Invalid Geometry Checks on routes

461
13
05-21-2019 11:01 AM
PrestonStafford2
New Contributor II

We did a data review check on invalid Geometry on our routes. It brings back that we have 41 "Not Simple" issues. My question is is what is "Not Simple" mean and is this a critical issue.?

Tags (1)
Reply
0 Kudos
13 Replies
CliveReece
Esri Contributor

Hi Preston, 

The answer is sometimes not simple.  (okay, I couldn't resist that pun)

In all seriousness, I would recommend you start with this page that describes the different kinds of data conditions that get flagged as "not simple":  http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/data-reviewer/finding-invalid-geometry.htm.  You then have to dig in and examine the records one by one.  Sometimes the condition will be a critical issue (e.g. short segments).  Sometimes the condition will be benign (e.g. self-intersection of a loop or lollipop, which are supported shapes).  

Best of luck with the data sleuthing. 

-Clive (Esri Transportation Practice)

RyanKoschatzky
Occasional Contributor III

I think they are a critical issue, it is my understanding that while DR found them under invalid geometries it prevents other DR checks from running on those records. Additionally having a null shape cause issues with having two route in the location without knowing about it. 

My experience has been if you have used geoprocessioning steps for data migration you can run into 10. duplicate vertices at the begin/end of route. If you are z-aware, you have a 9 zero/NaN elevation. As a coastal state this can be a problem. It was also easier to find some issues of roads in the waterway/ocean. So it's a double edge sword. 

For our editors I have instructed them to do the following: 

There are two things to look for. Make milepoint (route/road layer) selectable (NCDOT by default has this layer as unselectable). Double click on the route in question and view its sketch properties.

  1.      Look for zero Z values along the route
  2.      Look along the route for duplicate or near duplicate X and Y values. Typically found at the start or end of route. Deselect the route and select the correct centerline, remove the second vertex. While it shouldn’t really affect the geometry ensure the route appears as you intended.

Make milepoint unselectable again before continuing with your work.

Yes you can also view the sketch properties on centerline but I find it easier to look the measure field for duplicates then both the X and Y fields. To each their own .

 

I don't recall running into the others. Additionally at 10.5.1 the data reviewer check and the CheckGeometry geoprocessing tool return different results with data reviewer picking up more issues if you happening to be using that tool.

Hope that helps. 

AndrewVitale3
New Contributor III

Ryan Koschatzky wrote:

I think they are a critical issue, it is my understanding that while DR found them under invalid geometries it prevents other DR checks from running on those records.

Ryan Koschatzky‌ - I have a question regarding the quoted statement. Will DR run the other checks once the Invalid Geometry check has been marked and accepted as an exception? (e.g. DR returned a positive Invalid Geometry check on a cul-de-sac that's built to the R&H spec, so it's marked as an exception)

Reply
0 Kudos
RyanKoschatzky
Occasional Contributor III

It is my understanding (which I hope Clive/Esri can provide input if I am mistaken) that would not help. DR sees the route for lack of a better term as “broken” from a DR point of view not a R&H point of view and does not know how to handle the other checks with that route. Marking as exception would only stop the repopulation of the DR table not allow the continuation of other checks. I don’t recall off hand having any of our routes having multiple issues, so if the invalid geometry (vertex being a major of the issues) was fixed the route would not reappear with other problems.

Reply
0 Kudos
CliveReece
Esri Contributor

Hi Ryan.  Data Reviewer will attempt to process additional checks if part of a batch job, even if it finds a record that fails the "Invalid Geometry Check".  That's my experience with routes that fail the check but do not contain fatal underlying geometry issues.  I tried it on my computer and it was able to find other data reviewer checks that I had set up.  

Multiple data reviewer check issues can show up on routes.  It's a common issue we run into when performing ALRS data health checks on customer data.  We find it helps a lot to run a pivot by Route Id to find routes that contain multiple problems.  

-Clive (Esri Transportation Practice)

Reply
0 Kudos
RyanKoschatzky
Occasional Contributor III

@ Clive, I agree that most routes usually do not have other issues if they have invalid geometry but that is no guarantee they won't and yes a route can multiply other issues outside of invalid geometry.

@Preston, My experience has shown that for us, loops and lollipops return a line/polyline closes itself record and not a invalid geometry record. 

Yesterday I ran a check on about 11,000 miles of our data. I had 1 invalid geometry return because of the vertex issue and 356 returns on routes that where loops and lollipops. That will shortly be 1 resolved record and 356 exception records. 

Hope that helps.

Reply
0 Kudos
PrestonStafford2
New Contributor II

I appreciate the information you and Clive have been discussing back and forth. It helps me with a better understanding of how things interact in RH.

RyanKoschatzky
Occasional Contributor III

Preston,

No problem. That is a goal of RHUG and this space to drive conversation that helps all stakeholders. Based on conversations I have had with others, I would agree that we are a highly specialized community and this is one way to help increase the existing knowledge base and hopefully our numbers.   

Reply
0 Kudos
RyanKoschatzky
Occasional Contributor III

This blog was brought to my attention, 

https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/data-reviewer/data-management/invalid-geometry-check-expla...

Which is where I had gotten the image to start with but the article couldn't be found for some time. 

Hope this folks.

Reply
0 Kudos