|
IDEA
|
Try sending an email to morgan.goadsby@mnr.gov.on.ca and ask how far out it is, maybe knowing it is a requirement federally will light a fire under them.
... View more
04-03-2025
07:23 AM
|
0
|
0
|
959
|
|
IDEA
|
Currently you can't do it without creating a custom projection and reprojector so not advised at this point. All unofficial from a source that is in the know but unnamed * Province of Ontario is now working on a transformation from NAD83 to NAD83-CSRS V6 but have no official delivery date. * They also hope to create a NAD83 to NAD3-CSRS v8 transformation. * Probably NOT creating a transformation to V7 since V6 to V7 have an average difference of 1.5mm and V8 being released. * V8 is being released by NRCAN now and they do not expect to see much of a difference between V7 and V8 either. * Minimal difference between V6, V7 and V8 and all using the same epoch. * Moving to CSRS V6/V7/V8 will be required to move to the next generation of positioning reference (NATRF). * CAN-NET is currently using V7 but anticipated they will move to V8 in the future to support ON/Can initiatives
... View more
04-02-2025
10:15 AM
|
0
|
0
|
993
|
|
POST
|
A significant issue exists with managing groups in Portal and ArcGIS Online, especially when dealing with Active Directory (AD) groups. Currently, only group owners can administer groups, which creates serious challenges for long-term management and continuity. This problem becomes particularly evident with AD-linked groups: Group owners can't add other admins since members are restricted to AD users. Ownership can only be transferred to existing AD group members, who are typically standard users without administrative privileges. When a group owner leaves the organization, administrators are forced to manually remove all apps, maps, and other content from the group just to delete it. This is followed by transferring the content to a new admin user and recreating the AD group from scratch. Allowing Admins to manage groups without being members would solve this issue, improving efficiency and reducing administrative burdens. It would ensure that content and group structures remain intact even when ownership changes, making group management more flexible and reliable.
... View more
02-10-2025
09:11 AM
|
3
|
1
|
593
|
|
IDEA
|
Thank you, that worked. I don't understand why it would remove the licensing service when it was working at the lower version. Ran "C:\Program Files\ArcGIS\Pro\Resources\ArcGIS Licensing Service\ArcGISLS.msi" and then it worked. Thanks for your help
... View more
12-11-2024
01:53 PM
|
0
|
0
|
920
|
|
IDEA
|
The new version of ArcPro 3.4.0 doesn't honour stand alone licensing. Updated version through the wizard and now it is stuck on the single use error. Created a new license provisioning file, tried to apply it and said already licensed. Open ArcPro again and still wouldn't work so needed to switch to a named user. This is on a headless server machine so we like to use stand-alone licenses for them. Not really an idea but didn't want to have to go through the million support questions to report it. I'll wait for the next update and try again and will used named user while I wait.
... View more
12-11-2024
01:07 PM
|
0
|
4
|
957
|
|
IDEA
|
Thank you @MelitaKennedy for looking in to it, the links in your post are not working, could you update them when you get a chance please? Thanks
... View more
11-07-2024
11:04 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1361
|
|
IDEA
|
We urgently need the conversion from NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N (WKID: 26917) to NAD_1983_CSRS_UTM_Zone_17N (WKID: 22617 or 22717) v6 or v7 for Ontario.
This request has been logged as ENH-000171425, and while it has been marked as a long-term roadmap item, it’s critical to emphasize that the delay is not due to a lack of business justification but rather the significant development effort involved. However, this is a pressing need. NAD83 (CSRS) UTM v7 was released in March 2019, and v6 in 2017, yet Ontario—a large and key region—was somehow overlooked in earlier roadmaps.
We cannot afford further delays. Please prioritize this conversion as Ontario's operational needs are growing more urgent.
