Update the Highlight tool to allow highlighting gaps/overlaps between feature layers

[SusanLMoore]

Be able to configure the Highlight tool to allow for highlighting errors between subsets of different feature layers (e.g., "Current ROW: Dedicated that overlaps Current Tax Parcels").

We currently have a topology rule in our parcel data (ArcMap) that handles this, but a topo rule would not work in the Parcel Fabric without subtyping both our ROW types and current/historic. 

We tried to implement an attribute rule to handle this scenario, but the rule is incorrectly identifying many features that are not errors. 

If the Highlight tool is the way we should be identifying gaps/overlaps in the parcel fabric, then we would  greatly appreciate an update to it that allowed for fine tuning so we could find errors like this. 

[AmirBar-Maor]

@SusanLMoore 

This looks like a duplicate idea of https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-parcel-fabric-ideas/update-the-highlight-tool-to-allow-for-mult....

[SusanLMoore]

@AmirBar-Maor , they are 2 different ideas, but both to the same tool. I'm probably not explaining this well! In this idea, I'm asking for the ability to select multiple layers at once when displaying highlights and gaps, meaning let me see all the areas where tax parcels overlap other tax parcels, simcons overlap other simcons, etc. at one time, vs having to select each layer one at a time, address those issues, select the next layer, etc. 

In this idea, I'm asking for the ability to perform the gap/overlap analysis between different layers, e.g., show me where the features in the ROW layer (and even more specifically, type = Dedicated) overlap feature in the current tax parcel layer. 

The bottom line with both ideas is that I'm trying to suggest ways to make geometry error validation more robust without having to use topology rules, as that would mean we would need to go back to subtyping our data.

We had thought attribute rules would be the answer to this because we would be able to create the custom rules we needed with Arcade, but that doesn't seem to be the case, unless I'm misunderstanding. We would be certainly be interested in moving back to attribute rules and creating our own if those worked as I had hoped. Or, we would be interested in using topology rules if we could apply them to the (definition-queried) layers in the map vs the feature classes. 

I hope I explained the requests a little better, but let me know if you need more info or if I'm misunderstanding any of the existing validation options!