topic Temporal data in separate tables - How to enable time? in ArcGIS Pro Questions

Temporal data in separate tables - How to enable time?

deleted-user-RXn6tsFwTuvX — Sat, 03 Aug 2019 18:45:38 GMT

I am trying to set up a temporal dataset as outlined here:

http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/map/time/temporal-data-in-separate-tables.htm

My data consists of one set of polygon features (Parcels) representing agricultural land parcels (Fields: Parcel ID, Parcel Name) and a seperate table (pH_Values) containing soil ph values on specific dates (Fields: Parcel ID, pH).

Parcels: Parcel ID, Parcel Name

pH_Values: Parcel ID, pH, Date

I have followed the instructions at the above link to create a one-to-many relate with Parcel ID as the relate field.This seems to work fine.

My issue is when I try to enable time on the polycon layer. I right-click properties -> Time and Select Layer TIme (Each feature has a single time field). However the only fields available to select are the orginal Parcels fields (Parcel ID, Parcel Name) and the fields from the related table are not present.

Both my layers are in the same geodatabase. Can anyone provide some guidance on how to do this?

Re: Temporal data in separate tables - How to enable time?

KoryKramer — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 13:24:40 GMT

You might want to look at

Example 3: A one-to-many join to prepare data for temporal animation

http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/tools/data-management-toolbox/examples-of-queries-with-the-make-query-table-tool.htm#GUID-2CF23D25-1A06-4F77-92E6-5D14C9EC4921

You essentially need to get to a point where all the data (one record for each time point) is in a single table. That can be done in different ways, one of those being through the query table.

Re: Temporal data in separate tables - How to enable time?

deleted-user-RXn6tsFwTuvX — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:13:06 GMT

Thanks, yes a one-to-many join does work and I've seen the query table route proposed by others (in fact in Pro it seems that I can create a one-to-many join directly without needing to make a query table even though I was under the impression that this should be limited to the first instance only). I think it is better practice to keep data seperate rather than creating a 3rd table.

According to the link in my post it should be possible to do this using a relate rather than a join.