Latest Contributions by Andy_Morgan

I have not yet deployed a UN to production environment. Currently working in test environment and trying to establish the subnetworks for our Water UN (Hierarchical tier). In many ways, the schema is very close to the ESRI Water UN Foundation database, which is what I'd like to point to for this question. For creating subnetworks, I realize you must assign one or more subnetwork controllers as the point of entry, but what I'm not understanding with the ESRI UN foundation shown below is how System Valve / Pressure Zone features are the barrier points for defining a pressure plane subnetwork. In the network properties (2nd screenshot), it's Pressure Valve / Pressure Reducing features that are controllers. So where is it defined in the network to indicate that System Valve / Pressure Zone can also be a start/end subnetwork barrier? I don't think "Isolating" category is relevant for a pressure subnetwork. I don't see anything else, and cannot find any documentation, to know exactly how this works.             ... View more

All this time, while preparing my water and sewer UNs, including data loading workspaces and customizing asset packages, I've been using the Foundation version 1.2 for each. Should I be concerned with upgrading to version 2.1 for water and sewer, now that I'm getting closer to having the schema finalized? It seems like a lot of work that'll slow me down. I have already carefully removed all references to cathodic protection, since we don't have any data in our system that applies and I wanted to avoid extra CP related fields if they're not being used. I may experiment with the v 2.1 Essential Water Foundation asset package on the side, since we have more custom attributes than using ESRI's out-of-the-box fields (like operable, lastmaint, bondedinsulated, installdate, etc.). One of the main differences appears to be the LifeCycle_Status and Construction_Status split out as separate fields and domains, but that doesn't really matter much in our case. Any advice from the experts? This seems important to not start off on the wrong foot. Does it sound like I'm safe enough with my version of Fdn 1.2, or do you strongly recommend Essential 2.1? We mainly just need pressure and isolation subnetworks for tracing. Not all the bells and whistles, per se.   ... View more

As we get closer to deploying both a water and sewer UN, I'm suddenly very concerned that I am misunderstanding the way ESRI designed the Sewer UN Foundation. There is an attribute rule for Sewer Storm Vault (Structure Junction) to automatically generate a Manhole Channel (Sewer Device) point with identical geometry. That's fine, we must edit the Sewer Storm Vault and not deal with the Manhole Channels. However, it doesn't make any sense that ESRI is missing all the connectivity rules that are needed to snap these Sewer Storm Vault points to the main and service lines. Why are there only rules for SewerDevice -> Manhole Channel? Those are the secondary features that you don't edit. Did ESRI forget about the other side where the edits are made? I can manual add the rules in the asset package, but I want to make sure I didn't miss something fundamental here.    ... View more

I must admit I'm confused on how to design trace configurations if you only want them to apply to water lines/devices/junctions that have LifecycleStatus = "In Service". I see you can filter Condition barriers, but what about simply filtering the whole set of what's used for the trace by an attribute? Is there any way to exclude all the Abandoned/Removed/Out of Service and other Lifecycle status features, or are they somehow already excluded and I don't need to do anything?  We were hoping to add a new Lifecycle status domain value for "Deleted". This would store special cases where we want to know historically that it was deleted. In any case we don't want trace to run on anything other than "In Service" features. ... View more

I need help to understand a pretty fundamental concept for designing a UN. I'm preparing to migrate our water GN to a UN, and in some first round attempts of applying our asset package to UN (FGDB) we have ~8,000 instances of the following network error indicating ambiguity.    9: Invalid connectivity – More than one junction edge rule applicable While there is this ESRI tutorial on interactively fixing errors in Pro (under Network Topology, click Terminal Connections...etc.), that's not realistic when you have to resolve many thousands of cases at a time. My question:  Can someone walk me through, or point to a page with, the general steps for handling this in bulk? Is there no way to mass update our features beforehand, or refine the rules in the asset package, without losing critical connectivity logic to say "this line can connect to this device/junction"?  I used the rules that came out of the box with the Water Distribution UN Foundation. Here is one of dozens of examples of pairs of rules that seem to be causing ambiguous connectivity errors due to multiple water mains touching the same device or junction.  Rule Type From Table From Asset Group From Asset Type From Terminal To Table To Asset Group To Asset Type Junction-edge connectivity Water Device Flow Valve Air Gap Port 1 Water Line Water Main Distribution Main Junction-edge connectivity Water Device Flow Valve Air Gap Port 2 Water Line Water Main Distribution Main   Even if I delete all rules in the asset package that meet the following criteria, it only reduced the number of errors by a couple hundred.  Where rule_type = 'Junction Edge Connectivity' And from_terminal = 'Port Two' What does one do in this case?   Example from our data. There are two separate water main segments touching the System Valve that is labeled.   ... View more