Latest Contributions by AndrewWilson99

I had tried to forget how confusing it is when I deal with ArcMap patches but I am being cornered into a 10.6.1 install in our enterprise due to some compatibility issues between SAFE, ESRI and Oracle products.  As one that has previously wondered why the multitude of patches (three pages on this version!) aren't rolled up, I was initially glad to see this patch!  From reading the above and gleaning the download links for "bugs fixed", at first glance it appears that this General Update Patch includes many of the patches previously released, but not all (hence the list of additional "outstanding patches".  At a glance, those other "not covered" bugs are in the listed patches.    That brings up the obvious question - why not include all previously released patches for 10.6.1 with this GUP?    It is great to have a dozen fewer patches, but five is still five, wouldn't  it be sharper to have just one patch rather than a half-dozen?     Is there something I am missing in the ho-hum patches as compared to the out-standing patches?  Wouldn't it be nice, I thought, if explicit words on the patches that are rolled up that say something to the effect that "This patch is superseded by the General Update Patch" on each of those superseded patches, help avoid the Where's Waldo scratching, printing out copies of the other download pages to figure out if other non-listed patches are or aren't covered in this patch. Since I was set on the path of looking for the red and white striped hat, I found that this appeared to be  a "mostly rolled up" affair.   There were bugs in non-listed patches that weren't listed as fixed in the GUP.  For example BUG-000123406 is addressed in the ArcGIS (Desktop, Engine, Server) Microsoft ( R ) Windows ( R ) June 2019 Security Update Compatibility Patch but that patch isn't in the "extras" set above nor is the bug listed in the GUP ephemera.   Is the Security Update still an issue or not?  (And yes, there are other bugs in the 10.6.1 list of patches that follow this pattern.)    To distill this into questions, Should I still install all 10.6.1 patches regardless of the "special emphasis" shown above in the GUP text? Is there a list of what patches are actually rolled up into GUP and which aren't? ... View more

lshipman-esristaff‌, thanks for the inside scoop.   Do you have any idea if that recognition of response differences in geodatabases means that the documentation will be updated to be a bit more explicit, that there will be fixes (next version, patches, hotfixes) to allow SQL Correlated Subqueries to work in fGDB like they work in other data formats in the future, or is it just that this as far as it goes for the time?   Thanks in advance. ... View more

Bounce. No response yet about the haphazard build numbering in ArcGIS Pro sub-dot version.   At this point I can only guess that like Rebecca Strauch, GISP suggests, that this is just another "overlook" and we can hope that in the future releases the version control will revert to the 90% standard that has been used in the past by Esri - the build number increments in addition to the version numbers. Would submitting this as an ArcGIS for Ideas (Follow a consistent build number scheme) have better results? ... View more

In the past, the standard Esri method for identifying versions with build number was a "Major.Minor.Patch.Build" template, with the "Patch" being optional and the "Build" incrementing with, um, each build.  While the FAQ: What are the build numbers for releases of ArcGIS Pro? *looks* good, what I see with Microsoft, Tivoli EM and other applications is that they don't display the updated software as a different build: Traditionally, Esri has incremented the last four digits regardless of the variable versioning put in front of it (yes, 9.3 SP1 and the QIPs were aberrant but identified as such).   This worked, was known and was generally simple enough.   Does this release ring in a new era for Esri's rules for identifying versions through build numbers or is it just a crossed wire? ... View more

Thanks for your ideas on how Esri will approach the issues stated above and proposed issue resolution, Bob.  Unfortunately, putting usernames into the system is the easy part: we can automate that through entry-level and interns.   The bigger problem is what do we do after that - as staff change (employment status and business function) we need to roll people in and out of this system.  And then there is the bigger issue - what about all the actual core my.esri activities that we manage permissions for licenses, downloads, support, - it will be MUCH harder to see the big picture when it scrolls over hundreds of slow "next page" screens in the my.esri construct. While an API to allow us to build infrastructure to manage this IS an approach that offloads the admin part of this from Esri, it still feels like we are using coconut butter and a shoehorn for this square peg/round hole issue. ... View more

