Fixing "Must Not Overlap" Attribute Rule

[SusanLMoore]

We have found fixing errors identified with the the default Must Not Overlap attribute rule for polys in the parcel fabric to be a bit challenging. In ArcMap, the editor was shown the specific area of overlap when an error was found with the topology rule.

When trying to fix this attribute rule in Pro, the entirety of the overlapping polys is selected. When you have large polygons, it makes it extremely difficult to narrow down where the overlap is. 

Do other users experience this, or are we doing something wrong? 

[AmirBar-Maor]

@CathyAppleton 

Thanks for sharing your feedback about the Highlight Overlaps and Gaps tool. I believe an idea was submitted to create a GP tool that can export 'highlights'.

The overlap/gap tolerance is very useful for organizations that consider a road as a valid gap or have condo units as a valid overlap. It should be smaller than the road's width.

Please try to forget ArcMap for a second and try to define what an ideal usable solution would look like. If you had a solution that created thousands of errors, how would you do with that information? When would you like to fix those errors?  

Any information/requirement is greatly appreciated.

[CathyAppleton]

Luckily our data (pre-Pro) is very clean. So having a solution that would create thousands of errors is not something we would need,    Currently what us editors do need in Pro is to be able to quickly check all layers at once in the area we just worked on.  Fixing those errors as we find them, before posting to Default.  Although mass countywide validation is not something we currently need, I am glad to hear a GP tools  has been submitted.

[SusanLMoore]

@AmirBar-Maor , I may be oversimplifying here, but what if instead of a drop-down on the Highlight Gaps and Overlaps tool, there were checkboxes so that you could select multiple layers at once? In our workflow, once we do a job, we would like to validate topology, attribute rules, and view gaps and overlaps. We would do all of this validation in the map extent of the job, not across the 910 square mile county. We try not to push any jobs up to default with errors in them. Might checkboxes be a future option? 

To verify: the Highlight tool knows to only work with Active parcels, not historic, correct? Is it ignoring parcels where RetiredBy is not null? 

[AmirBar-Maor]

@SusanLMoore 

We have received this idea from @MikeSnook. 

We also consider enhancing the tool, as you suggest, to work on multiple layers.

The tool honors the 'feature layer' - which means it honors the definition query. So the answer to your question is 'yes - it only runs on the current parcels if you set it to run on that layer'.

This is unlike Geodatabase topology which runs on the feature classes in the geodatabase and has no notion of 'feature layers'.

[SusanLMoore]

@AmirBar-Maor , thanks for the info! Would it be helpful if I added the "multiple layers" option as a new idea, or is it already on the official under consideration list? 

[AmirBar-Maor]

@SusanLMoore 
Please submit an idea, it helps us prioritize the enhancements.

Thanks!

[SusanLMoore]

For reference of anyone else who would like to Kudo the idea of being able to select multiple layers at once in the Highlight tool, you can find it here.