<?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 Adverse effects from setting StructureLine connectivity to &amp;quot;AnyVertex&amp;quot;? in Electric Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/electric-questions/adverse-effects-from-setting-structureline/m-p/1710898#M1141</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi -&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our source data has *many* cases where a surface structure (pedestal, junction box, cabinet, etc.) is connected to an underground structure line (conduit or duct bank) at a mid-span vertex.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We were advised by one party that retaining this configuration (allowing connections to "any vertex") in the UN could have adverse downstream consequences.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In limited testing in a test mobile geodatabase, this configuration seems to work fine.&amp;nbsp; We create the junction, re-build the subnetwork, move the junction and have the structure line adjust its shape, re-build the subnetwork, and all seems to work hunky dory.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Should we be concerned about pursuing this path?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;The alternative would be to split *many* UG structure lines either in the source or the migration process, which we would prefer not having to do.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any feedback would be much appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ed&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 21:28:56 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>EdwardBlair</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-06-29T21:28:56Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Adverse effects from setting StructureLine connectivity to "AnyVertex"?</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/electric-questions/adverse-effects-from-setting-structureline/m-p/1710898#M1141</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi -&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our source data has *many* cases where a surface structure (pedestal, junction box, cabinet, etc.) is connected to an underground structure line (conduit or duct bank) at a mid-span vertex.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We were advised by one party that retaining this configuration (allowing connections to "any vertex") in the UN could have adverse downstream consequences.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In limited testing in a test mobile geodatabase, this configuration seems to work fine.&amp;nbsp; We create the junction, re-build the subnetwork, move the junction and have the structure line adjust its shape, re-build the subnetwork, and all seems to work hunky dory.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Should we be concerned about pursuing this path?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;The alternative would be to split *many* UG structure lines either in the source or the migration process, which we would prefer not having to do.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any feedback would be much appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ed&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 21:28:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/electric-questions/adverse-effects-from-setting-structureline/m-p/1710898#M1141</guid>
      <dc:creator>EdwardBlair</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-29T21:28:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

