Linear referencing on intersections in R&H

2132
17
01-21-2019 07:37 AM
MajaMesserli
New Contributor III

Hello R&H Users

We have discovered a different behavior between linear referencing in R&H.

Our data model is based on road axes. The direction of linear referencing is predefined.

Most of the axis are straight and the linear referencing works perfectly in R&H. But some of them have ramps intersecting the axis. These ones are not correctly referenced in R&H. The only way to do this is to set the M-values manually. However, these values are lost after using R&H, for example after realigning the axes.

 

Did you encounter this problem too?  If so, what was your way to solve it?

Currently we are using ArcGIS 10.5.1 and Windows 10. Do you know if the problem remains in 10.6? What about ArcGIS Pro?

Tags (1)
0 Kudos
17 Replies
NathanEasley
Esri Regular Contributor

Hi Andrew and Ryan,

Additional information about all 3 issues mentioned in the previous post are below.

BUG-000101392 (TFS51810) - This issue was logged for 10.4.1 about extending a route to create a concurrency, then removing the concurrency on the same date and seeing the events not behave correctly.  Our team tested this issue in 10.3.1, 10.4, and 10.4.1 and were not able to reproduce the issue.

TFS51854 - This issue was logged for 10.3.1 patch 1 and is about reassigning or reversing the middle portion of a route and seeing the incorrect gap calibration method applied to any gaps downstream.  We've fixed this issue in the 10.5.1 patch.

BUG-000117736 - This issue was logged for 10.5.1 and involves running the Update Calibration Points geoprocessing tool within an edit session so event behaviors can be run on any calibration changes.  This issue is being investigated by our team.  I will point out this is not a common workflow or anything documented in the Roads and Highways documentation.

I would again encourage you, or any other user, who thinks there are issues with gap calibration to log a case with support so our team can address the issue.  As of today, we only have the issue above along with a few issues related to cover behavior on gaps that have been submitted to our team through support cases, but there are no other gap calibration issues we're aware of.

MajaMesserli
New Contributor III

In our case, splitting axes would mean that we would have to adapt our entire model.

To solve the intersection problem using the gapped route solution; do you have experience / suggestions for gap length? 1 meter or less?

0 Kudos
NathanEasley
Esri Regular Contributor

Hi Maja,

As long as the gap is larger than the XY tolerance value of your network feature class, it will be considered a gap by Roads and Highways.

0 Kudos
MajaMesserli
New Contributor III

Ok, thank you Nathan.

0 Kudos
MajaMesserli
New Contributor III

Many thanks Clive and Ryan
@ Clive: yes the diagram shows the situation as we would like it to have it in R&H. It's exactly as you described it.

My team will discuss the two proposed methods and try them out and decide what we can do.

MajaMesserli
New Contributor III

To keep you up to date: We have forwarded the case (described in the first post) to Esri Support. They answer that the gap workaround should be used for now. However, the team plans to support these geometries (alpha, branch, fish, etc.) when moving roads and highways to ArcGIS Pro. Apparently, the R&H for ArcGIS Pro beta should roll out in a few months and the final R&H for ArcGIS Pro towards the end of this year.

0 Kudos
RyanKoschatzky
Occasional Contributor III

Maja, 

Nathan demo'ed the new functionality at a RHUG meeting. Maybe Nathan or someone recalls what month that was. Then you see the demo yourself at LINKS - RoadsAndHighwaysUserGroup 

What was demo'ed looked promising from what I recall but to my knowledge has not been put through the paces to see how route actions and event behaviors work.  

I am still working on my gaps document and while I can say the small sample test on newly created routes was positive, I had editor have an issue arise with a gap route being created that introduced around 2 miles extra to the length of the route. That case (02260994) has been written up and submitting to esri. It is too new to know anything at this time. Will follow up when more is known. 

MajaMesserli
New Contributor III

Thank you Ryan, I found it, it is the one recorded in November 2018.

0 Kudos