Latest Contributions by ChrisDonohue__GISP

Keep in mind that even if your Catchment layer is in vector, you can convert it to raster and do the overlay in raster (using Map Algebra), then convert back. Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

Darren Wiens has a good idea - keep it all raster until the end.  His suggestion of using Con or Reclassify accomplishes a similar effect to Dissolve, but on the raster side. To use Con or Reclassify, one would use Map Algebra, which is available with the Spatial Analyst Extension. A quick tour of using Map Algebra ArcGIS Help (10.2, 10.2.1, and 10.2.2) Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

Some ideas: Maybe take an approach of merging the data into say 8 "chunks", dissolving each, then merging all 8 and dissolving again. Shapefiles do not store parametric curves, File Geodatabases do, so going from Shapefiles to File Geodatabase can lead to many slivers generated, which can then lead to quite a bit of topology cleanup. ESRI Help article - Tiled processing of large datasets  ArcGIS Help (10.2, 10.2.1, and 10.2.2) Chris Donohue, GISP  ... View more

There are a couple of options available: 1).  A less-commonly used connectivity is to use Vertices instead of actually splitting lines.  One adds vertices where the linework intersects using the Integrate (Data Management) tool, then when building the network choose a Connectivity Policy of "Any Vertex" (instead of "End Point"). "Inserts common coordinate vertices for features that fall within the given x,y tolerance and will add vertices where feature segments intersect." Integrate - ArcGIS Help (10.2, 10.2.1, and 10.2.2) 2).  If you want to continue to use the "End Point" connectivity, the linework can be split at intersections by going into Editing Mode and using the Planarize Lines function from the Advanced Editing Toolbar.  Note that to do this requires a Standard or Advanced license level. Splitting lines at intersections with Planarize Lines—Help | ArcGIS for Desktop Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

I personally agree that geodatabases seem faster than shapefiles for geoprocessing, but ESRI (see above link) and others in the past have stated that shapefiles are faster.  Maybe that's no longer the case? While we're at it, a few more points on geodatabases vs. shapefiles to add based on my experience: Geodatabases (File and SDE) seem far more stable for editing than shapefiles (but that may just be a function of the types of data I deal with). Geodatabases help avoid some "human" caused errors when one works in an environment where many people have access to the data: With geodatabases, there is a much higher chance when they are created that the creator will assign a coordinate system.  (Shapefiles don't require them at all, so they are oftentimes not assigned). I can't tell you how many times I've had folks who don't really know GIS come to me and say they helped me out in updating the project shapefiles by opening them in Excel and editing the attributes there.... (anguished scream as hours of work goes down the drain: "Nooooooooooo!!!!!!"  ).  Then the helper inevitably says  "But I was able to view and edit them in Excel, why is that a problem?"  Arrrrrrgggghhhh!!!!   If you do decide to go the shapefile route, do what you can to restrict access to the files from casual users and make sure everyone who has access to them knows not to edit them in Excel. Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

As others have stated, the biggest factor boils down to which format will fulfill your needs the best.  In general, shapefiles are "quick and dirty", while geodatabases offer more capabilities but require more effort to set up.  This article has some good points: Geoprocessing considerations for shapefile output—Appendices | ArcGIS for Desktop For me, the main points that I find that keep me from using shapefiles that often are: They can't store NULLS. No topology. They don't automatically update length and area. Lack of parametric curves (shapefiles produce many small straight lines instead of a parametric curve.  Bringing shapefile geometry into a geodatabase produces zillions of slivers). That said, shapefiles are still useful in many cases. They are easy to set up. In geoprocessing, they run fast. They are easier to share with others than geodatabases due to their open format. A collection of feature classes in one geodatabase only allows one person to be viewing and editing them (exception:  unless you have an enterprise geodatabase).  However, with shapefiles, each one is available to be viewed and edited by a different person. So it all boils down to what will work given your needs and the advantages/disadvantages of each format.  I'd look into each and then see how they stack up to your needs. Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

At least from the ESRI Help, it appears that unfortunately this is not an option.  It looks like one can only do sizing of the current patch, not change its shape. From the Help: On the Design tab, you can set the default legend patch size. In the  Settings group, you can select or input a size for Patch Width and Patch Height. Work with a legend—Layouts | ArcGIS for Desktop Also, it appears a potential work-around of importing a different patch shape from an existing mxd set up in ArcGIS Desktop is also out: Because the functionality of legends in ArcGIS Pro does not match the functionality available in ArcMap, legends will be converted to use settings available in ArcGIS Pro. Import an existing legend—Layouts | ArcGIS for Desktop Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

Joe: 5-4-3-2-1.... any second now the comment will come in that you should really be using Python for this  Chris Donohue, GISP (Modelbuilder fan/occasional Python hacker(but really a novice)) ... View more

Another possibility - a longshot, but I'll throw it out there.  Is the issue incomplete derived data?  In other words, Modelbuilder is set up to work on data, but the intermediate outputs of the processing are not always predictable, which leads to issues in assigning specifics in later Modelbuilder processes, as they are not always known.  Check out this help article is that is potentially the case. ArcGIS Help (10.2, 10.2.1, and 10.2.2) Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

I'm not sure if I fully understand what you want correctly, but couldn't you drag and drop the feature classes you want to append to into the model as inputs to Append, then in the inputs part expose them as Parameters (so you can choose other ones if need be). Or is there a correlation between what you are Appending to and what is already in the model that I am missing? Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

I second what Cheryl Trine said - there is currently no way to reorder fields.  This has been a recurring question for many years, but the experts at ESRI say a solution is not as straight-forward as it seems like it should be. Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

If you want to modify your existing fields, one way is to run the Alter Field Geoprocessing Tool.  How extensively you can alter them depends on what version of the software you have.  Newer versions of the software allow many field properties to be changed. ArcGIS Help (10.2, 10.2.1, and 10.2.2) Alter Field—Data Management toolbox | ArcGIS for Desktop Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

Our Fire and Police here in Roseville, CA use New World Aegis CAD and I believe it does allow export to various ESRI formats.  I don't use it myself, though, so can't totally verify that it will do the export as you want. Also, here's an article which seems to imply it has that capability: New World upgrades public safety software -- GCN Another: New World Computer Aided Dispatch | Tyler Technologies Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more

For starters, you would need a field that is a string type (text) not numerical.  You can then populate it by concatenating a dash into it at the appropriate places. For example, a simplistic way would be to shred 6411 10 6411 12 down to it's 4 pieces and place each piece in it's own field, say field A, B, C, D.  For example, A would contain 6411, B 10, etc.  Then create a text field for your final result, we'll call it field E.  Then run Field Calculator ​on field E, with the VB script expression:  & "-" & & " " & & "-" & . There are probably even easier/more elegant ways to do this with Python. One catch will be whether all your data is laid out in the same sequence; if it varies it may take some data cleanup or additional code to get it sorted out before concatenating. Chris Donohue, GISP ... View more