Latest Contributions by EdwardBlair

‎11-05-2025

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

‎11-05-2025

Ayan - I get it. Thanks for the info! Ed

‎11-04-2025

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

‎11-04-2025

Ed - This worked. I could swear that I tried this before to no effect. But following your steps it worked. Much appreciated! Ed

‎11-03-2025

Hi Barry - That's useful, thanks. As you say, its not as good as ArcMap, but better than nothing. Ed

‎11-03-2025

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.

‎10-28-2025

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

‎10-26-2025

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

‎10-06-2025

Thank you! Very helpful!

‎10-05-2025

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

‎10-01-2025

Thanks Mike! I'll take a look

‎10-01-2025

Hi - I'm looking for tips/direction for tools provided with the Utility Network to help support the process of abandoning underground assets. Working in gas distribution at the moment, but tools for water distribution would probably be similar. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed

‎07-31-2025

Thanks much for the reply! And for the great level of detail here. Our immediate though for introducing a substation tier was as a means to extract substation internals to our ADMS. Oracle NMS considers substations a distinct "partition" that we export substation internals (currently from an ArcGIS 10.x extractor process) using a query that returns features with a common "Sub FacilityID" field. Going forward we thought we might replace this with a subnetwork trace from the "injection points" on the high side of the station. Given the complexities described for substation tiers we may stick with our current logic of querying with a "Sub FacilityID" field. Thanks again!

‎07-30-2025

Nathan - Thanks much for the feedback. I knew about the dirty areas and the need to validate them, which I probably should have been more clear about. I suppose I should have phrased my question as, "does the validate topology" do everything we need? I've also discovered since I posted my question that there is a U/N GP tool for re-building topology that apparently is used to resolve issues that prevent "Validate Topology" from completing. This seems to be the rough equivalent of the ArcMap "Rebuild Connectivity" tool. Ed

‎07-29-2025

All - Like everyone maintaining a geometric network (at least everyone I know of) we occasionally find "corrupt network features" -- that is, features which, for whatever reason, have become disassociated with their logical network representation. When we find these we use the ArcMap "Rebuild Connectivity" to repair them. Since these occur seemingly at random in different parts of the database we created a process that runs weekly over different parts of the service territory and detects them, writing out a log which a GIS technician subsequently uses to seek out and repair. There are usually only a handful and sometimes none at all. But since they can cause unwanted behavior we feel its best to actively seek them rather than lie undetected. As we are starting to plan what functionality we need as we move to the U/N, the question has come up, so we still need to worry about network features becoming corrupt? And if so, do we need to continue to proactively seek these out and fix them. Any experience or insight would be much appreciated, Ed

Online Status	Offline
Date Last Visited	Saturday

My Ideas

Latest Contributions by EdwardBlair

Nightly batch reconcile corrupts geometric network features

Re: UPDM Squeeze Off Features

UPDM Squeeze Off Features

Re: Increasing the number of significant digits displayed for coordinates

Re: Increasing the number of significant digits displayed for coordinates

Increasing the number of significant digits displayed for coordinates

Re: Duplicate Vertices in UN but not in Check Geometry

Re: Duplicate Vertices in UN but not in Check Geometry

Re: Underground Asset Abandon Tools For Utility Network

Re: Underground Asset Abandon Tools For Utility Network

Re: Underground Asset Abandon Tools For Utility Network

Underground Asset Abandon Tools For Utility Network

Re: Electric Utility Network Subtransmission and Substation Tiers

Re: Corrupt network features in the U/N

Corrupt network features in the U/N

Re: UPDM Gas Valve "Current Position" field

Electric Utility Network Subtransmission and Subst...

Re: Electric Utility Network Subtransmission and S...

Re: Coincidence between utility domain and structu...

Coincidence between utility domain and structure n...