Trace - Barriers are not honored by the Trace Tool

[gis_KIWI4]

Hi Team, 

Wondering if anyone has faced this before.
We have a Utility network service running but the trace does not seem to be honoring the barrier conditions. 

The use case is simple I want the trace to stop in 2 scenarios - Switch Status = Open OR Feature is an End-Point feature. Let's ignore the End Point for now and look at the Open Switch. 

 

This is what my Trace parameters look like  - 

(I have also tried changing "Open" to 1, as that's the number in the domain but no luck) 

Result  - 

I would have expected it to stop at the switch.
Anything I might be missing here? 

Thanks in advance 🙂 

PS - I ran into this issue when creating subnetworks. Because subnetworks don't stop at these features, subnetworks with different subnetwork names overlap and the system doesn't like it. Updating the subnetwork definition with these conditions did not work so I using the Trace tool to troubleshoot. 

[JoaquinMadrid1]

After you check connectivity as indicated by M. Miller, two other details come to mind:

1. (Possibly a silly question...) Is your switch snapped between the ends of two consecutive line segments? If it is snapped midspan to a single segment it will not act as a barrier.
2. Also, and only if your switches are configured with Terminals, make sure that the two lines converging into the switch are not connected to the same terminal. (Connected in the sense of their To or From end vertices to terminals.)

[RobertKrisher]

@JoaquinMadrid1 Your first statement is not quite correct. If a feature is snapped midspan on a line, it will still act as a barrier from a tracing perspective (e.g. features on the other side of the barrier will not be included). However, visually it will still include the line where the tracing stopped because the first section is included in the trace and the second section isn't, but we can only select the whole line.

[JoaquinMadrid1]

Thank you Robert... You are absolutely right. I'm glad you pointed that out.

[gis_KIWI4]

Thanks @JoaquinMadrid1 , 
I agree with what you have said before. We took the time to evaluate the asset tpes that should have terminals and which shouldn't. 
Essentially anything could be subnetwork controller (Circuit Breakers, Transformers, etc )gets configured with terminals. We modelled switches with terminals because we were advised that integrating without future ADMS would be easier. Similar to your observation, we decided to configure fuses, LV services, connection points without and Terminals. 

Reading this answer has supported our thinking. Thanks for your input 🙂