September RHUG Open Discussion Topics

09-06-2019 12:50 PM
New Contributor

Hi everyone, we have an exciting set of topics to discuss at the September RHUG meeting.  We also will have time to have open discussion on topics that are relevant to you.  If you have any burning questions or scenarios you would like to discuss please bring them to the meeting.  We also ask that you put them in this discussion thread below to allow for any prep work to occur.  

6 Replies
New Contributor II

Hello, we are moving ahead with implementing an Intersection FC for our events to be referent from.  Would like to have anyone who has completed that, communicate pitfalls or things to watch for when implementing that solution.


Blaine Hackett

LRS Supervisor, MnDOT

New Contributor II

Hi Blaine,

Here in North Carolina we actually have two intersection FCs set up.  We ended up having to split up a milepoint to milepoint intersection FC and a multiple boundary to milepoint intersection FC.  We implemented our first version of the intersection FC when it was first available.  We are happy to discuss with you our configuration and any of the successes and issues we've had.  

We are on 10.5.1 and have a nightly script to update the intersections.

Take care,


Sarah B. Wray, GISP

Spatial Data Manager

GIS Unit

NC Department of Transportation


919 707 2167    office

Regular Contributor


Sarah's team has done a good job setting this up for our enterprise to use inside and out of R&H. I would recommend verifying locations after running the tool as we have had areas that did not repopulate with new points and measures. BUG-00110740, fixed in 10.6.1 according to esri. As we are still at 10.5.1 I cannot confirm that.

We did take the intersection point fc to help identify where milepoint was not connected to the network.

MilePoint_ID in

(select distinct milepoint_id

from rome.LRSN_MilePoint_evw

where todate is null


select distinct routeid milepoint_id

from rome.LRSI_IntersectionPoint_evw

where todate is null)

and todate is null

Found 11 legacy system routes that where islands onto the network that I am not sure I would have come across any time soon and another 33 routes that had topology issues. Most of the 33 routes go back to 10.3.1 days when we didn't have the robust system in place that we do now to catch these issues. 

0 Kudos
Regular Contributor

A few questions:

Anyone using temporal polygons (ie city/town/county boundaries)? 

Anyone doing any temporal QC’ing? If you have any routes that have been edited multiple times and the timeslices don’t line up correctly, is the delete routes tool (10.6 or higher) working for you? Did you have any coroutes involved? Would a delete timeslice option be preferred? Have you tried to save your event data and how did that go? 

Occasional Contributor

No, but we have linear limits in R&H for the polygon boundaries.

Regular Contributor

@Nicole, that is how we have been using polygons to date.

I think that having temporal polygons would be helpful for when people are using the timeslider, so the boundary data would match the routes and events vs having current boundaries and old routes and events. That sorta begs the following question, are people using the timeslider? 

I uploaded an old GIS-T presentation that might help illustrate the issue of temporal polygons (pg 12-14). When I have time in the future I will try update the illustrations to be more useful.    

GIST-T 2016 NCDOT evolution of temporal polygons for spatially derived events.pdf 

0 Kudos