Latest Contributions by HCCGISICT_

Also still having this issue in July 2019. It appears as though I may have added a field to the original data which Adrian Welsh pointed out may be the reason for the overwrite failing. Is that really the case? How else does one update the data (including a field addition if an overwrite will always fail). Service definition name remained the same. Publishing as a new web layer worked but I now have to change the layer in my webmap to the new layer and reconfigure the popups etc. Surely by now the overwrite feature should work or at least provide a better error message rather than "ErrorMessage: Failed to publish web layer". That's about as useful as "Unknown error" ... View more

It would be useful if labels could be applied to streaming feature layers. Not having the ability to label points in a streaming service limits the effectiveness of this in our parking pilot dashboard.  ... View more

It would be useful if labels could be applied to streaming feature layers. Not having the ability to label points in a streaming service limits the effectiveness of this in our parking pilot dashboard.  ... View more

Still an issue in ArcGIS Pro 2.3.1. Not useful when supplying PDFs to the director. Exporting to PNG and then converting that to PDF works but that PDF was not georeferenced.  Workaround was to create a dummy feature class to use as a mask. That worked perfectly. Please fix ESRI. ... View more

Not that it helps but FYI: This has been confirmed by ESRI support as a bug: Bug NIM101408 : The fieldinfo.getvisible method always returns Visible for OBJECTID and SHAPE fields. This issue has a current status of "in product plan", meaning that it is down for an eventual fix. Bug report can be found here: NIM101408: The fieldinfo.getvisible method always returns Visib..  ... View more

Its a good suggestion Michael, Yes, shape field was checked as visible, object ID was not so I tried with this checked to see if there was any change, nothing. I will at some stage rebuild the feature class in desktop and see if there is any change, in the mean time I had success with the paired down version 3400 objects rather than the 16k+. Bit by bit we test these things! Cheers, Roy. ... View more

HI Adrian, I suspect there is an issue with either the size of the service or an underlying error in the feature service. In selecting a portion of this feature class, exporting to a new fc and then publishing all was ok. I don’t have the time to go back to the source data set and re export the entire feature class then try to publish again. Yes, waited a long time to see if that allowed things to load, also fiddled with the scales to no avail. Perhaps we are pushing the limits of what is intended. Thanks for the suggestions. Roy Langman GIS Development | ICT services 50 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000 | hobartcity.com.au<http://www.hobartcity.com.au/> Telephone (03) 6238 2452 ... View more

Thanks Kyle, Ran the Geometry check tool with no change – zero errors in the check table the tool produces. So I took a selection from the entire data set, exported to a new feature service then published this – which worked. Is there an upper limit to the number of objects in a feature service? This feature class in question has some 17k + points, which we have already published on our data portal. Thanks for the suggestions. I might try exporting a larger version of my original feature class to see if something was missed in the original process. Roy, Roy Langman GIS Development | ICT services 50 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000 | hobartcity.com.au<http://www.hobartcity.com.au/> Telephone (03) 6238 2452 ... View more

Thanks people, I am back on this issue in the next day or so, will work my way through.  In thinking about it over the weekend, I may have been looking at the issue from the incorrect angle.  I will however work my way through the suggestions, I like the spatial join suggestion in particular - very familiar with this when we join across or corporate databases GIS to Asset databases in particular. Cheers, Roy. ... View more

Oh yes, lots of trial and error (and working with copies of the data sets) to understand the tool functions. Thanks for the replies Dan. ... View more

Thanks Dan, I did not read that.  Yes, not worried about the final geometry, more the totals for the data fields. ... View more

Hello Chris, I'll send you both shapefiles. Regards, Roy Langman ... View more