Latest Contributions by RyanKoschatzky

Maja,  Nathan demo'ed the new functionality at a RHUG meeting. Maybe Nathan or someone recalls what month that was. Then you see the demo yourself at LINKS - RoadsAndHighwaysUserGroup  What was demo'ed looked promising from what I recall but to my knowledge has not been put through the paces to see how route actions and event behaviors work.   I am still working on my gaps document and while I can say the small sample test on newly created routes was positive, I had editor have an issue arise with a gap route being created that introduced around 2 miles extra to the length of the route. That case (02260994) has been written up and submitting to esri. It is too new to know anything at this time. Will follow up when more is known.  ... View more

Yes, from WMX it took 3.5 minutes to display the table of contents and another 1.5 minutes to finish loading. I had no layer turned on. I have 27 layers, 16 in 3 groups layer. Only about half of the layers are coming from R&H. ... View more

Yes, NCDOT (10.5.1) have also experienced long arcmap load times. We are still investigating the issue.  ... View more

Andrew, Thanks for the follow up: BUG-000101392, I export out Bug List from RHUG  that Kyle G had taken from the google site, the export to excel was not clean and I selected the wrong number but for completeness the issue for bug is as follows: BUG-000101392 (TFS51810) Route Edit -  extend, realign Extending a route to create a concurrency then realigning the other route to remove the concurrency on the same date results in incorrect event behaviors for the non-concurrent events on the realigned route. I don't recall off hand the issue but I can research the use case if needed.  What I meant to copy was TFS51854 Route Edit - Reverse, Reassign Reverse and Reassign to Create Gap Causes Measures Downstream From Gap to be Incorrect.  Issue also occurs doing a reverse and retire to create a gap BUG-000117736 Events on the gap route does not updates correctly if the 'Gap calibration method’ field is set to ‘Applying Euclidian Distance’.  I don't recall off hand the issue to provide more information but I will be researching all our gap route issues this week and I will create a new post where we discuss gapped routes as a community.  ... View more

Thanks for the information Nathan. I have some gapped work coming up (making the gap smaller, at the start of the gap and the end of the gap) after I address the invalid geometries you and I have been working on.  ... View more

Clive, I will have to respectfully disagree with the definition that gaps are supported. The functionally to create gaps exists but there is still many issues with using other LRS edits and event behavior working correctly on gapped routes from our experience. Our practice is for our editors not to interact with or create gapped routes when possible. We use euclidean distance and are at version 10.5.1.  I believe these bugs still exist on gapped routes:  BUG-000117736 BUG-000114098 BUG-000114097 BUG-000101392 ... View more

Kevin,   Reader’s Digest version, we delete versions and do not attempt to resolve conflicts.   I would have to say that one is taking a gamble when using the edit calibration tool and other editors (desktop and RCE) are actively editing. I have used the tool and not seen the conflict. I would say looking back that I was lucky. For NC we have at least 4 times a year we are at state zero for SDE and have editing frozen to the enterprise. I have used that time to use the edit calibration tool to fix a number of our routes before allowing the enterprise to start editing again.   This past year we have had a number of what we call corruption issues of our production database, and because of that and an overabundance of caution, we delete versions because of the unknowns of allowing the data to posted. While it may appear fine, the concern is future editing of that route and the unknown of what may happen. We could have saved some versions as not all were impacted (desktop and rce wmx jobs) but a decision was made to restore the database to a last known good which meant the enterprise lost a few days’ worth of edits.    Below is the test case I used to recreate the issue as it matched our normal editing practices and I sent this to esri so they could also recreate the issue which they were able to do.    Two editors are making desktop R&H linework edits (cartographic realignment, create, extend, realignment, the order and routes edited doesn't matter) and posting data as they would do normally. While a third editor was using edit calibration point tool to modify the first calibration on a selected number of routes who’s starting calibration measure was not zero (in practice we don't recommend editors use this function in the course of normal editing. This was practice even before discovering the bug. We only use the tool when there is known issues and only on those problematic routes). While editing the calibration point, the third editor is prompted to gets locks for each route.  The other editors continue posting data.  The third editor is prompted to reconcile before getting a lock, reconciles and then selects yes to get a route lock. Tool finishes updating the calibration point. Third editor runs a manual apply updates to push measure changes downstream. Select in attribute table next calibration point. Select pan to selected calibration point and attempt to edit next route. Repeat until issue occurs.  For us, on the fourth edit to calibration points, after reconciling, the conflict box appeared for the third editor. Esri should be able to prove the internal triggers that create the error. We decide not to deep dive further on the issue as is was reproducible and easily preventable. Additionally while not practical we have a workaround that we can use to mitigate the occurrence.   Some of our lessons learned: 1. Post frequently but be cautious of impact to other editors who will have to reconcile (this is causing other operational issues, look for a future posting to discuss esri's enterprise solution)  2. When an issue is detected, report it immediately (we are actively monitoring the system's health and we have found that this can help contain issues and help prevent enterprise data loss) 3. Keep business units updated, communication is key with the enterprise spread out over multiple physical locations 4. Document issue for reporting to esri and future use Hope this helps, Ryan ... View more

@Clive, are you sure gapped routes are supported in 10.5.1? That has not been NC experience. @Maja, if your route is as Clive described that would be called a branch route and that is not supported at 10.5.1. Nathan demo'ed branch route support at another version and I think was Pro early in 2018 at a RHUG meeting, I just don't recall off hand which meeting it was to help you watch that meeting. I would recommend using Clive's idea of separate routes if possible and not using gapped routes. You can also add calibration points to the intersecting locations to set the measures (I would also split the centerline at those locations also), when using other R&H edit commands uncheck the edit recalibrate downstream. That should keep your route measures static. I don't like that method overall because if you export out that data it will lose that data manipulation.  ... View more

The product road map has been discussed at the Oct and Nov 2018 meetings. We do not have the product roadmaps in the meeting pdfs but recordings of each meeting can be found at LINKS - RoadsAndHighwaysUserGroup ... View more