Latest Contributions by CliveReece

I hear you.  I've chased this before too.  Anecdotally, I've seen slight shifts when the XY domain extent changes.  It's as if the underlying XY grid shifts.  But ultimately, it just doesn't matter if the vertices and points are still within the tolerance.  ... View more

I would not lose sleep over this.  ArcGIS treats points/vertices within the XY tolerance as as the same location.  It is discussed in the "Tolerance" section on this page:  Defining feature class properties—ArcGIS Help | Documentation  ... View more

Peter, How many timeslices do you have on the route in question?  If you had only one timeslice representation of the route before inserting the bad geometry, I would recommend exporting that original route timeslice to a separate feature class.  Change the ending To Date to <null> and then use that feature class for reloading the route.   Also note that after reloading routes, the events will regenerate using existing event field measures.  No event behaviors get applied.  That also means you will probably need to inspect (and edit) events on the route that got timesliced when the bad geometry was introduced.  (for reference, here is the link to "Loading additional and updated routes") Keep us posted on your progress! -Clive ... View more

Hi Peter, Seems like Reload route is still a good option, although Retire Route (portion) backdated to when you first introduced the 'bad' centerline is an alternative.  Either way, I would recommend you testing each option out in a test ALRS geodatabase environment.   Realign Route using a correct centerline is yet another option (setting the date to when the 'bad' centerline was introduced.   Clive ... View more

Hi Peter, Perhaps we need to revisit what the purpose is for deleting one of the centerlines that compose the route? One thought is you could use the R&H activity Retire Route to retire the portion of the route that covers the centerline.  Another option would be to reload the route in question without the portion that covers the undesired centerline geometry.  Temporality would need to be considered when reloading.   However, it's hard to say which is the better approach without knowing more about what you are trying to achieve.   Thanks in advance, Clive ... View more

Yes Kyle.  Thanks for the positive feedback.  Our Esri Transportation Practice has developed a custom in-house tool for classifying self-intersecting routes.  We use it in helping our Roads and Highways customers sift through their data for route shapes that are not supported by Roads and Highways.  The results from the tool are a table summarizing the types of self-intersections found and a feature class of the input routes with a field added that contains the type of self-intersection.  We find the tool is extremely helpful in sorting out and prioritizing Data Reviewer results for self-intersections or polyline closes on self.   ... View more

Hi Ryan.  Data Reviewer will attempt to process additional checks if part of a batch job, even if it finds a record that fails the "Invalid Geometry Check".  That's my experience with routes that fail the check but do not contain fatal underlying geometry issues.  I tried it on my computer and it was able to find other data reviewer checks that I had set up.   Multiple data reviewer check issues can show up on routes.  It's a common issue we run into when performing ALRS data health checks on customer data.  We find it helps a lot to run a pivot by Route Id to find routes that contain multiple problems.   -Clive (Esri Transportation Practice) ... View more

Preston,  Records flagged by Data Reviewer as "Invalid Geometry" may *not* be critical issues.  I would categorize them as "Requires Review".  Case in point that is easy to test:  Create a lollipop shaped polyline as a single feature.  Run that feature through the Data Reviewer test, Check Invalid Geometry.  The record gets flagged as "Invalid Geometry: NotSimple".  The issue is that the feature intersects itself.  Nevertheless, lollipop features are supported by Roads and Highways for calibrating routes.  In this case, the "invalid geometry" result by Data Reviewer is a false positive, non-issue for Roads and Highways. (aside:  some lollipop shapes will be problematic if they are multipart features with parts out of order with the calibration direction) Again, I'm not saying all "invalid geometry" records are fine.  Many will be proven to be issues after looking into why Data Reviewer has flagged them.  And that is my advice, use "Invalid Geometry" as a call for further investigation.  You are going to cause yourself unnecessary anxiety about your data if you see a bunch of  "invalid geometry" records and assume they are all critical issues. ... View more

Hi Preston,  The answer is sometimes not simple.  (okay, I couldn't resist that pun) In all seriousness, I would recommend you start with this page that describes the different kinds of data conditions that get flagged as "not simple":  http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/data-reviewer/finding-invalid-geometry.htm.  You then have to dig in and examine the records one by one.  Sometimes the condition will be a critical issue (e.g. short segments).  Sometimes the condition will be benign (e.g. self-intersection of a loop or lollipop, which are supported shapes).   Best of luck with the data sleuthing.  -Clive (Esri Transportation Practice) ... View more