Best practice for updating assets unique ID and related records

[JimWilliams]

Hello,

We are updating an asset and need to take one feature and split it into two or more features. The original feature is not being “abandoned” because it still exists, just split into may parts. This asset has many attached records so the relationship between the attached records and the asset needs to be maintained. Does anyone have a best practice for this process? My two best options are:

• Make an old ID column and add the original ID in there for all the new features.
• Update the original asset, then update all the attached records to attach to only the original asset.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Regards,
Jim

[RPGIS]

In regards to your asset, what kind of geometry are you dealing with? Depending on the type of geometry; there are many ways in which an asset can be split.

If you are looking to split the asset by an attribute, regardless of geometry, then there is a different route that you can try.

[JimWilliams]

RPGIS,

The related assets mostly are just tables with information. Asset maintenance and information ect... The main assets we are splitting are lines. So a single line that needs to be separated into three lines. All the relationships of the original line need to be maintained for historical reason.

Just looking for ideas on the ideal set up for this. First time of many times we will be doing this so want to have a simple and logical process. Thanks for the help.

Regards,

Jim

[RPGIS]

One option that you can try is creating the exact same field in both the table and feature specifically for assigning unique values and creating the relationship based on those. When you create the relationship (typically I use the one - many relationship when I do these kind of things) you can relate based on this field. Regardless of how the feature is split, that unique value will still remain, keeping the relationship.

I can provide an example if needed.

[jcarlson]

Can you clarify: when you split, say, objectID 1 into three parts, is one of the parts still objectID 1?

When you say that the original feature is not abandoned, does that mean that the original geometry is retained, or simply that you're re-using the objectID?

Are the attached records non-spatial? How is the relationship class defined?

Personally, if I had to design a dataset to fit this scenario, I would:

1. Retain original geometry but change a status (active/historic) attribute to show that it's been split up.
2. Establish the relationship class as many-to-many, so that records from the "parent" feature can be assigned to the appropriate "child" features without having to take them off of the parent.

[JimWilliams]

Josh,

To clarify objectID 1 would be retained, but just one part of the now three parts. The asset is not abandoned because in the real world it still exists.

I understand what you are saying. You would make three new parts and retain the original part but just flagged as a "archived" asset. All the relationships are many to many so I can re-establish the relationships.

This is not a bad option, we may use it. Thank you Josh.