Regarding no longer supporting RSS and replacing it with a subscription service with kinks: I am not really excited with having to have yet another point solution hanging on to the periphery of things once again presented as the "new and better way".   ... View more

Given the rampant confusion and avoidance of this topic in previous conversations here and elsewhere on the "patch roll-up" topic when I saw the following link I thought a different approach might be more effective: showing an example of what software vendors do when the list of patches and fixes gets to be outstanding in an effort to have better system configuration (aids vendor's software support and users' security) as well as making it easier on the user: Simplifying updates for Windows 7 and 8.1 | Windows for IT Pros ... View more

I get so confused with product marketing these days and I am not even talking about product line names. On the one hand I am supposed to read between the lines of a few technical sessions and perhaps an offhand remark in a blog post (oh, I think someone also chatted with someone else and noted it in GeoNet that theyheard if from a developer) and understand the details of ArcGIS Pro gretting major changes in licensing.  Then, when one looks at the same sources of information (sessions at the vendor's conventions - Fed, Dev or Int'l) and information seems just as explicitly stated, whether it is SciPy in 10.3 or Anaconda in 10.4, I find out that I have gone to far. Ultimately, the only thing that I think that I am sure of here is that nothing is sure and I am not even sure about that as I feel that someone will pull a rabbit out of the labyrinth in this thread that explains everything the way it was supposed to be understood if we stood in their shoes.  I will remember to bring extra socks and band-aids. ... View more

Great catch on Rebecca Strauch, GISP's part which points out how "little details" can be so important to diagnose these issues! As far as I know, standard conventional wisdom with any Esri upgrade ("in-place" included) remains to remove any and all 3rd party tools (and the cautious that want to save time in the long run even remove ESRI ones that don't come in the core application install) that interact with the ArcGIS programs before starting the upgrade/downgrade.  The 64-bit python folder could be an artifact from installing 64-Bit Background Processing in 10.4 as that is where I have seen it show up before.  As many have pointed out here and elsewhere unfortunately the install seems to be a little loose (and by that I mean that a fair number of people run into problems) with the siting of the 64-bit Python path in the PATH variable.   As well, direct upgrades may or may not upgrade the old Python path.  Needless to say after reading this thread, people using ArcGIS for Desktop often need to be cyber sleuths to actually use the program! I believe that the vast majority of current ArcGIS for desktop users are using 64-bit operating systems and the majority of those are Windows 7, SP 1.  ... View more

Jason Tipton, I think you misconstrued Hannah Deindorfer and my comments regarding the wiki at wiki.gis.com.  Reading closely, my mention of that wiki wasn't as a REPLACEMENT for up-to-date, accurate documentation but rather an administrative example where Esri has given users permission to contribute to the body of knowledge.   While that wiki is a bit of an "encyclopedia" and *could* be used as a form of documentation with a bit of bailing wire, it isn't and it probably shouldn't ever be considered 'the product technical documentation".   It currently DOES provide strategic documentation, including the classic "system design strategies" documentation. As far as "not recognizing the gis.com domain as an Esri product", I am not sure if that says more to recognizing design cues, that Esri has such a labyrinth of web-space or readers just being too young (or too old) to remember the era when Esri bought the "GIS.COM" domain and users had to remember the difference between AP Select, AE Select and INFO SELECT. Apologies, nothing above really gets at why Esri doesn't take advantage of the knowledge of dedicated product users to help improve the actual help documentation in a more timely manner.   To alleviate that and to actually go along with the thread: While I can "submit feedback" from personal experience I know that a niche event that is important for me may not be important for the vendor's documentation filter mechanisms and/or it may take months or years for the information to actually be put into the documentation.   Often, knowing the ROI from experience, I just shrug my shoulders and move on rather than spend the time to ship it off into the opaque hole.  Sure, I'll ping the big ones, but not the small ones anymore. I get the Command and Control perspective of the documentation writers and the fear of lambic fermentation when it comes to that Command & Control, I am just saying there are costs to that too. ... View more

