<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors? in ArcGIS Survey123 Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1116596#M38605</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks again, unfortunately I have not been able to work on it for a few days and was hoping it would all become clear to me in the meantime as the survey launch date is fast approaching.&amp;nbsp; Most of the sites will be out of range and therefore offline.&amp;nbsp; I gather that means 2 x S123 forms are the only real option.&amp;nbsp; And that necessarily means that there's no way to have each visit linked (ie with a relationship class)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, to clarify, the URL in the first S123 would be calculated in a note on the form?&amp;nbsp; And then there's a danger that they don't submit the first form at all if they click on the link and then forget to go back and submit??&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Alternatively, if we managed to get the sites recorded first using Field Maps, and then uploaded (eg by travelling to a hill with phone reception), could a relationship class be created with the subsequent S123 points?&amp;nbsp; How??&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again for your advice.&amp;nbsp; It would be preferable to have a relationship between the site and each survey.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2021 06:04:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Ness2</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-11-13T06:04:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors?</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1114771#M38499</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm building a point survey with repeats for contractors to visit the same sites multiple times over a season.&amp;nbsp; I'm&amp;nbsp; trying to decide whether to include a geopoint within the repeat as the project manager would like to ensure that they are actually onsite whilst filling out the survey.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Two questions:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(1) Is there a better/other way to track their location?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(2) Are there any more bugs with using related feature layers versus related tables?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 07 Nov 2021 21:40:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1114771#M38499</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ness2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-11-07T21:40:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors?</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1114890#M38501</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;For me I always do 1 visit 1 form.&amp;nbsp; The main point is in Field Maps and they launch to 123 passing in the ID.&amp;nbsp; Relationship class ties the base location point and all the inspections together.&amp;nbsp; That way I have locations, editor tracking, etc for each visit.&amp;nbsp; I personally do not like everyone editing the same master form.&amp;nbsp; Too easy for mistakes to happen.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 14:44:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1114890#M38501</guid>
      <dc:creator>DougBrowning</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-11-08T14:44:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors?</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1115069#M38519</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&amp;nbsp; Does this rely on all of the site locations being established in a feature layer before inspections commence? So that the URL to link into S123 can be manually constructed before any inspections are undertaken?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The project leader wants the contractors to establish the sites and then immediately start inspections.&amp;nbsp; I'm nervous about the minimal time in between site establishment and inspections starting because it's only one of many projects that I need to administer.&amp;nbsp; Also, I think they may end up inspecting some sites before all of the sites are established, which would mean several iterations of constructing the URL link...&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since we are getting the contractors to establish the sites in the first place, should these locations be as a separate feature service in FieldMaps?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 21:59:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1115069#M38519</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ness2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-11-08T21:59:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors?</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1115072#M38520</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes you could have them create the point then launch from it (this could be a Field Maps form if it is simple).&amp;nbsp; We do this when we need to add random points.&amp;nbsp; The URL to launch 123 can take a field so you can just pass over whatever ID they give it.&amp;nbsp; Not sure how you are handling IDs then.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You could also do 1 123 form for site add and 1 123 form for inspections but if they are offline then you won't see it in Field Maps until you sync.&amp;nbsp; I have also tested making a 123 form for the main site then having a lunch link at the bottom of that form.&amp;nbsp; Then can pass the ID to the second form right there.&amp;nbsp; Only bummer here is the first form stays open in the background so they must remember to save out twice.&amp;nbsp; Plus is that then both are 123 forms and both are independent.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps a little it is a tough one.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 22:08:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1115072#M38520</guid>
      <dc:creator>DougBrowning</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-11-08T22:08:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors?</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1116596#M38605</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks again, unfortunately I have not been able to work on it for a few days and was hoping it would all become clear to me in the meantime as the survey launch date is fast approaching.&amp;nbsp; Most of the sites will be out of range and therefore offline.&amp;nbsp; I gather that means 2 x S123 forms are the only real option.&amp;nbsp; And that necessarily means that there's no way to have each visit linked (ie with a relationship class)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, to clarify, the URL in the first S123 would be calculated in a note on the form?&amp;nbsp; And then there's a danger that they don't submit the first form at all if they click on the link and then forget to go back and submit??&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Alternatively, if we managed to get the sites recorded first using Field Maps, and then uploaded (eg by travelling to a hill with phone reception), could a relationship class be created with the subsequent S123 points?&amp;nbsp; How??&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again for your advice.&amp;nbsp; It would be preferable to have a relationship between the site and each survey.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2021 06:04:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1116596#M38605</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ness2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-11-13T06:04:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors?</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1117261#M38638</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You can relate 2 forms together.&amp;nbsp; 123 would really have no idea.&amp;nbsp; You publish the service then point the form to the layer you want it to add to.&amp;nbsp; Same answer for both your relationship questions.&amp;nbsp; I did a big write up here&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/mapping-with-survey123-within-a-polygon-or-admin/td-p/836112" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/mapping-with-survey123-within-a-polygon-or-admin/td-p/836112&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes they have to double submit the form.&amp;nbsp; Or they send then open in outbox then click on the link.&amp;nbsp; No its not ideal.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:13:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/viability-of-capturing-a-secondary-geopoint-within/m-p/1117261#M38638</guid>
      <dc:creator>DougBrowning</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-11-16T15:13:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

