Latest Contributions by HeatherWidlund

Thank you, Dan! That is an... interesting thread. It seems to address my metadata question in the updated road map: "near-term", FWIW. ... View more

Thanks, Sean. Glad to know it is on the road map. ... View more

Thank you - I will pass it on! ... View more

Thanks, Rebecca. Tim sent me the Python code so I could explain it to our group. ... View more

Tim, any way you could post or send me the source code (if you're not ready to post)? I would love to be able to explain it in detail to my group on Wednesday. heatherw@sanmiguelcountyco.gov Thanks, and thanks again for developing and sharing such a great tool! ... View more

Great! Will do. One suggestion on the documentation is to add in your assumptions - like the 15 ft distance for dangles if that's what it is. I like your idea of adding a user-defined distance in a future version! ... View more

timw1984  I would like to demo this tool to my integration group in a couple of weeks. Do you mind? ... View more

Awesome, thanks. I will try it out. Also, I just want to throw this out there for other cross-jurisdictional public safety data people - I did a script tool that finds polylines at jurisdictional boundaries that aren't snapped to agreed-upon snap points, such as in this image: The code is at Data integration – on the edge – GIS Hacker & Hiker, and uses "disjoint" to create an error feature class of points where endpoints aren't snapped. ... View more

Hi Tim, Your thread popped up in the summary GeoNet email today. I've downloaded and run your add-in a few times on our ESN and roads data. This is such a sweet tool, and will help a great deal with our multi-agency integrated public service data. I like the dialogues - you could even add the error count to them. It would also be great if you could designate a location for the scratch workspace, but it works fine as is. I will definitely keep up with this thread and I really appreciate you developing and sharing the tool!  ETA: I'm on 10.4.1 Thanks, Heather ... View more

Here is what I heard back from Esri on this bug: After reviewing the notes from development, I believe that this may actually be an intended change in the software to prevent the software from explicitly changing the user's data.  It is currently stated as repaired in version 10.1, but it's currently under discussion to implement this in a service pack for ArcGIS 10.0. Although this behavior will still occur with service pack 3 installed there are several methods to repair your data in preparation for this issue.  You can either manually re-add the fields with a supported text field length of 254 characters or less, use python to automate re-add the fields with a supported text field length, create a template from the data and use the simple data loader to append the data into the modified template, use the append tool and specify no test on a template of the feature, etc.  Other than this, any gp tool that returns an output in shapefile format will error if it contains a text field with an unsupported field length for the shapefile format. I should be able to work around this, but it will take some more experience with geoprocessing! ... View more

Thank you for the responses. I did submit a support request when my searches turned up no info except this thread, but haven't heard back. Somehow I missed the bug report. Anyway, I guess I have to put off my automation scripts for a while, which is a bummer. Is there any way to escalate it to a patch or service pack? ... View more

Did you ever get an answer to this problem? I'm having the same issue. ... View more