Esri does allow the user community  to update the Esri-run GIS-wiki after signing in with their global id. Typically I assume there is some vetting process to keep out riff-raff though I have contributed so it may not be entirely effective ; ).  Yes this is not "online documentation" that the OP talks to that is directly linked from ArcGIS for Goodness-knows-what  but it does show that trust can be built, even within the Redlands hive, to allow non-blue participants along the lines of what Joshua Bixby​ pines for.   ... View more

Jared Schuckert​: In light of the silence: Boing. Did you get any yeas or nays out of this?  We are running into similar problems with 10.3.1 models and 10.2.2 clients and prior to pulling all various iterations and documenting the jibbers out of the jabbers of it for a bug report I thought it would be nice to know if it is an already known issue.  The models are ho-hum clip,erase and merge models, nothing new in 10.3. ... View more

Melissa Jarman: Thanks for the direct URL.  ... View more

Glad you found Ian's tool.  It looks like it more closely approximates aliquot parts (which it seems is your ultimate  goal rather than "making a proper fishnet") by finding the corner vertices of polygons and subdividing between them.  Using the right tool for the job is a pretty good way to make the job easier.  Ignoring the tool talk and focusing on fishnets for future fishnetters, the comments didn't seem to pick up on my implication that the template corner is not actually the lower left vertice of the data that it was assumed to be. 1. "Doveryai no proveryai" (trust, but verify) with GIS, especially with help pages.   Many nuances are lost in the simplified versions users are presented and in a closed source software system it can be difficult to fully discover them. 2. Without the template data or a little more detail / description of the template used it is hard to say it wasn't creating the fishnet precisely as requested, from the template's lower left coordinate which may or may not be a vertex. 3. If there is rotation and other irregularities of the template/target, an out-of-the-box polygon creation tool would be more unlikely to produce hoped for results.  Rotation could also be a factor in explaining the phenomena of the previous bullet. ... View more

Following the Create Fishnet tool help from scratch I didn't have the same issue in the same corner, rather my issue is that sections in Florida aren't necessarily square nor aligned to the reference system.    I believe the error you are trying to fix is caused by the use of the optional "Template Extent" instead of just putting the origin you want in the "origin coordinate" and the upper left coordinate in the "y-axis coordinate" input boxes.  (Fishnets can easily be rotated to match imperfect north/south alignment and they can deal with rectangular sections that don't have perfect mile-long sides but they don't do so well on non-rectangular sections.) The data frame is NAD_1983_StatePlane_Florida_West_FIPS_0902_Feet.  Origin= 606282.455 1235953.186, Y-axis= 606282.455 1245953.186.  Cell size width/height = 1/8 mile Rows and columns = 8 ArcGIS 10.2.2 The fishnet is 5280 feet by 5280 feet.  In this case, the fishnet is oriented plumb with the spatial reference system but it can be easily rotated around the point of origin by changing the "y-axis coordinate" value.   Because sections are not perfectly square ("sides intersect at 90 degrees" sense of the word) and the corners are not exactly 5280 feet apart from each other means that the fishnet won't really line up in any other corner of the section. ... If you are ultimately after aliquot parts of sections (the square miles that PLSS is based on), you have to trust that the fishnet derived outcome is going to be "loose" and the error in both of our screen shots are probably not that far off from the other errors we will get when going down this path.  Maybe you could just use wider lines?   ; ) There are probably as many reasons why sections are not square as there are efforts/methods to make aliquot parts with GIS.   If you are not trying to make aliquot parts with fishnets, food for thought for readers that are thinking of that. ... View more