Duplicate Vertices in UN but not in Check Geometry

[SusanONeill1]

I am working on converting a  Water geometric network to the Utility Network.  When I enable the UN, I get over 180 errors that indicate a water line has duplicate vertices.  But if I run the "Check Geometry" tool, it doesn't find any errors.  Is there some difference in the tolerance between the Check Geometry tool and the UN?  I can't find any place to change or define a tolerance in either tool. 
(I realize I can display the vertex coordinates for each of the lines and determine if there is a duplicate, but that seems pretty labor-intensive if there aren't really any errors.)

Please let me know if you can help.  Thanks.  

[SusanONeill1]

Robert,

    This sounded promising, but I ran the Analyze Network Data and it only found 2 Duplicate Vertex results. The "Dirty Areas" in the UN indicate there are 174 lines with duplicate vertices.  I don't know why they aren't consistent, but it does limit the usefulness of the tool.  (And no - it's not 2 lines with 174 duplicate vertices between them).  There were also 17 with the error "Vertex within tolerance" but even that doesn't account for the 174 duplicate vertex errors in the UN Dirty Areas.  Any ideas?

[RobertKrisher]

@SusanONeill1 Can you post a screenshot of the complete results of all the errors discovered by the Analyze Network Data tool? The Errors by Type chart gives a good breakdown. I want to see all the errors it discovered, as well as the number of occurences of each error.

[SusanONeill1]

Robert,

   My bad.  I was looking at the Error Summary Table, which had 2 records, rather than the Error Location table, which shows a number of errors more consistent with the Dirty Areas.  Thanks for your help.  I did have to upgrade to 3.5 yesterday since the tool is only available at that version, so I guess I missed the details on the types of info returned by the tool.  Thanks again.

[RobertKrisher]

@SusanONeill1 When looking at the error summary table make sure you look at the occurrences field for each error summary. You should find that when you add the number of occurrences for both of those rows together you will get the correct number (which will match the number of error location features you find).