Latest Contributions by BrianOevermann

BTW... then suggest to your data provider that they put their bearing and distance CAD anno on separate layers in the future! But that's usually easier said than done. </ END SNARKY COMMENT> ... View more

Derek, What I--and it appears many others--want from GDBT is the state lineage tree. Quite honestly, there were few other tools in GDBT that I actually used beyond the tree. As Clara stated, the visual representation makes it easy for newbies and experts alike to understand relationships between all of your versions. The number of GDBT downloads should indicate to esri that it is an important tool for its customers. While you are correct that many (most?) of the tools are now in core, it appears that esri convened the wrong focus group when determining which functionality out of GDBT was most important to users. While I applaud Asrujit for providing a workaround, that is precisely what we should not need to be doing 2 major releases beyond 10.1 when users brought the issue to esri's attention. Esri, set aside your story map playtime for two seconds and make the state lineage tree part of core! Then we won't need to deal with a workaround. ... View more

Thanks, Asrujit! ... View more

Rebecca, given that my post was created back in 2012, the only actions are to Branch and Report Abuse. I'm fairly certain that I had marked the post "answered" (in 2012) but it doesn't appear that the transition to Geonet retained that status. I did go and mark posts as helpful. If you know of a way to mark the correct answer on an archived post, please let me know. ... View more

Amy, Here is my original forum post by which I learned what was necessary: Publishing a feature service using a versioned feature class ... View more

John, This is a situation where you may not necessarily be able to have your cake and eat it, too. It depends on how your are currently operating. If you publish all of your map services in the UTM coordinate system, the coordinates reported will be in UTM. But that basically precludes you from using any of ESRI's basemaps. So, if you like and use ESRI's basemaps this may not be an option. I have the other side of the issue--I publish everything in our State Plane coordinate system, including our own basemaps. My users want to see the "mouse-following" lat/long display but the coordinates are State Plane. As a compromise, my users use Robert Scheitlin's Enhanced Draw and Measure widget to get at coordinates. The coordinate text persists, so it makes it easier for them to transfer that value rather than attempting to keep the mouse still enough so the value doesn't shift on them. But now that the Flex Viewer is "dead", I am shifting over to HTML5 using the Geocortex Essentials product. It allows me to still use my AGS map services directly without resorting to AGOL or Portal and ESRI's overpriced named user model. I'm also exploring--a bit more than casually--the open source offerings on everything in the GIS stack because I see the day coming when ESRI forces us all into the named user model (with ArcGIS Pro) and prices us completely out of continuing to use ESRI products. And I'm fairly certain my organization isn't the only one that will be in this situation. Brian ... View more

Steven, By "multiple ArcGIS Server sites" do you mean viewers/apps? If so, the answer is yes. Those can go on any webserver and are not constrained to being on the same machine as your ArcGIS Server instance. If you mean multiple ArcGIS Server instances, I am fairly certain the answer is no. Your license is for a single instance. But this question is probably better answered by your account representative. I suppose that you could have two 2 core servers (for a total of 4 cores--your license), but your question specifically says "same machine" and from a performance standpoint I am not sure how much that would gain you. Admittedly, I may be misinterpreting what you are truly asking. Brian ... View more

Jon, I hope others take the time to offer additional ideas. Admittedly, shifting features around from one version to another is a hackish workaround. I'd like to think someone else has approached this from a slightly different angle that is more efficient! But maybe that's just wishful thinking... Brian ... View more

Jon, The situation where this arises for us is with addressing. I am sometimes asked to calculate house numbers and then there is some sort of delay necessary before making them official. We are usually not incredibly busy from an addressing standpoint so most of the time I can simply delay the post to default. There have been a few times that in the interim another address assignment or two has come up that needs to be posted right away. At that point, we discuss and make one of two decisions: - Post everything but delay the official announcement. Not ideal if I get a data request for our site address layer before everything is official! - Move the unofficial addresses to a separate layer and delete them from the primary layer so that posting can commence. The danger is that I might forget to add them back when they get officially announced. I've contemplated the idea of creating a separate version for every address assignment or group of addresses (i.e. all of the newly assigned addresses for a subdivision), but the number of times this issue occurs doesn't seem to warrant adding that extra layer of complexity. That might be different if there were more than one editor for this data. I may be reading too much into your initial post, but are you saying that for a particular unit of work (i.e. the PDF or CAD dataset) only a portion of the features might be desired to be posted? Or are you saying that you may only want to post the edit for one dataset even though you have a requirement to enter all of the datasets? I know some organizations use versions to capture working alternatives and some of those never become the end result but are still used in the analysis/review stages of their project. Multiple versions would work for the latter scenario but not for the former. And I suspect that you've already evaluated that workflow. A thought that just popped into my head is: Are you able to evaluate beforehand which features should be posted and which should not? If so, maybe splitting the work into different versions could work. We don't know enough specific info about what you are dealing with to really say if that is viable or not, but you can evaluate that idea for appropriateness. I don't know, either, if that may create feature conflicts where the conflict resolution process is invoked. Brian ... View more

Jon, I don't think you can pick and choose which changes get posted versus not. All of the changes are saved into the delta tables, and a reconcile/post process simply operates on all of the outstanding changes, pushing them to default. Occasionally I have a similar need, typically related to the timing of when the changes are made official, so I am interested in also finding out if there is a way to do this. But I suspect such a process would be a bit convoluted to pull off. Brian ... View more

Tim, Interesting comment regarding the "dummy layer".  It turns out that I have our city limit boundary added to the map, but turned off, so I never came across the issue.  I remember intentionally adding the layer so that ArcMap would have our projection "locked in" to the map document to prevent any re-projection-on-the-fly issues. "Rinse and Repeat" sums the process up beautifully!  Glad you found some/all of my advice helpful. Brian ... View more

Jared, With the definition query in place, there are 66 features, so well under the 1000 record default limit. But just in case ArcGIS was applying the def. query somehow after I think it logically should, I bumped the record limit to 20000--that, too, is well beyond even the total number of parcels in the dataset.  After re-publishing I still get the odd behavior of dropped features. Brian ... View more