Latest Contributions by DarrenWiens2

I see. I think you can basically use your existing code, wrapping around the year one more time to pick up the dec->jan connection. Then, use the second "year" of rasters to get the max. jan1 = jan  feb2 = Con((feb) == 1, (jan1) + 1, 0)  mar3 = Con((mar) == 1, (feb2) + 1, 0)  apr4 = Con((apr) == 1, (mar3) + 1, 0)  may5 = Con((may) == 1, (apr4) + 1, 0)  jun6 = Con((jun) == 1, (may5) + 1, 0)  jul7 = Con((jul) == 1, (jun6) + 1, 0)  aug8 = Con((aug) == 1, (jul7) + 1, 0)  sep9 = Con((sep) == 1, (aug8) + 1, 0)  oct10 = Con((oct) == 1, (sep9) + 1, 0)  nov11 = Con((nov) == 1, (oct10) + 1, 0)  dec12 = Con((dec) == 1, (nov11) + 1, 0) # wrap back around jan1_2 = Con((jan) == 1, (dec12) + 1, 0) feb2_2 = Con((feb) == 1, (jan1_2) + 1, 0) mar3_2 = Con((mar) == 1, (feb2_2) + 1, 0) apr4_2 = Con((apr) == 1, (mar3_2) + 1, 0) may5_2 = Con((may) == 1, (apr4_2) + 1, 0) jun6_2 = Con((jun) == 1, (may5_2) + 1, 0) jul7_2 = Con((jul) == 1, (jun6_2) + 1, 0) aug8_2 = Con((aug) == 1, (jul7_2) + 1, 0) sep9_2 = Con((sep) == 1, (aug8_2) + 1, 0) oct10_2 = Con((oct) == 1, (sep9_2) + 1, 0) nov11_2 = Con((nov) == 1, (oct10_2) + 1, 0) dec12_2 = Con((dec) == 1, (nov11_2) + 1, 0) Final_Output = CellStatistics([(jan1_2), (feb2_2), (mar3_2), (apr4_2), (may5_2), (jun6_2), (jul7_2), (aug8_2), (sep9_2), (oct10_2), (nov11_2), (dec12_2)]  , "MAXIMUM", "NODATA")  ... View more

Here is some code that should get you most of the way there: >>> import math ... arcpy.CreateFeatureclass_management(r'in_memory','points',"POINT") ... arcpy.AddField_management(r'in_memory\points',"Angle","DOUBLE") ... sr = arcpy.Describe("line").spatialReference ... insCur = arcpy.da.InsertCursor(r'in_memory\points',["SHAPE@","Angle"]) ... with arcpy.da.SearchCursor("line","SHAPE@",spatial_reference=sr) as cursor: ...    for row in cursor: ...        for part in row[0]: ...            first = 1 ...            for pnt in part: ...                if first == 0: ...                    dx = pnt.X - prev.X ...                    dy = pnt.Y - prev.Y ...                    angle = math.degrees(math.atan(dy/dx))+90 ...                    insCur.insertRow([pnt,angle]) ...                prev = pnt ...                first = 0 ...and the resulting points, symbolized using Arithmetic rotation style. ... View more

If I understand correctly, rather than hard-coding month names into your variable names, I believe you should try naming based on something like "number of months before now (or given date)". So, if you ran the code now (October) the value for September would be held in the variable "months_ago_1", August in "months_ago_2", etc. When you run the code in November, October would move into "months_ago_1" etc. ... View more

You can (and possibly, must) remove all lines of 'del cursor'. Using the 'with' statement means the variable 'cursor' will be deleted on completion, so it may not be there to delete whatsoever. ... View more

deleteRow() deletes the current row, so no need to tell it which row. cursor.deleteRow() ... View more

Well, line 26 (row[1]) looks wrong. Gee, an error message would sure be useful... ... View more

Try: with arcpy.da.SearchCursor(table, ["RID", "to_MEAS"], "RID = '" + RID + "'") Otherwise, provide error message. ... View more

It's a bit of a personal preference how close to the bleeding edge you want or need to be. For me, I generally don't upgrade until there is some reason to do so, and not until there has been at least one service pack released to fix all the major bugs in version 0. Nothing worse than upgrading only to find you need to revert for some piece of broken crucial functionality. You've identified well-established tasks that would probably be safe at any version since 9.x (and some would say well before that), so those requirements don't need to play a pivotal role in your decision. Something you may want to consider is backwards compatability within or outside your organization. Higher versions can open previous versions' geodatabases, but not the other way around, without the former saving to the latter's version. It doesn't need to be a showstopper, just an extra annoyance if you have, say, 10.3 and are often sharing (or trying to replicate) data with a slow-moving organization like, say, government who are still at 10.0. I'll add, I'm comfortably at 10.2.2 and I will stay here until I have a reason to upgrade. ... View more

Not sure if this helps, but here's how I view the "problem" with using a 3D buffer, looking end-on at a stream. It's still better than a 2D buffer and the smoother the terrain the closer it will be to the true path distance, but still not exactly what's required. ... View more

arcpy.GetParameterAsText() grabs the value from the tool dialog. Since you're running this from the Python window, there is no tool dialog, thus no value to describe. Until you're ready to run this within a tool, you can debug with a hardcoded value: lyr = "THE_NAME_OF_YOUR_LAYER_IN_THE_TOC" ... View more

Most tools respect selections. If you run Copy Features while there is a selection, only the selected features will be copied (otherwise, all features will be copied). ... View more

Just echoing Dan Patterson​'s suggestion for using Path Distance, with a couple extra notes. - I believe you actually could use Cost Distance, if you really wanted, by calculating the cost from the stream layer over a slope raster (not DEM), scaled by cell size. High slope = high distance/cell = high cost. But, Path Distance already does this for you. - You can't use 3d Buffer. This will produce a cylinder around your stream, but not take into account the topography between the stream and your buffer distance. - You can't use contour geometry directly whatsoever, as the desired distance should almost never follow a contour line. Your stream is going downhill, and so should your buffers (generally). - Regarding using your pre-existing buffers, I think this would be possible, though complicated to implement, using 3d graphics software like Blender​ (you can import DEMs and shapefiles), but AFAIK not ArcGIS. Before you go down this rabbithole, Blender does choke up using even moderately large elevation datasets - I wouldn't recommend this route unless you're really interested in learning the software. ... View more