nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Fixing "Must Not Overlap" Attribute Rule

SusanLMoore

We have found fixing errors identified with the the default Must Not Overlap attribute rule for polys in the parcel fabric to be a bit challenging. In ArcMap, the editor was shown the specific area of overlap when an error was found with the topology rule.

When trying to fix this attribute rule in Pro, the entirety of the overlapping polys is selected. When you have large polygons, it makes it extremely difficult to narrow down where the overlap is.

Do other users experience this, or are we doing something wrong?

Najděte více příspěvků označených jako

Parcel Editing

Accepted answers

All comments

ChristineLeslie

Hi - have you tried using the Highlight command to highlight overlaps and gaps in your parcel fabric?

https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/data/parcel-editing/findgapsoverlaps.htm

Regards

Christine

Parcel Team

AmirBar-Maor

Here is how the Highlight Gaps and Overlaps tool looks like.

Highlight Gaps and Overlaps- SHORT_2.9.gif

SusanLMoore

Thank you for your replies, and sorry for the delayed response. We have been testing and retesting and testing again. We had seen the Highlight Gaps and Overlaps, but we weren't sure of its role because there were also the Current Must Not Overlap AR rules.

Last week, we finally just removed almost all of the "Current Must Not Overlap" attribute rules. The only one we left was for TaxParcels, as that's the only layer on which we intend to keep history.

From what I read on this thread, it sounds like maybe we should also remove the Current Must Not Overlap on tax parcel, and only using Highlight Gaps and Overlaps tool going forward (we are at Pro 2.9.5 and parcel fabric 5)? Am I interpreting that correctly?

If so, what's the suggested validation workflow once an editor is done in an area? Run topology, validate any remaining attribute rules, and then also use the Highlight Gaps and Overlaps tool?

We appreciate any suggestions!

AmirBar-Maor

@SusanLMoore

We recommend removing the CURRENT MUST NOT OVERLAP rule and use the too Highlight Gaps and Overlaps instead for the following reasons:

The new tool is more efficient
The new tool is capable of detecting gaps
The new tool accepts a tolerance, so you do not identify empty spaces like roads as a gap.
Unlike validating topology, the new tool does not modify the data

As regards the recommended workflow - it depends on your business requirements:

I assume you would run the Highlight Gaps and Overlaps before and after working in a given area
Topology & Attribute rules - some customers might run it in their named version after every edit while some might run it periodically. Some might run topology validation but postpone running attribute rules. it depends on the severity of the errors produced and your business requirements.
This would be a good place for other 'tax shops' to chime in. I suspect we'll discover that the business requirements and practice are heterogeneous.

SusanLMoore

Thanks! We will remove the attribute rule and switch to fully testing the Highlight Gaps and Overlaps. Generally, the editors validate topology for every "job" (e.g., a split/combo, new sub, etc.), so I was anticipating they would validate the validation attribute rules for every job as well. We will see if that truly makes sense as they continue their testing.

I would be happy to take input from other parcel orgs, too!

DrewDowling

Does the same apply to the must not have gaps topology rule? Should we remove this as well from our topology?

And FYI our current workflow is to run a topology check when editing is finished but before a version is submitted to the manager for rec and post.

AmirBar-Maor

@DrewDowling

Two issues with the topology 'MUST NOT HAVE GAPS' and 'MUST NOT OVERLAP' rules:

If you have valid gaps in your data, such as roads, there is no way to specify a tolerance and they will also be picked up.
Topology rules work on the feature class level and not on the feature layer. This means it will pick up historic parcels as invalid overlap.

DrewDowling

@AmirBar-MaorOh yes I didn't think about historical parcels. They will have lots of gaps over time. Thank you.

CathyAppleton

@AmirBar-Maor

I don't see using the gaps/overlaps option as a great alternative solution. It is just not very practical when you have to run it on a bunch of layers individually and could easily miss/skip one when trying to select each one to check. Another issues is the setting, you have to guess at overlap tolerance. I find this odd since an overlap or gap is exactly that, an overlapping or gap in the layer regardless of the size. I guess we were spoiled in Arcmap, where we would run topology on all layers at once and did not have to set the tolerance. Is there any plans to improve or provide a more useable solution?

AmirBar-Maor

@CathyAppleton

Thanks for sharing your feedback about the Highlight Overlaps and Gaps tool. I believe an idea was submitted to create a GP tool that can export 'highlights'.

The overlap/gap tolerance is very useful for organizations that consider a road as a valid gap or have condo units as a valid overlap. It should be smaller than the road's width.

Please try to forget ArcMap for a second and try to define what an ideal usable solution would look like. If you had a solution that created thousands of errors, how would you do with that information? When would you like to fix those errors?

Any information/requirement is greatly appreciated.

CathyAppleton

Luckily our data (pre-Pro) is very clean. So having a solution that would create thousands of errors is not something we would need, Currently what us editors do need in Pro is to be able to quickly check all layers at once in the area we just worked on. Fixing those errors as we find them, before posting to Default. Although mass countywide validation is not something we currently need, I am glad to hear a GP tools has been submitted.

SusanLMoore

@AmirBar-Maor , I may be oversimplifying here, but what if instead of a drop-down on the Highlight Gaps and Overlaps tool, there were checkboxes so that you could select multiple layers at once? In our workflow, once we do a job, we would like to validate topology, attribute rules, and view gaps and overlaps. We would do all of this validation in the map extent of the job, not across the 910 square mile county. We try not to push any jobs up to default with errors in them. Might checkboxes be a future option?

To verify: the Highlight tool knows to only work with Active parcels, not historic, correct? Is it ignoring parcels where RetiredBy is not null?

AmirBar-Maor

@SusanLMoore

We have received this idea from @MikeSnook.

We also consider enhancing the tool, as you suggest, to work on multiple layers.

The tool honors the 'feature layer' - which means it honors the definition query. So the answer to your question is 'yes - it only runs on the current parcels if you set it to run on that layer'.

This is unlike Geodatabase topology which runs on the feature classes in the geodatabase and has no notion of 'feature layers'.

SusanLMoore

@AmirBar-Maor , thanks for the info! Would it be helpful if I added the "multiple layers" option as a new idea, or is it already on the official under consideration list?

AmirBar-Maor

@SusanLMoore
Please submit an idea, it helps us prioritize the enhancements.

Thanks!

SusanLMoore

For reference of anyone else who would like to Kudo the idea of being able to select multiple layers at once in the Highlight tool, you can find it here.

Připojte se ke konverzaci

Přihlášení členové mohou přispívat, sledovat aktualizace a další. Jste tu noví? Zaregistrujte si bezplatný účet.

Rychlé odkazy

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.