|
POST
|
In ArcFM classic there is a field that may be present on multiple device classes, and always on the classes that hold regulators and valves, named GASPRESSURESYSTEMSTATUS which indicates whether the device acts as a pressure system boundary. Some companies might have a field with another name (such as PARTITION) which is assigned a model name to indicate it serves this purpose. I assume there is a field with a similar purpose in UPDM, but I can't seem to locate it. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed
... View more
a month ago
|
0
|
6
|
310
|
|
POST
|
Sure. But as I look at the values in the device status domain they are "active" and "inactive" - which to me implies whether the asset is or is not in service - not whether it is "open" or "closed". A "closed" valve is very much "active". Is this just something I'm going to have to get over?
... View more
a month ago
|
0
|
0
|
273
|
|
POST
|
I may be missing something, but I don't see a field for the "current" or "present" position for a valve -- as opposed to its normal position. Which would be used to identify those valves that, for whatever purpose, were in a abnormal position. If a field serving this purpose is present and I've missed it I would offer multiple kudos to whoever points it out. If a premise of the UPDM model is to represent only the normal, as-designed state of the network, then I guess I would understand that as well. Any insights would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed
... View more
a month ago
|
0
|
7
|
328
|
|
POST
|
We have had for years, no decades, an ArcObjects-based .NET process that reconciles outstanding versions. When reconciles are complete, a compress is initiated. This (at least until now) has run like clockwork. A few weeks ago users discovered that versions not reconciled and posted during the day, which most are, were found to have corrupt network features when the version was re-opened the following day. And when I say "corrupt" I mean either not connected to other features or un-editable -- and requiring the "Geometric Network Editing" tools to repair. After investigation we found that if we turn off the nightly reconcile (basically disable the scheduled task under which it runs) features are not corrupted. Clearly something has changed and we're in the process of trying to determine what. In the mean time we've found that an ArcPython scripted reconcile does not seem to cause corruption. However, the fact that something so fundamental to our solution is failing is a cause for concern. Any chance anyone else has seen this? If so, any feedback would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed
... View more
11-05-2025
10:13 AM
|
0
|
0
|
179
|
|
POST
|
Hi - The UPDM model seems to represent squeeze-off events as features in a non-network class (outside the utility network.) Our current data has squeeze-offs as simple junction features -- so these locations can be identified by a trace. Will we be losing functionality if we migrate our current squeeze-offs into the UPDM, non-networked, P_SqueezeOff class? Thx, Ed
... View more
11-04-2025
09:29 AM
|
0
|
4
|
325
|
|
POST
|
Ed - This worked. I could swear that I tried this before to no effect. But following your steps it worked. Much appreciated! Ed
... View more
11-04-2025
08:01 AM
|
0
|
0
|
188
|
|
POST
|
Hi Barry - That's useful, thanks. As you say, its not as good as ArcMap, but better than nothing. Ed
... View more
11-03-2025
09:45 AM
|
0
|
0
|
215
|
|
POST
|
I must be missing something very basic. How do you set the number of significant digits displayed for coordinates in ArcGIS Pro? In ArcMap I'm showing 3 significant digits to the right of the decimal when I edit vertices in a line. In Pro, with the same projection defined, I only see two significant digits. In ArcMap the X values are *slightly* different -- varying only in the thousandths place. In ArcGIS Pro, truncating values to the hundredths place, the values are the same.
... View more
11-03-2025
05:41 AM
|
0
|
4
|
263
|
|
POST
|
Susan - Right. I'm thinking I can discover vertices that are "close" (but not problems) in the source GN data and weed out those that will (likely) present problems in the UN. It *is* reassuring that others have found this problem. Thanks, Ed
... View more
10-28-2025
10:01 AM
|
0
|
0
|
436
|
|
POST
|
Hi @SusanONeill1 - I'm finding the same problem. No invalid line geometries in my source data (of over 240,000 lines) and about 240 features with "Duplicate Vertex" errors when enabling topology in the UN. Kind of frustrating to find that the UN seems to be creating errors where they did not exist in the source data. Any chance you found a better explanation for why this is happening or how to avoid it? Thx, Ed
... View more
10-26-2025
11:31 AM
|
0
|
3
|
453
|
|
POST
|
Hi Mike - This looks promising. Thanks. But I also need to ask a background question, We're early in our design process and trying to decide to keep abandoned equipment in separate, non-networked classes (as they are in our current 10.8 implementation) or include them in the UN class with a lifecyclestatus of 'Abandoned'. In 10.8 it was just safer to keep abandoned assets completely outside the network so that there would be no way they could be inadvertently included in operations intended to be performed on 'In Service' assets. Is this pretty much the same rationale behind the tools you built? Ed
... View more
10-05-2025
08:56 AM
|
0
|
2
|
545
|
| Title | Kudos | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | a month ago | |
| 1 | 06-25-2025 07:19 PM | |
| 1 | 07-31-2025 10:50 AM | |
| 1 | 07-20-2025 02:54 PM | |
| 1 | 07-19-2025 11:36 AM |
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
yesterday
|