must proclaim itself so to the inexact instincts of the layman. In gesture to the lay concept of structural sufficiency, it is pardonable park practice to venture well beyond sheer engineering perfection in the scaling of materials to stresses and strains.The attainment of "the little more" that is so desired by those who would have an eye-appeal scale brought to the slide-rule, is all too rare in park bridges. Rather is there a too prevalent flimsiness, ocular rather than structural. Considerably fewer bridges fail to satisfy by seeming too ponderous for their function.After the attainment of a sufficiency in material pleasing to the eye, the next demand to be made upon bridges would be for variety, avoiding the commonplace at one extreme, and the fantastic at the other. The ranges of use, span and height, and the broad fields of materials, arch and truss forms, local practices—among other variety-making possibilities—promise endless combinations and cross-combinations that could make for such individuality among bridges that none need ever appear the close counterpart of another.This presentation seeks merely to focus on the characteristics that bring to bridges the most promise of compatibility with natural environment. There is elsewhere abundant information, including diagrams, rules and formulae, for the design of structurally enduring bridges. Much more limited is the field of source material that concerns itself with bridges that, by reason of appropriateness to natural environment, truly deserve to endure. There are far too many bridges which, after breaking every commandment for beauty and fitness, seem to have sought to wash away all sins through the awful virtue of permanence. Such penitent bridges should have no place in our parks. The quality of permanence cannot be considered a virtue in itself. Unless every other desirable virtue, big or little, is present, permanence is only a vicious attribute.In general, bridges of stone or timber appear more indigenous to our natural parks than spans of steel or concrete, just as the reverse is probably true for bridges in urban locations or in connection with broad main highways. Probably there are few structures so discordant in a wilderness environment as bridges of exposed steel construction.Too great "slickness" of masonry or timber technique is certain to depreciate the value of these materials for park bridges. Rugged and informal simplicity in use is indisputably the specification for their proper employment in bridges.In no park structure more than bridges is it of such importance to steer clear of the common errors in masonry. Shapeless stones laid up in the manner of mosaic are abhorrent in the extreme. In bridges particularly is there merit in horizontal coursing, breaking of vertical joints, variety in size of stones—all the principles productive of sound construction and pleasing appearance in any use of masonry. The curve of the arch, the size of the pier, the height of the masonry above the crown of the arch are all of great importance to the success of the masonry bridge.Timber bridges may utilize round or squared members to agreeable results. Squared timbers gain mightily in park-like characteristic when hand-hewn. A common fault in bridges is the too abrupt termination of the parapet, railing, or wing wall. These should carry well beyond the abutments.In general disfavor for park use are bridges of the open wood truss type. There seem

Bridges include foot, bridle trail, and vehicle bridges of widely varying widths, spans, heights, and types of construction. In the interest of limiting the classifications within this compilation, the less frequent underpass and the minor culvert are embraced within this section. In outward appearance, the bridge calls most importantly for visible assurance of strength and stability. To be entirely successful, it is not enough for the bridge to be functionally adequate within the exact knowledge of the engineer; it must proclaim itself so to the inexact instincts of the layman. In gesture to the lay concept of structural sufficiency, it is pardonable park practice to venture well beyond sheer engineering perfection in the scaling of materials to stresses and strains. The attainment of "the little more" that is so desired by those who would have an eye-appeal scale brought to the slide-rule, is all too rare in park bridges. Rather is there a too prevalent flimsiness, ocular rather than structural. Considerably fewer bridges fail to satisfy by seeming too ponderous for their function. After the attainment of a sufficiency in material pleasing to the eye, the next demand to be made upon bridges would be for variety, avoiding the commonplace at one extreme, and the fantastic at the other. The ranges of use, span and height, and the broad fields of materials, arch and truss forms, local practices—among other variety-making possibilities—promise endless combinations and cross-combinations that could make for such individuality among bridges that none need ever appear the close counterpart of another. This presentation seeks merely to focus on the characteristics that bring to bridges the most promise of compatibility with natural environment. There is elsewhere abundant information, including diagrams, rules and formulae, for the design of structurally enduring bridges. Much more limited is the field of source material that concerns itself with bridges that, by reason of appropriateness to natural environment, truly deserve to endure. There are far too many bridges which, after breaking every commandment for beauty and fitness, seem to have sought to wash away all sins through the awful virtue of permanence. Such penitent bridges should have no place in our parks. The quality of permanence cannot be considered a virtue in itself. Unless every other desirable virtue, big or little, is present, permanence is only a vicious attribute. In general, bridges of stone or timber appear more indigenous to our natural parks than spans of steel or concrete, just as the reverse is probably true for bridges in urban locations or in connection with broad main highways. Probably there are few structures so discordant in a wilderness environment as bridges of exposed steel construction. Too great "slickness" of masonry or timber technique is certain to depreciate the value of these materials for park bridges. Rugged and informal simplicity in use is indisputably the specification for their proper employment in bridges. In no park structure more than bridges is it of such importance to steer clear of the common errors in masonry. Shapeless stones laid up in the manner of mosaic are abhorrent in the extreme. In bridges particularly is there merit in horizontal coursing, breaking of vertical joints, variety in size of stones—all the principles productive of sound construction and pleasing appearance in any use of masonry. The curve of the arch, the size of the pier, the height of the masonry above the crown of the arch are all of great importance to the success of the masonry bridge. Timber bridges may utilize round or squared members to agreeable results. Squared timbers gain mightily in park-like characteristic when hand-hewn. A common fault in bridges is the too abrupt termination of the parapet, railing, or wing wall. These should carry well beyond the abutments. In general disfavor for park use are bridges of the open wood truss type. There seem

A feature class depicting geographic locations of park Observation Towers with scenic vistas

The installation of gates in Great Smoky Mountains National Park is typically driven by the need for conservation, safety, visitor management, and infrastructure protection. While Great Smoky Mountains National Park generally strive to offer accessible public lands, gates are occasionally necessary to ensure the long-term protection of these treasured spaces and to manage their use effectively.