<?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: Valid paths not routing upstream trace correctly through features in multiple subnetworks (Sewer Tee junction) in ArcGIS Utility Network Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706213#M6991</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;I suspect there are multiple things happening. Let's start with something simple. Connect the lines on that manhole as shown below, configure an upstream trace with the "use digitized direction" option, and run the trace. Then post a screenshot of the resulting trace (it should look correct).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="RobertKrisher_0-1780576353882.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.esri.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/153422i7F414A2A47C37A0F/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="RobertKrisher_0-1780576353882.png" alt="RobertKrisher_0-1780576353882.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:32:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>RobertKrisher</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-06-04T12:32:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Valid paths not routing upstream trace correctly through features in multiple subnetworks (Sewer Tee junction)</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706204#M6990</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are currently facing the &lt;A href="https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/3.5/tool-reference/tool-errors-and-warnings/001001-010000/tool-errors-and-warnings-01876-01900-001890.htm" target="_self"&gt;001890 bug on invalid subnetwork connectivity&lt;/A&gt;. Following up on&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/tracing-flow-into-multiple-subnetwork-controllers/m-p/1681024" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;Tracing flow into multiple subnetwork controllers&lt;/A&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;(similarly in &lt;A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/downstream-trace-sewer-utility-network/td-p/1402121#:~:text=If%20you%20wish%20to%20separate,the%20directional%20manhole%20terminal%20configuration:" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;Downstream Trace - Sewer Utility Network&lt;/A&gt;) &lt;/SPAN&gt;and the guidance in that thread, we implemented the recommended&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;valid paths&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;approach on our&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;directional manhole&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;terminals, but the results do not match our expected results.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Context&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are implementing a&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;gravity sewerage&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;utility network. In several locations, a&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;single manhole&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;acts as a&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;subnetwork controller&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;where&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;multiple subnetworks&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;(with&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;different subnetwork names&lt;/SPAN&gt;) are&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;topologically connected&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;through the manhole, which reflects real flow/connectivity in the field.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;An example in the network:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="J_iaxin_1-1780570810855.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.esri.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/153418iF1E2FAE72C13AA3A/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="J_iaxin_1-1780570810855.png" alt="J_iaxin_1-1780570810855.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Prior guidance in the linked thread included:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL class=""&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Assign the&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;same subnetwork name&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;to controllers that should trace together — not applicable here; these are genuinely&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;distinct&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;subnetworks that must remain connected.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Break traversability&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;between controllers — not acceptable for our use case; operations require the&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;current connected topology&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Use a&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;directional manhole&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;with&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;valid paths&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;to control internal flow between terminals&lt;/STRONG&gt; (upstream/downstream/crossover)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;We tested Point #3 with our Crossover valid path (instead of Normal [All]), which is similar to what was suggested to us:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="J_iaxin_0-1780570076903.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.esri.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/153417i8933B899B8E2A3D0/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="J_iaxin_0-1780570076903.png" alt="J_iaxin_0-1780570076903.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="J_iaxin_2-1780570998872.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.esri.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/153419iAD90A2157B681D3C/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="J_iaxin_2-1780570998872.png" alt="J_iaxin_2-1780570998872.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Esri’s documented scenario&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;(from the thread / product guidance) assumes a directional manhole with&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;multiple upstream and downstream terminals&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;(e.g. two upstream + two downstream). However, in our case, we only have 3 ports, where the flows separate downstream.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Observed results&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;After switching valid paths to&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Crossover&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;(confirmed applied successfully on the terminal configuration):&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL class=""&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Upstream trace&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;from the manhole/controller area &lt;STRONG&gt;only consistently recognises one subnetwork side&lt;/STRONG&gt; (&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Kranji&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;in our test case, seen in the screenshot at the start).&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Upstream trace for the other subnetwork&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;(&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Changi&lt;/SPAN&gt;)&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;stops prematurely&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;— it does not continue to the upstream sewer segment that is&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;topologically part of both subnetworks&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;through the manhole.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;We attempted an alternative terminal assignment on the Changi subnet downstream sewer (&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Outflow 1 → Inflow 1&lt;/SPAN&gt;). That change causes&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;subnetwork validation&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;failures because the subnetworks are&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;no longer self-contained&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;In our case where&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;traversable controllers with different subnetwork names&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;(001890 scenario) that&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;must remain connected&lt;/SPAN&gt;, is there a&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;supported&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;way to obtain correct&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;upstream&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;and&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;downstream&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;traces&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;for both subnetworks&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;through a shared manhole/terminal?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:19:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706204#M6990</guid>
      <dc:creator>J_iaxin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-04T11:19:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Valid paths not routing upstream trace correctly through features in multiple subnetworks (Sewer Tee junction)</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706213#M6991</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;I suspect there are multiple things happening. Let's start with something simple. Connect the lines on that manhole as shown below, configure an upstream trace with the "use digitized direction" option, and run the trace. Then post a screenshot of the resulting trace (it should look correct).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="RobertKrisher_0-1780576353882.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.esri.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/153422i7F414A2A47C37A0F/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="RobertKrisher_0-1780576353882.png" alt="RobertKrisher_0-1780576353882.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:32:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706213#M6991</guid>
      <dc:creator>RobertKrisher</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-04T12:32:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Valid paths not routing upstream trace correctly through features in multiple subnetworks (Sewer Tee junction)</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706800#M7012</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Ah, unfortunately we're still on UN version 5.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I believe the "use digitized direction" option is available from UN v7 onwards? Is there another test I could try instead?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:46:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706800#M7012</guid>
      <dc:creator>J_iaxin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-08T10:46:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Valid paths not routing upstream trace correctly through features in multiple subnetworks (Sewer Tee junction)</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706816#M7014</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It sounds like there is a loop upstream of this manhole (in actuality there might be many loops).&amp;nbsp; You can use the shortest path trace to help you identify it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I recommend you copy your data out to a mobile geodatabase, upgrade it to v7, and test out the tracing with digitized direction. If you can get the digitized direction trace working, it will require significantly less data cleanup than trying to get all the terminals aligned to make consistent subnetworks. You can then use something like the Batch Trace tool or community sample to track your sewersheds.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 12:37:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1706816#M7014</guid>
      <dc:creator>RobertKrisher</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-08T12:37:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Valid paths not routing upstream trace correctly through features in multiple subnetworks (Sewer Tee junction)</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1712510#M7160</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Met and discussed with&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.esri.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/483062"&gt;@J_iaxin&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;. The problem is that when you run a trace on a feature that belongs to multiple subnetworks the system returns an inconsistent subnetwork name error. In this case, a sub-basin has outlets to two different treatment plants so any traces within that sub-basin return this error.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have asked the user to log an issue and escalate this as a bug. Each subnetwork is consistent, and just because this area can drain to different subnetwork controllers doesn't mean the trace should fail.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:28:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/valid-paths-not-routing-upstream-trace-correctly/m-p/1712510#M7160</guid>
      <dc:creator>RobertKrisher</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-07-06T13:28:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

