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; } } }

Create Records in Mass using spreadsheet

AdamHart1

I am just starting to use the Pro fabric in a fGDB initially. I have created some records for the splits and combinations I have received so far, but I have a question regarding going backwards so the parcel lineage can be tracked to previous years. I was wondering if there was a way to create records in mass if I had a spreadsheet joined to the historic tax parcels that included all the parcels that were involved in the split or combination. I see in the Create Parcel Records tool, there is an expression option under the Name method. So does anyone know if an expression could be built using this method to create the records. Or is there another way that this could be done? I am just trying to figure out the most efficient way to create the old records to track parcel lineage in the past. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Vind meer berichten getagd met

General

Parcel Editing

Accepted answers

All comments

FrankConkling

Amir,

A large majority of our Clients are primarily focused on the issue immediately in front of them - staying current and ensuring that the parcel data is accurate and reflects the current state of ownership.

However, as you can see by Josh and Pauls's discussion, more and more are beginning to understand that their data has historic significance and think about the establishment of a legacy / archival system in which they can ensure that the current data is accurate and at the same time recognize that the existing or historic data serves an important purpose and is too important to discard.

Many of these agencies have been archiving their edits and preserving annual snapshots of the parcel geometries. We have several clients that use these historic snapshots to review the chains of title and aid in the determination of parcel boundaries for complex or problematic legal descriptions. Since the data is constantly being adjusted and tweaked, the archived geometries often do not match the current parcel geometries.

With the ability to preserve the lineage as well as the previously defined geometries, the parcel fabric could serve as a significant repository of this data. As Josh and Paul have mentioned, the ability to create forward lineage and retrofit backward lineage is very important to these organizations.

My personal view is that the creation of a record without geometries is not as critical as the ability to easily create records for the historic parcels. The problem is ensuring that the newly created historic parcels reflect the adjustments and changes in the location of parcel corners. I envision that the process would be similar to the process of Importing Parcel Fabric Points in which one could establish a tolerance in which the historic boundaries within the tolerance would automatically be adjusted to fit new points, establish new records and capture the existing records and backfill the RetiredBy attribution.

Just my 2 cents.

Frank Conkling - Panda Consulting

AdamHart1

@AmirBar-MaorHere is a spreadsheet of one of our townships and the split fields. This is just an export I created in our CAMA system for this project. Column A is the parcel that was formed (child parcel), and columns B-F are the parent parcels. For a combination example, see row 28. For a split example, see rows 25 and 26. I know it would complicated because the splits and combinations show up differently in the spreadsheet as a combination uses one row, while a split uses 2 or more rows. That's why I think the spreadsheet would have to be manipulated quite a bit to get each record to be just one row.

split sample greendale.csv

AmirBar-Maor

Thanks @AdamHart1

Could you take a screenshot of a couple of rows you have in the spreadsheet? Or better yet attach a small sample?

It will make it easier to understand if your spreadsheet has 1 row per record or 1 row per parcel + the attributes.

AdamHart1

@AmirBar-MaorI'm glad to hear that this functionality is being looked into. It would greatly help our workflows because my department (mostly me) does a lot of researching past splits and the documents related to them. We have old paper maps dating back to the 1990s that were used as the tax maps, but they are showing wear and tear. That's why I want to go back in time with the fabric, so we don't lose that data. Our CAMA data goes back to the year 2000, but the splits and combinations were only being tracked in there beginning in 2007 or 2008. I have some historic parcels in the fabric currently, but they only go back 7-8 years. I started going backwards with the ArcMap fabric, but I am looking to continue that in the Pro fabric. I would like to get that lineage as far back as I can, not only for parcel split history, but potentially linked to other CAMA data like assessed values and land values to show how values have changed over the years. For your second question, I'm not really sure of an example of that would be. I would like most, if not all, records having geometry, but I'm sure there may be cases where that's not the case. For your third question, I can see the benefit of that process since I think it would be easier to create the historic parcels if that info is already in the fabric. That kinda relates to my original question in that if it was possible to format a spreadsheet from the CAMA system to possibly create a record from each row if each parcel associated with that split/combination was in the same row and selected.

Overall, I do like where the Pro fabric is heading and I have many ideas as to how it could be beneficial to our county. Keep up the good work!

Paul_Christensen

@jcarlson Wouldn't that process be easily replicated using the Create Parcel Records gp tool?

I exported my Records from CAMA, joined that table with my Parcels, then ran the gp tool. Most of my parcels have a Record associated no matter how old that Record is, so long as it was in CAMA. Splits and combinations that were completed prior to migration to the fabric don't have historical parcel features unless I manually digitize them, but at least the Record that created that final parcel is associated.

Going back and backdating previous splits and combinations sounds like such a daunting task. I am constantly fixing errors from 15 years ago when we digitized our mylars. It is easy to get caught in the trap of a quick 3 or 4 parcel QA/QC that turns into 2 days and 20-30 parcels.

AmirBar-Maor

@AdamHart1 and @jcarlson - thanks for posting this question.

We plan to expand on the parcel lineage in future releases and this also includes 'back porting' it for historic parcels. The ArcMap parcel fabric associated parcels to the plan from which they were created from but did not track which record (plan) retired each parcel.

Since this information is usually stored in the business system (CAMA / Land registration) we should be able to do it.

We need to better understand your business requirements and available inputs:

1. Do you have the historic parcels in your parcel fabric? Are you only trying to associate the historic parcels to the record that retired them?

2. Do you see value in having records in the parcel fabric that have no parcels associated with them?

3. Do you see value in importing historic parcels from the business system that will result in parcels that have no geometries? They could potentially become historic parcel seeds in the area of the current parcels they've created until they are created.

It would be great if others also join this discussion.

@FrankConkling for example 😉

jcarlson

"Backdating" a parcel fabric is one of my favorite tasks when I've got nothing else on my plate at work. I can't think of a good way to do it in bulk, though.

Are your historic parcels already in the fabric, and they just need the appropriate record assigned to them? You certainly could add a bunch of null-geometry rows to your record table, that's not a problem.

The trick is associating the features, but that's done on the parcel table by adding the record's GlobalID to the created / retired by record field. Until you add your records, there won't be a GlobalID to add. What you could do:

Add your records from a spreadsheet.
Once you have a GlobalID assigned to the new records, re-export those same rows out to a new spreadsheet.
Join the new spreadsheet to your historic parcels.
Field calculate to copy the joined GlobalID to the created / retired by record field.
The relationship classes should pick up the link based on those values.
Run "build extent", or else manually open each new record and click "build active record". Without this, your record won't have any geometry.

Personally, I like to do my historic records one at a time so that I can properly add the parent parcels as well, but that's another topic altogether.

Doe mee aan het gesprek

Aangemelde leden kunnen berichten plaatsen, updates volgen en meer. Nieuw hier? Registreer een gratis account.

Snelle Links

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