IDEA
|
It is not respected specifically when appending. When appending, it assumes the data coming in is in UTC and then applies the time zone correction. This is not helpful as the data in the CSV is already in the appropriate time zone... it doesn't need to be corrected. There is not an option while specifically appending to select a time zone correction. When overwriting, yes, it is possible in Pro. When applying the update to the definition, it is not affecting whether I apply it to the preferred time zone or the datetime zone, the date data still corrects by subtracting/adding the time from the data. As you can see from the JSON I pictured, I had already added my time zone to the preferred time zone. Edit: I believe it's correct to say instead that AGOL is displaying the date data corrected to UTC (by subtracting 6 hours for CST), instead of displaying it in the time zone the data was added from. If I add data with 12/28/2020 while I'm in a CST time zone, if I'm looking at the table in the CST time zone, the data ought to display 12/28/2020. For some reason this isn't happening even when updating the preferred time zone in the definition JSON.
... View more
01-07-2021
01:05 PM
|
0
|
0
|
1676
|
IDEA
|
I'd love to set selected users as alternative owners, we spend probably an hour each week swapping owners of content so other people can do the updates in the work flow since only the owner can overwrite and append, or publish story maps. For more complex workflows, many users take turns updating data and it's never just one person. Not only does it involve the users and admin, but it also involves me, the intermediary non admin person who is the go between for users and admin. So many people end up being involved just to let someone else append a feature layer or hit the publish button on a story map. I definitely appreciate the need to not allow ownership to many people for security, so maybe it's only something an administrator can set up.
... View more
01-07-2021
11:57 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1316
|
IDEA
|
Allow users to select time zone when appending data so it is not automatically correcting for UTC and distorting the date data when appending feature layers and stand alone tables. This function would be the same as when creating a feature layer or table where you can select the time zone in the drop down. This would also be helpful when appending in Pro as well instead of just when overwriting. As is, you can create a table, select the time zone, and the date data will appear at least with the correct date and with a time stamp of 12AM if not provided. However, when appending after creation, the date data displays as subtracting or adding the computers time zone from UTC. Ideally, it would be nice to be able to have the options of telling the data display "as is" in the data base instead of correcting for a time zone at all or prevent it from assuming that data is in UTC before appending. Or even adding a time stamp... but at least as the same date. If I say 12/28/2020, I want the date to say 12/28/2020. Not 12/28/2020 12:00:00 AM, not 12/27/2020 6:00:00 PM... just 12/28/2020, however saying 12/28/2020 12:00:00AM is fine. Updating the Definition to the appropriate time zone before or after appending does not do anything. It's like the current append to is set to overwrite the current database from whatever time zone to UTC. I can appreciate the helpfulness of wanting AGOL to do auto display calculations for all the reasons Esri gives, but then it seems to reason that having the option to not have auto calculations would be helpful as well. And from reading the forums and blogs, it sounds like the cry of many AGOL user's hearts.
... View more
01-07-2021
11:37 AM
|
9
|
3
|
1690
|
POST
|
As far as I am aware, the only place to make that change is in Survey123 connect because it put's the accessible files on your computer. I imagine it's possible in Survey123 Web... but I have yet to figure out how to interact with the background code/JSON and etc. The .iteminfo file and other files will be accessible once you download the survey into Survey123 Connect. Our admin transfers ownership of our content, so I couldn't speak to that. As far as I'm aware, this will be an issue no matter what type of transferring you do since there isn't a way to transfer "folders" that I'm aware of. Hope that helps! I've had to do this twice now from the same situation, and my own personal desire to reorganize my AGOL folders.
... View more
10-21-2020
08:48 AM
|
2
|
0
|
2268
|
POST
|
I was also having this issue after moving item out of the auto created survey folder in AGOL . Changing the folder id in the .iteminfo file solved the issue. Thanks!
... View more
08-24-2020
02:40 PM
|
0
|
2
|
2308
|
BLOG
|
This feature isn't as helpful when working with Survey123, since we are heavily encouraged to use the collaborate tab and are discouraged from sharing via the items page. If my group is not in the list when trying to share in Survey123, I must share the related items from the survey via the item list... however, very easy to do incorrectly and mess up. Is the documentation on how to share items to achieve the same settings as the collaborate tab?
... View more
08-07-2020
10:21 AM
|
2
|
0
|
3080
|
POST
|
Anyone have experience trying to integrate the CLUE-S Model in ArcGIS for land use/land cover changes/predictions? Looking for tips/instructions/videos on how to get started.
... View more
04-16-2020
11:08 AM
|
0
|
0
|
401
|
POST
|
We (Myself and Hannah Hutchins) are trying to use the Crowdsource polling application, but are getting a little lost when it comes to building the relationship class in Catalog between the feature class and the table that will house the comments. Our end goal is to collect comments using the web app template where public citizens can open the template, select the polygons, and add comments. Right now in our feature class containing the 30 polygons that we want public feedback on we have a field called comments (among other attributes). My understanding is that I create a table in the .gdb that will house the comments, and then build a new relationship class between the polygons feature class and the table. These are the steps and questions that come up as I work through building the new relationship class. If someone has an example of a similar successful crowd source polling map relationship class output, that would be helpful. My origin table is the poly feature class (LRTP_PComm) attribute table and the destination table is the new comment table (LRTP_Comm). This relationship type would be composite? Each polygon will have multiple comments. If the polygon is deleted, then yes, we don't need the comments as they only pertain to the polygon they were commented on. Direction: It is a forward relationship because the user would be clicking on the polygon and entering a comment, but not the other way around? Or is it both because comment history can display in the web app? 1 -M: It is one to many because each polygon can have multiple comments? Or is it 1-1 because each polygon in the feature class will have its own set of comments? Do I want to create attributes in this relationship class for these comments? If so, what would they be? Is this where you would store the names of the commentors? Is this where vote tally's should be counted or is that in my feature class attribute table? The output: Name: LRTP_PComm Origin object class: LRTP_2045_Poly Destination object class: LRTP_Comm Type: Composite Forward Path Label: LRTP_Comm Backward Path Label: LRTP_2045_Poly Message propagation: Forward (origin to destination) Cardinality: 1 - M Has attributes: No Origin Primary Key: OBJECTID Origin Foreign Key: OBJECTID crowdsouce pollling relationship-class arcgis-online web-app templates
... View more
01-10-2019
03:04 PM
|
0
|
0
|
439
|
Title | Kudos | Posted |
---|---|---|
2 | 08-07-2020 10:21 AM | |
9 | 01-07-2021 11:37 AM | |
2 | 10-21-2020 08:48 AM |
Online Status |
Offline
|
Date Last Visited |
03-02-2023
03:20 PM
|