Latest Contributions by RichardFairhurst

Maarten Bos wrote: With datamanagement-append i put the new feature class as input. The existing feature class as the target layer. Your set up is backwards.  The target should be the new empty feature class you are creating and the original feature class should be in the append input list.  The empty feature class should have imported the full schema of your original feature class, as Riyas showed, and you should use the NO_TEST option as he recommended.. ... View more

Maarten Bos wrote: Have you tried it by yourself? Maybe its ArcGIS that doesnt allow lines shorter as 2 metres? My routes use feet as the units and with my tolerance and resolution settings I can create segments of 1/1000th of a foot long.  This exceeds our Survey data accuracy, and ensures I have no loss of accuracy when I use measurements from these documents. If you are unable to reproduce the results Riyas showed that he achieved with your data, you should give a more complete description of the exact steps you are following (the exact tools, menus, dialog inputs, etc) to get the best help. I still think that even .0001 kilometers tolerance is too rough.  That is only 1/10th of a meter (0.1 meters) as your shortest line segment.  Survey documents in the U.S give distances as small as 1/100th of a foot (≈ 0.00304800610 meters) ... View more

If your XY is in kilometers, what is the XY resolution and tolerance?  It should be submeter levels also.  Additionally, your routes are built in km, so your resolution is not .0001 meters, it is .0001 kilometers and the tolerance of .001 will control the length.  M Resolution and tolerance are unitless and determined only after a route measure system is defined from whatever units you used.  This setting means that if 2 measures are within .001 units of each other (no matter what type of units they represent) they are considered the same position and will be adjusted to eliminate one of the positions.  If you really want km measures you need an M resolution of about .0000001 and a tolerance of .000001 for the measures to work to allow 1 meter lines (.001 measures) with reasonable submeter accuracy levels, unless you want really coarse measurements.  .001 km is really coarse accuracy. Alternatively remeasure all of your routes by converting the measure positions at every vertex multiplied by 1000 to convert the measures to meters.  Then your M Resolution and Tolerance will behave as .0001 meter resolution and .001 meter tolerance.  Of course then your event measures will also have to be multiplied by 1000 to match.  It sounds like you just changed the event measures, which does no good if the routes are not remeasured to match. ... View more

As Ted mentioned, for both of your examples, the sets of line segments have overlapping measures that will cause the 1 meter line to fall inside of a 2 meter line.  Since all your lines are the same color and thickness and no end markers, there is no way you will ever see the overlapping lines as separate features, but they are actually there, whether you see them or not.  It appears you have select both segments so that again only the longer one is visibly highlighted.  To demonstrate that you actually have a real problem you need to filter out the 2 meter long segments by using a definition query like: to_KP_km - from_KP_km  < .0015 If the 1 meter lines still don't show then the problem is real.  But if they do show up after applying the filter then this is simply due to the fact that you are obscuring the 1 meter lines by overlapping the segments. To use symbology to show that there are actually 2 lines of different lengths that share a segment without using a filter, you would have to add end cap markers to the lines, and use a categorized or proportional symbol that varied the line colors and thicknesses according to the line lengths.  I would change the values in the Length_M field to be correct (since they are not correctly reflecting the measure lengths for the 2 meter long lines) and use that to vary the symbols.  Additionally, to ensure the lines draw in an order where thinner lines draw on top of thicker lines you would have to do a decreasing length sort of the event table so that the shorter events draw last on top of the longer events, or use separate layers with different definition queries to make shorter lines draw last in the top most layer. I am not clear what this data is showing or why you would want to create overlapping segments.  Most event tables do not contain overlapping events for one attribute type, like speed zones or lanes, unless there is a right and left hand offset to separate the overapping line types.  If a left and right hand offset applies then there is a setting to use a numeric field with positive/negative values that will offset the lines left and right so that they do not overlap.  Below is an example where I use different symbol categories from two fields to separate overlapping line types using color.  Another field is used in the event layer set up to control the left and right hand offsets.  These lines represent house number address range data patterns for each side of the road.  The side offsets were determined by the position of the actual address point relative to the central lines (the Centerlines are not being shown in this example, only the offset lines).  The thicker lines are highlighting unexpected addressing patterns between house pairs with the same types of Orientation and Parity and the events were actually sorted according to their category and measure values to display them in a specific order.  The order of the Symbol Categories in the layer symbology list also affects the order in which the lines are drawn, so technically I should move the thicker lines below the thinner lines in the symbol list to get the thin lines to always draw on top of the thicker lines wherever an actual overlap occurs between two different categories. ... View more

I assume the 6-digit code subdivides the 4-digit code, but no 6-digit code should be in more than one 4-digit code.  I would start by using the Dissolve Tool on the Building polygons with the 6-digit postcode and the 4-digit postcode as two fields in the unique case portion of the tool.  I would check to see if my assumption was correct by sorting on the 6-digit code and looking for any instance of more than 1 polygon containing that code.  I would also use the Summary Statistics tool with the 6-digit code to find the same thing. The Building polygons will have gaps between them.  They also should be contained within a single 4-digit polygon.  To get the best boundary I would manually divide a copy of the 4-digit polygons by using the split polygon tool and tracing the outer shape of the dissolved buildings and using centerlines as a snapping feature.  The Spatial Join tool could then be used to the original building polygons to append the 6-digit postcode to these polygons, with the manually split postcode polygons as the target features and the buildings as the Join features. I could also try the Aggregate Polygons tool, but that tool will form boundaries with gaps and overlaps between adjoining 6-digit polygons and bleed into adjacent 4-digit polygons.  I would use the Union tool on the resulting 6-digit aggregated polygons with the 4-digit polygons and throw away any portions where the 6-digit polygon fell into the wrong 4-digit polygon and then redissolve the results.  The overlaps between the 6-digit polygons inside a 4-digit polygon would be fixed manually to get the best result.  While forming centerline outlines into polygons could help to contain some of the building groups, other blocks will be split between postcodes and still require manual intervention where the 6-digit polygons overlap. Anyway, aggregating divided polygons is easy and can be automated.  However, subdividing an aggregated polygon is hard and is more art than science, so it almost always involves a manual step to get the best results. ... View more