... View more
10-24-2024
08:36 AM
|
7
|
10
|
1564
|
|
IDEA
|
We thought about this and know it will work with larger engineering firms and developers but for smaller contractors that aren't super computer literate, it will be too much for them. They would be creating and running an organization for one person stumping trees or a similar non-techy job. We are thinking about running a separate organization for our contractors but managing the licensing seems overly complicated. Ideally, people could purchase a mobile user license independently much like the public license and then be invited to one or more organizations. The billing for the mobile license would go to them and the contractor could work for multiple cities with their mobile license without the overhead of an organization. The organization could either add them to their organization or run a side organization just for contractors. (or Esri could build in an optional side organization for people you want to do work but you want to make sure they don't have access to any other content)
... View more
05-21-2024
05:36 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1985
|
|
IDEA
|
Basically, the individual user account needs a paid mobile worker option that doesn't require an organization. This is for small company workers doing things like tree-stumping, lighting repairs or rink setups. They don't have a GIS department and aren't particularly computer savvy so maintaining and managing an organization is too much for them. We want them to update what they are doing through a field maps app that we provide to them. (*** This would have been better when tracking wasn't included in mobile worker, we don't need them to create tracks just update data. We want a way for them to easily pay for a user account so they can use an app that we create by inviting them to the group. Even if we had to run the side organization with one creator and there was a way to allow them to individually purchase mobile workers, that would be fine too, we just don't want to have to collect the money for their licenses and don't want their numbers to come out of our license.
... View more
05-15-2024
09:04 AM
|
0
|
0
|
2059
|
|
POST
|
Looks like AGOL might have an issue with one of their servers. We export about 80 layers to open data daily using Python and ArcPro and one won't update and hasn't for some time. If we rename and export it, it works so not on our side or the pro document. All others export through the script and manually as expected. Error messages are likely not related to the issue, I suspect the 400 means it is not in the index at Esri so there is possibly a bad cluster or re-indexing needed. Status: InProgress StatusMessage: Server Response: ERROR: code:400, Unable to delete item. This service item has a related Service item, Bad syntax in request. Status: InProgress StatusMessage: Publishing tool execution failed Status: Failed ErrorMessage: Failed to publish web layer We had a similar issue in 2020 where every 8th or so person could not get into a survey123 app and it turned out to be a bad cluster and once Esri re-indexed or did their magic the issue was resolved. The item is our roads layer in open data if it helps Esri find which server has an issue because I am pretty sure this is an AGOL issue, not a local one.
... View more
05-15-2024
07:27 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1684
|
|
IDEA
|
We are increasingly being asked to create apps to track work being done by contractors doing work for the municipality. Currently, we need to create an account for them under our organization. We would prefer that they pay for a mobile user account and not be part of our organization. They don't need their own organization just an account for whoever is using the app. We don't want them to have access to our organization just the apps we give them access to and we don't want the accounts to come out of our ELA numbers, they can purchase them separately. I think if Esri created a public paid mobile account and then allowed organizations to add them to groups using the username that would solve our issue. They wouldn't be able to create anything in AGOL just access apps that have been made for them.
... View more
05-14-2024
06:34 AM
|
9
|
9
|
2094
|
|
IDEA
|
ArcPro and AGOL also do not work well with Big integer. We don't have anything that is a big integer and only use long. If you look at the layer in ArcCatelog it shows as long integer but the data design view of the same layer shows it as big integer. If we export to AGOL it gives a warning message about big integer and sure enough, it is big integer in AGOL. I guess the bug is in ArcPro 3.2.2. Please fix
... View more
05-06-2024
04:09 PM
|
0
|
0
|
5045
|
|
POST
|
This issue comes out of a desire to print dashboards. We can do it if we embed them in experience builder but you can't have stacked elements. We have gotten around this but creating multiple dashboards using the same data source all on a single experience builder page. The issue is when we want to filter the data (say by county). We want all the dashboards to use the filter and have added the filter to each one but the user must set it in each dashboard for all three dashboards to show the correct information. Has anyone figured out a way to put in a filter for a group of dashboards? Possibly editing the JSON of the second and third to use the filter from the first or something like that. We need a way to make sure all of them are using the same filter before people print them or even look at them.
... View more
04-19-2024
09:53 AM
|
0
|
0
|
552
|
| Title | Kudos | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 02-10-2025 09:11 AM | |
| 7 | 10-24-2024 08:36 AM | |
| 9 | 05-14-2024 06:34 AM | |
| 9 | 04-02-2024 06:36 AM | |
| 6 | 01-09-2024 06:02 AM |
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
2 weeks ago
|