Running ArcGIS desktop 10.3.1
I have multiple identical polygon feature classes I wish to combine into a single polygon. several of the fields have dollar values associate with these land parcels. I need to end up with a single polygon with a total value of the original multiple polygon land values. the Merge tool obviously combines the polygons but doesn't sum other values other than polygon spatial values such as length, area etc
Any thoughts on which tool I could use?
Roy Langman
City of Hobart
the help suggests otherwise in the field mapping section Merge—Help | ArcGIS for Desktop there is a total option
Union—Help | ArcGIS for Desktop offers the possibility to keep the fields separate and transfered over to the final.
In both cases, it appears you really don't care about the affects to geometry, so I would suggest working with copies in any event
Thanks Dan, I did not read that. Yes, not worried about the final geometry, more the totals for the data fields.
It is worth a look both ways... in the case of union, you would have to produce a new field and add the fields together using the field calculator. In the merge, it is ... hopefully... done for you. I however, like to cross-validate...if I am going to be wrong, I want to make sure I am really wrong
Oh yes, lots of trial and error (and working with copies of the data sets) to understand the tool functions.
Thanks for the replies Dan.
Some more ideas, assuming the data is spatially identical:
Caveat - both of these this place all the attributes into one feature class, but you will still to follow up with an additional process step to do the sum.
Chris Donohue, GISP
I might be over simplifying this, but once you get them all in one file ( you could even use Append—Help | ArcGIS for Desktop or similar if you don't care about the geometry and the attribute table structure is the same)
you could also look at An overview of the Statistics toolset—Help | ArcGIS for Desktop
You may also be interested in the Dissolve—Help | ArcGIS for Desktop tool
Thanks people, I am back on this issue in the next day or so, will work my way through. In thinking about it over the weekend, I may have been looking at the issue from the incorrect angle. I will however work my way through the suggestions, I like the spatial join suggestion in particular - very familiar with this when we join across or corporate databases GIS to Asset databases in particular.
Cheers,
Roy.