using spatial join
754
2
05-24-2012 11:39 AM
by
I???m currently getting my data ready to go into the parcel fabric. In order to get it ready for fabric, every line has to be cogo. This means no multi-segment lines, which our data had a lot of. So I used the ???curves & lines??? add-in to make nice curves etc.
What this does to the lines is really nice. It converts densified lines into one or more separate circular arcs.
So far so good.
But what about the underlying polygons, you might ask? Well, the topology is broken now, because the edge of the polygon is not perfectly coincident with the nice new lines.
But no problem supposedly???.., according to ESRI there is a work around???. A simple 3 step process???. From the curves and lines add in pdf:
1. Use GP tool Feature to Point to generate a layer to hold onto the attributes from the original polygons. Make sure that the Inside option is checked on. (worked great)
2. Use the GP tool Feature to Polygon to generate new polygons from the updated line-work. (worked great)
3. Use the GP tool Spatial Join and use the results of #2 as the target features, and results of #1 as the Join features to transfer the original polygon attributes. (not so great)
Ok so I???m successful in doing steps #1 and #2, it did exactly what I wanted. It made a point feature to hold the attributes of the polygon it is set upon, and it made glorious polygons (with no attributes, mind you) that are perfectly topologically correct.
The problem comes in on step 3, getting your old attributes, which are now stored on a point, back onto the NEW topologically correct polygon.
I am happy with the way the attributes from the placeholder point file transferred over to the new polygon file but???
The file that the ???Spatial Join??? tool creates is not topologically correct, even though the target feature it used is perfectly correct. Its weird, its almost as if it creates a polygon that is just an approximate version of its own target. See picture below.. First pic is the result of the ???feature to polygon??? geoprocessing tool, showing the polygon edges are perfectly coincident with the lines, and the second picture shows how far off the resulting file that step number 3 above provides???. Which is bad .. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated
What this does to the lines is really nice. It converts densified lines into one or more separate circular arcs.
So far so good.
But what about the underlying polygons, you might ask? Well, the topology is broken now, because the edge of the polygon is not perfectly coincident with the nice new lines.
But no problem supposedly???.., according to ESRI there is a work around???. A simple 3 step process???. From the curves and lines add in pdf:
1. Use GP tool Feature to Point to generate a layer to hold onto the attributes from the original polygons. Make sure that the Inside option is checked on. (worked great)
2. Use the GP tool Feature to Polygon to generate new polygons from the updated line-work. (worked great)
3. Use the GP tool Spatial Join and use the results of #2 as the target features, and results of #1 as the Join features to transfer the original polygon attributes. (not so great)
Ok so I???m successful in doing steps #1 and #2, it did exactly what I wanted. It made a point feature to hold the attributes of the polygon it is set upon, and it made glorious polygons (with no attributes, mind you) that are perfectly topologically correct.
The problem comes in on step 3, getting your old attributes, which are now stored on a point, back onto the NEW topologically correct polygon.
I am happy with the way the attributes from the placeholder point file transferred over to the new polygon file but???
The file that the ???Spatial Join??? tool creates is not topologically correct, even though the target feature it used is perfectly correct. Its weird, its almost as if it creates a polygon that is just an approximate version of its own target. See picture below.. First pic is the result of the ???feature to polygon??? geoprocessing tool, showing the polygon edges are perfectly coincident with the lines, and the second picture shows how far off the resulting file that step number 3 above provides???. Which is bad .. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated
