topic ESRI FGDB and EGDB disagree on what is a valid SHAPE in Data Management Questions https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/esri-fgdb-and-egdb-disagree-on-what-is-a-valid/m-p/643797#M36426 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>I have previously published a generalised question on this subject, but received only one reply.</P><P>Following is a more specific question with an actual example..</P><P></P><P>Running 10.5 on SQL Server 2016</P><P></P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">Post <A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.esri.com/thread/112345"><SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;">https://community.esri.com/thread/112345</SPAN></A> describes a situation where an apparently valid FGDB is copied to an EGDB and detects errors. In particular Vince Angelo states</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">‘The ArcSDE API enforces Clementini geometry integrity rules. It is not possible</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">to construct an SE_SHAPE object which does not conform to those rules. File</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">geodatabase and shapefile permit non-conformant rings.’</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">Our situation is the reverse.</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">If you take the following POLYGON</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><SPAN style="color: red; font-size: 9.5pt;">'POLYGON ((120.002794839062 -32.8470945869896, 120.002794613047 -32.836274112266, 119.992113708534 -32.8362742049204, 119.99211391052 -32.8470946837942, 120.002796135038 -32.8470945869779, 120.002794839062 -32.8470945869896))</SPAN></P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">And import it into an EGDB Layer specified with ESRI defaults then it does so without error. (Using either GEOMETRY or SDEBINARY)</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">If you take the same POLYGON and import it into an FGDB with ESRI defaults (same as EGDB defaults) then run CHECK GEOMETRY it shows as ‘SELF-INTERSECTING’.</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">How can a POLYGON be valid in EGDB and yet self-intersecting in FGDB?</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">I accept that point 2 is ‘wrong’, but why did EGDB load not fail. (Or alternatively why did FGDB load detect self-intersection).</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">My conclusion from this is that the ONLY way to change data reliably is to do so via FGDB and then to save to EGDB.</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">This is manageable at take-up time, but will have implications going forward in that processing taking place directly on EGDB may appear to have worked, but when it is sent to a FGDB for distribution it shows up as ‘self-intersecting’.</P><P><SPAN style="font-size: 12pt;">For clarity I have included additional information in attachment&nbsp;</SPAN></P><P><SPAN style="font-size: 12pt;">Please tell me my conclusion is wrong!</SPAN></P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><SPAN style="color: gray; font-size: 9.5pt;">&nbsp;</SPAN></P></BODY></HTML> Fri, 13 Apr 2018 02:01:43 GMT JohnCuthbertson 2018-04-13T02:01:43Z ESRI FGDB and EGDB disagree on what is a valid SHAPE https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/esri-fgdb-and-egdb-disagree-on-what-is-a-valid/m-p/643797#M36426 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>I have previously published a generalised question on this subject, but received only one reply.</P><P>Following is a more specific question with an actual example..</P><P></P><P>Running 10.5 on SQL Server 2016</P><P></P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">Post <A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.esri.com/thread/112345"><SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;">https://community.esri.com/thread/112345</SPAN></A> describes a situation where an apparently valid FGDB is copied to an EGDB and detects errors. In particular Vince Angelo states</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">‘The ArcSDE API enforces Clementini geometry integrity rules. It is not possible</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">to construct an SE_SHAPE object which does not conform to those rules. File</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">geodatabase and shapefile permit non-conformant rings.’</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">Our situation is the reverse.</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">If you take the following POLYGON</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><SPAN style="color: red; font-size: 9.5pt;">'POLYGON ((120.002794839062 -32.8470945869896, 120.002794613047 -32.836274112266, 119.992113708534 -32.8362742049204, 119.99211391052 -32.8470946837942, 120.002796135038 -32.8470945869779, 120.002794839062 -32.8470945869896))</SPAN></P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">And import it into an EGDB Layer specified with ESRI defaults then it does so without error. (Using either GEOMETRY or SDEBINARY)</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">If you take the same POLYGON and import it into an FGDB with ESRI defaults (same as EGDB defaults) then run CHECK GEOMETRY it shows as ‘SELF-INTERSECTING’.</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">How can a POLYGON be valid in EGDB and yet self-intersecting in FGDB?</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">I accept that point 2 is ‘wrong’, but why did EGDB load not fail. (Or alternatively why did FGDB load detect self-intersection).</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">My conclusion from this is that the ONLY way to change data reliably is to do so via FGDB and then to save to EGDB.</P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">This is manageable at take-up time, but will have implications going forward in that processing taking place directly on EGDB may appear to have worked, but when it is sent to a FGDB for distribution it shows up as ‘self-intersecting’.</P><P><SPAN style="font-size: 12pt;">For clarity I have included additional information in attachment&nbsp;</SPAN></P><P><SPAN style="font-size: 12pt;">Please tell me my conclusion is wrong!</SPAN></P><P style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><SPAN style="color: gray; font-size: 9.5pt;">&nbsp;</SPAN></P></BODY></HTML> Fri, 13 Apr 2018 02:01:43 GMT https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/esri-fgdb-and-egdb-disagree-on-what-is-a-valid/m-p/643797#M36426 JohnCuthbertson 2018-04-13T02:01:43Z