Latest Contributions by GabrielUpchurch1

There are probably dozens of ways this could be accomplished with ModelBuilder.  Benjamin's suggestion should work fine but I thought I would over-complicate things with an iterator approach and lots of inline variable substitution.  Just for fun, you know. Basically, I used Iterate Field Values to grab each unique value from a field in a feature class and feed it into the query expression parameter of the Feature Class To Feature Class tool.  I parameterized the model so that it can be run like any other GP tool by specifying the input feature class, the field containing the unique status values, the output GDB, and basename to use in naming the output feature classes.  I have attached a diagram and a sample model for you to examine if interested.  I added the field parameter after creating the diagram so the diagram doesn't exactly reflect the current state of the attached model.  Let me know if you have any questions. ... View more

As a test, have you tried simply right-clicking on the field name and selecting "Calculate Geometry?"  This may help determine if it is a data-specific or python cause. ... View more

Official Documentation:  Existing CityEngine users—Esri CityEngine | ArcGIS for Desktop ... View more

This is expected and should not cause any issues. ... View more

Thanks for all the great suggestions Peter.  I hadn't thought about running Build Footprints again with the "Update Boundary" parameter disabled to reset the footprints to the correct geometry. ... View more

Try the Build Raster Attribute Table tool with the "Overwrite" option disabled.  Raster attribute tables are not always updated after changes are made to the data so sometimes it is necessary to use this tool to obtain accurate COUNT values.  Here is the help resource for the tool:  Build Raster Attribute Table—Help | ArcGIS for Desktop ... View more

I can't speak definitively on this but I think these capabilities may only be available when using raster products.  The reason being is that these measurement capabilities require additional metadata regarding imagery collection including the camera model (i.e., the mathematical relationship between the camera and the portion of the earth that is captured in the image) and sun angle.  This level of metadata is typically only included with raster products.  See the last section, "Capabilities of imagery," in the help document provided by Richardson for more information on this. ... View more

There are a variety of possibilities that could cause this symptom so here are a few questions to help us narrow things down. 1. Does the mosaic dataset (not the service) display properly at the same scale in ArcMap? 2. As Mody suggested, if you zoom in on the service, does the imagery properly display? 3. Did you build overviews on the mosaic dataset before publishing the service? 4. Are you using mapped drives or UNC paths for the paths to the source imagery and overviews (if generated)? 5. Do you have other image services published that work correctly? 6. Does Server have Read permissions to the locations where the source images and overviews are stored? ... View more

What procedure are you using to plot the data?  Here is what I did: 1. Add spreadsheet to ArcMap. 2. Right-click on spreadsheet name and select "Display XY Data." 3. "Edit" coordinate system section and select GCS_WGS_1984. ... View more

Are you specifying a coordinate system?  You should probably be using GCS_WGS_1984.  I tested with your data and it worked correctly.  If you are not sure what I mean, just ask. ... View more

Thanks for checking the NoData.  I did some testing this morning and was able to reproduce your issue and think I have figured out what is occurring.  It appears you are encountering the common issue of projection distortion.  In the case of Web Mercator the distortion is largely in distance and area and with your data being so far from the system's origin, the distortion is sizable.  To put it simply, a 0.228 meter cell in Web Mercator does not cover an equivalent area on the ground as a 0.75 feet cell in Alaska State Plane.  To represent the same area on the ground while complying with the specified output cell size, the software is adding additional cells.  The behavior is further exacerbated because you are going from a local coordinate system that is highly accurate in terms of distance and area to a global coordinate system that is highly inaccurate in terms of distance and area. The additional cells are not obvious because the software does a good job of maintaining the pattern in the data.  I didn't have any AK data so I generated a random raster for testing purposes and I was unable to visually determine that cells were added.  To confirm that cells were actually being added during the projection process I used the Raster to Point tool. This first screenshot shows points representing the cell centers in the Alaska State Plane dataset. This second screenshot shows points representing the cell centers after projecting to Web Mercator. ... View more

It appears you are confusing comments by two different people.  You are exactly correct about the cell sizes since there was a conversion from feet to meters between the two systems.  The cells are still the same size so this is not why the datasets are different sizes. Did you symbolize the NoData as I (Gabriel Upchurch) suggested?  My guess is that the dataset was rotated during the transformation which resulted in a large areas of NoData cells being added in the corners. ... View more

Interesting.  It appears there has been a considerable addition of rows and columns.  The proportional difference in rows and columns is almost identical to the proportional difference in file sizes.  I would symbolize your NoData cells to see if that is where all the extra rows and columns are hiding. ... View more