This might be related to my previous question, or it might not. But in addition to the question I asked earlier (which I'd still love to figure out), I'm also curious to know the advantages/disadvantages of putting multiple Derived Mosaic Datasets in a single file geodatabase (as opposed to multiple Source Datasets in a single Derived Mosaic Dataset).
Here is what I did:
- I have 20 different orthophotos, in their original form, in separate directories on our server.
- I then created 20 different file geodatabases, and created 20 Source Mosaic Datasets within each of these respective file geodatabases (so each file geodatabase has one single Source Mosaic Dataset in it)
- The workflow (and your suggestions) says to create a single Derived Mosaic Dataset and put those 20 mosaic datasets into it. I did this, the screenshot in my previous post shows that Derived Mosaic Dataset (which I don't really see the advantage of; it also doesn't function very intuitively)
- To me, it seems to make more sense to create a "Derived File Geodatabase" to serve these mosaic datasets to my colleagues. For this, I created a new file geodatabase (called "CompleteOrthos_byYear"), created 20 new Derived Mosaic Datasets in this file geodatabase (I stopped at 11 in the screenshot)
Can you please tell me why i should not do this? To me, it seems to be a very clean and easy-to-understand way to organize all my orthos and serve them to my colleagues. It also seems a lot more intuitive to have it in this format than to have 20 orthophotos all combined in a single mosaic dataset.
Screen shot attached.
Thanks again for your help!