<?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 Strategy: Incremental vs comprehensive field data collection in Implementing ArcGIS Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/implementing-arcgis-questions/strategy-incremental-vs-comprehensive-field-data/m-p/532345#M491</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have clients for whom I have assembled local data sets, exposed them as feature services and made them available to Collector.&amp;nbsp; The data sets need verification or additional information added from the field.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My inclination is to organize a comprehensive survey to bring a data set to 100% reliability and design workflow protocols to maintain it going forward.&amp;nbsp; However, some clients want to edit data incrementally in the field while they are carrying out other work activities.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My hesitation with the incremental approach is that 1) the data set is not fully reliable for a long time, 2) it can be hard to keep track of which features are up to date (although tracking Last Edit Date can help there).&amp;nbsp; Point 1 means that you can't do reliable aggregate statistics on the data set.&amp;nbsp; The comprehensive survey, however, requires more investment of time and staff.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Looking for feedback from the community on these two approaches...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:38:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>KevinMayall</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-02-13T15:38:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Strategy: Incremental vs comprehensive field data collection</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/implementing-arcgis-questions/strategy-incremental-vs-comprehensive-field-data/m-p/532345#M491</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have clients for whom I have assembled local data sets, exposed them as feature services and made them available to Collector.&amp;nbsp; The data sets need verification or additional information added from the field.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My inclination is to organize a comprehensive survey to bring a data set to 100% reliability and design workflow protocols to maintain it going forward.&amp;nbsp; However, some clients want to edit data incrementally in the field while they are carrying out other work activities.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My hesitation with the incremental approach is that 1) the data set is not fully reliable for a long time, 2) it can be hard to keep track of which features are up to date (although tracking Last Edit Date can help there).&amp;nbsp; Point 1 means that you can't do reliable aggregate statistics on the data set.&amp;nbsp; The comprehensive survey, however, requires more investment of time and staff.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Looking for feedback from the community on these two approaches...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:38:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/implementing-arcgis-questions/strategy-incremental-vs-comprehensive-field-data/m-p/532345#M491</guid>
      <dc:creator>KevinMayall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-13T15:38:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