I have two other questions.  Do I have to use the Municipality field in the Master Street Name table?  There are several road names that are used by multiple municipalities in the data I maintain and I don't really want to repeat the name in the table to show it tied to just one municipality.  What are the conventions I should follow when multiple municipalities use the same street name? Second, is there a locator that uses all of the components of the 10.2 MasterStreetName table with slots predefined for these field names and only slots for these field names (just 6 components with no Road Name Pre Type)? ... View more

Ken: The Replace Sketch behavior definitely needs to be better documented.  The only mention I found in the help is a Tip in the middle of this help topic that vaguely describes what the Replace Sketch Editor menu option does.  I guess that is why the Forums and Geonet exist, so we can get help from those who know what actually works in the real world. It seems pretty simple and I assume it can be done at any license level.  Does it preserve the attributes of the original polygon?  I came across another post that suggested that it might not. (Edit:  Sorry Ken for originally attributing your post to Dan.  Dan Patterson has jumped in on so many discussions I have followed lately that I just glanced over the name and when I saw the first name was 3 letters long I assumed it came from him). ... View more

All of the tools Esri provides only handle the creation of 2D measures.  The Add-In I designed was primarily intended to create 3D measures on XYZ polylines with different options for handling unit conversions, unit offsets, polyline gaps, measure orientations that increase with or against the digitized line direction, etc,  These options are intended to emulate the Create Route tool options without having to create a new feature class. The Add-In has no problem generating 2D measures using any of these options on existing XYZ polylines without creating a new feature class as well.  However, there are several alternative methods for creating and maintaining 2D measures with existing Esri tools, including the Create Route tool. ... View more

If you have a Standard or Advanced license you alternatively can use the Split Polygons tool on the Advanced Editing toolbar to split polygons with existing line features during an edit session. If you have an Advanced License you can use the Features to Polygon tool in a geoprocessing workflow. ... View more

Actually you want to use the full set of both layers with the Union tool.  The selection for either export or deletion would get rid of full and partial overlapping areas and all parts of the sales properties that did not overlap the original properties (although that should not occur if the sales were a true subset of the original properties). Using the Intersect tool first only complicates the process of reaching your objective more than it helps.  You could export the overlapping parts from the union if you wanted to also know how much area was deleted, since the set of polygons that have ObjectIDs greater than -1 in both fields is identical to the Intersect output. ... View more

If these were Linear Reference routes and you could created point events at the ends of the lines or along that line that can automatically generate an angle field for each point event at its position along the line using an Advanced option in the Make Route Event Layer set up.  Then you could make the point events a marker symbol.  You could place standard point features at the locations where you want the symbols and convert them to point events using the Locate Features Along Routes tool. If the graphics are always at the end points of the line you can use the Field Calculator and a Python calculation to extract the end point measures of the Route themselves into two fields with these calculations: !Shape.FirstPoint.M! !Shape.LastPoint.M! Then you could export the route fields from its open table view to create an event table with the RouteID and the two measures.  The table could be made into two point layers by using the Make Route Event Layer operation twice, with one point layer based on the measure at the From end of the line and the other based on the measure of the To end of the line.  The two layers could be symbolized differently with marker symbols and rotated according to the angle field that would be generated when you made the point event layers.  You could convert those point event features to graphics if you wanted. With the second approach you could draw every line you wanted, do the calculation at the end, export the table, create the two layers and convert to graphics for as many lines as you want without having to repeat the steps for one line at a time. ... View more

I am wondering if I can implement a coordinated pair of Functional Classification fields using Attribute Assistant.  For example, I need to use the seven functional classifications defined by Caltrans to complete reports to the state and to qualify for certain types of maintenance funding.  These classes are reported by class number, so this would be a new field and domain that I would add to the LGIM. However, I would like the generalized Caltrans classification to coordinate with a more detailed classification field that could make distinctions within the Caltrans classifications.  For example, I would classify ramps as part of the freeways using the Caltrans code, since they are maintained by the state, but I would like a more detailed related classification that distinguishes ramps from mainline freeway centerlines.  Other subcategories of the Caltrans classifications may apply elsewhere on my centerlines.  Taken together these two fields should only be valid for the limited range of value pairings that make sense and my data should not permit invalid value pairings. Would this be a case where I would export the more detailed classification domain as a table and create a second field that showed the corresponding more generalized Caltrans classification?  Could I then set up Attribute Assistant to synchronize these two fields on the actual centerlines by only editing the more detailed classification?  Or would I be required to only have the detailed classification on the centerlines and have to use a Join in order to export a table of roadway segments that included a field showing the Caltrans classifications? ... View more