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; } } }

Utility Network ohne Portal

RobbHodges

<\/HEAD>

Wird es jemals möglich sein, das Utility Network zu verwenden, ohne Portal zu installieren und zu warten? Ursprünglich war die Idee, das geometric network in Pro zu integrieren... das hat nicht funktioniert, also wurde das Utility Network erstellt. Dann wurde mir gesagt, dass es zuerst für Portal veröffentlicht wird, mit dem Plan, es später über AGOL verfügbar zu machen. Jetzt höre ich, dass es niemals vollständig in AGOL integriert wird. Stimmt das? <\/P>

<\/P>

Wenn ja, bedeutet das, dass alle Versorgungsunternehmen Portal installieren und warten müssen, um die Netzwerkverbindung zu haben, die ein geometric network ermöglicht? Was bedeutet das für kleine Versorgungsunternehmen, die nicht über die Infrastruktur dafür verfügen? Ich hätte wirklich nichts dagegen, Pro öfter zu verwenden, aber es scheint so, als wären wir im Versorgungsbereich außerhalb der Nutzung von Portal irgendwie zurückgelassen worden. Irgendwann wird arcmap der Vergangenheit angehören. Dieser Tag bereitet mir ziemlich Sorgen.<\/P><\/BODY><\/HTML>

Finde mehr Beiträge mit dem Tag

Stormwater

Wastewater

Water Distribution

Accepted answers

All comments

AZumwalt

I'm copying my question from a year ago - Has there been an update to this question from Esri? We are also a small utility and use ArcGIS Enterprise. The only reason we would implement Portal is the utility network, but maintaining a Portal is daunting due to our limited resources. Is the utility network without Portal in Esri's plan? We use a versioned multi-user database, so the single user model will not work for us.

ThomasHolz

Paul,

Saying "you can follow most of the steps" isn't helpful. You have a few single-user license folks out here that would appreciate knowing what the specific steps are without having to guess at the process. It's already a steep learning curve without having to guess at the process. Thanks.

SrinivasaRao1

We have gone through it but still we are unable to get the solution from the steps as there may be some internal steps missed out which may be required to add.

PaulLeBlanc1

The implementation for file geodatabase is very similar to enterprise. You can follow most of the steps in Create a water utility network—Get Started | ArcGIS Solutions for Water . Instead of creating an enterprise geodatabase and user, you would just create an empty file geodatabase.

We do have sample data (and maps!) for water, see Water Distribution Utility Network Foundation | ArcGIS Solutions for Water

MilanJekic

I would like to find more about the reference to "single-user model", the link above only directed me to the vocabulary, I am more interested in how to implement a file geodatabase -based utility network (say, water distribution utility network), it is even better if there is a work flow setup, together with the sample data.

NickHarvey

From: What's new in ArcGIS Pro 2.5:

Utility networks

Utility networks are now supported in a file geodatabase. Learn more about the single-user model.

AZumwalt

Has there been an update to this question from Esri? We are also a small utility and use ArcGIS Enterprise. The only reason we would implement Portal is the utility network, but maintaining a Portal is daunting due to our limited resources. Is the utility network without Portal in Esri's plan?

RobbHodges

We have lots of editors editing inspection data, leak survey data, break data, etc. We do this all with a combination of AGOL and ArcGIS Server. We only have 2 editors editing the network data (sewer mains, gas mains, water mains, etc.). For the very far foreseeable future, that will will be it as far as editing that data. We really don't want anyone else getting into editing the assets. The method we have now works great. I prefer working with AGOL vs Portal. We already have our 55 users on that. I like that ESRI maintains the upgrades for that. I already have to upgrade enough software. I'm not interested in adding anything else to that.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to move forward with Pro. I use it as much as I can now. However, if in a few years, or whenever that day ArcMap dies, I'd like to be able to move forward without installing and maintaining an entire additional set of software.

AsensionTorres

We just went live with portal and barely have a toe into it. How big is your team, organization, and infrastructure type? We had your concerns as well but after attending the recent FEDGIS conference I feel much better about the power of Pro and it's benefits. Are you collecting new feature data through back office methods or are you doing field work. While you might only have 2 editors right now, your workflow might benefit from distributing out that production to more people, especially the ones who have their hands on the assets. We have a team of 2 also and are trying to plot out a better workflow that only seems possible now that we are moving to a Pro setup. We're still figuring it too.arcgispro 2.3. portal##utility networks

RobbHodges

We're running somewhat of a hybrid system with ArcGIS Server and AGOL right now. So right now, we have a couple of folks editing our geometric network. Some of our data is stored in AGOL. I'm not sure that the single user network support through Pro would suffice. We literally only have 2 users editing features in the geometric network (although I'd love the ability for multiuser editing of related tables within the geometric network), so I really don't want to mess with installing and maintaining Portal, just for 2 users.

It's a bit worrisome that there isn't a defined plan in place for those of us in this situation. In order to plan long term, I hope that there will be a clearer road map for us in the near future. There seems to be quite the push to move folks to Pro. I'm curious as to what the adoption rate of the utility network is within the utility field is. We could be in the minority when it comes to this, but I've spoken with others in the same boat as us. I really hope that at the very least, as ArcMap is phased out, we have a comparable system with Pro as we do now. Thanks.

LarryYoung

Hi Robb,

Thanks for your post. We are actually in the process of deciding how best to address the needs of smaller utilities as well as other non-utility users of the geometric network. Options such as providing AGOL support of the utility network are still a possibility, but a more timely solution for customers such as yourself will likely be single user network support through ArcGIS Pro.

Apologies for not having a clear road map for all geometric network users sooner. The ArcMap solution for geometric networks is still a very viable approach, but we realize many users are anxious to move forward with ArcGIS Pro. Our focus has been on providing support for larger utilities that needed a more scalable solution with additional detailed modeling capabilities. We will continue this work, but will also add some focus to supporting smaller utilities and the non-utility user.

More to come.

Thanks,

Larry Young

Utility Network Program Manager

Nimm an der Unterhaltung teil

Angemeldete Mitglieder können Beiträge verfassen, Updates folgen und mehr. Neu hier? Registriere ein kostenloses Konto.

Schnellzugriffe

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