Viability of capturing a secondary geopoint within a repeat for tracking contractors?

[Ness2]

I'm building a point survey with repeats for contractors to visit the same sites multiple times over a season.  I'm  trying to decide whether to include a geopoint within the repeat as the project manager would like to ensure that they are actually onsite whilst filling out the survey.  

Two questions:

(1) Is there a better/other way to track their location?

(2) Are there any more bugs with using related feature layers versus related tables? 

Thanks

[DougBrowning]

For me I always do 1 visit 1 form.  The main point is in Field Maps and they launch to 123 passing in the ID.  Relationship class ties the base location point and all the inspections together.  That way I have locations, editor tracking, etc for each visit.  I personally do not like everyone editing the same master form.  Too easy for mistakes to happen.  

Hope that helps.

[Ness2]

Thanks.  Does this rely on all of the site locations being established in a feature layer before inspections commence? So that the URL to link into S123 can be manually constructed before any inspections are undertaken? 

The project leader wants the contractors to establish the sites and then immediately start inspections.  I'm nervous about the minimal time in between site establishment and inspections starting because it's only one of many projects that I need to administer.  Also, I think they may end up inspecting some sites before all of the sites are established, which would mean several iterations of constructing the URL link...  

Since we are getting the contractors to establish the sites in the first place, should these locations be as a separate feature service in FieldMaps?  

[DougBrowning]

Yes you could have them create the point then launch from it (this could be a Field Maps form if it is simple).  We do this when we need to add random points.  The URL to launch 123 can take a field so you can just pass over whatever ID they give it.  Not sure how you are handling IDs then.

You could also do 1 123 form for site add and 1 123 form for inspections but if they are offline then you won't see it in Field Maps until you sync.  I have also tested making a 123 form for the main site then having a lunch link at the bottom of that form.  Then can pass the ID to the second form right there.  Only bummer here is the first form stays open in the background so they must remember to save out twice.  Plus is that then both are 123 forms and both are independent.

Hope that helps a little it is a tough one.

[Ness2]

Thanks again, unfortunately I have not been able to work on it for a few days and was hoping it would all become clear to me in the meantime as the survey launch date is fast approaching.  Most of the sites will be out of range and therefore offline.  I gather that means 2 x S123 forms are the only real option.  And that necessarily means that there's no way to have each visit linked (ie with a relationship class)?

Also, to clarify, the URL in the first S123 would be calculated in a note on the form?  And then there's a danger that they don't submit the first form at all if they click on the link and then forget to go back and submit??  

Alternatively, if we managed to get the sites recorded first using Field Maps, and then uploaded (eg by travelling to a hill with phone reception), could a relationship class be created with the subsequent S123 points?  How??   

Thanks again for your advice.  It would be preferable to have a relationship between the site and each survey.  

[DougBrowning]

You can relate 2 forms together.  123 would really have no idea.  You publish the service then point the form to the layer you want it to add to.  Same answer for both your relationship questions.  I did a big write up here  https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/mapping-with-survey123-within-a-polygon-or-... 

Yes they have to double submit the form.  Or they send then open in outbox then click on the link.  No its not ideal.

Hope that helps.