AnsweredAssumed Answered

Running Near 3D - Getting Inconsistent Distances

Question asked by zach.sturm@CrestonePR.com on May 30, 2018

Hi,

 

Running Near 3D with well path data and getting inconsistent results.  Wondering if someone could shed some light into potential causes.  See below for the data and steps I'm using for conversion.

 

My Issue summary is using 3D Line to Line in Near 3D tool is producing wrong results, while substituting a 3D Point feature class is accurate.

 

1. Import excel table that has X,Y,Z (TVD) for each point at a ~25ft interval along the paths specifying each field during import.  TVD's ranging from ~0-~10,000

2. Exporting the event layer as feature class - displaying properly.

3. Points to Line ---> output displaying properly and vertex properties showing z values of TVD correctly.

5. Run Near 3D --> Using input LINE Paths TO near LINE Offset Paths feature classes created with above steps (See results below - Didn't include feature name but all found different nearest offset paths than below analysis).

6. Run Near 3D using input LINE Paths TO Near POINT Offset Paths (created in step 2) Output (Didn't include feature name but all found different offset paths than above analysis):

 

Can anyone provide insight into this discrepancy?  Step 6, the 2nd analysis, looks correct upon visual inspection, however Line to Line seems like it should work.  I've tried this using two different spreadsheets and sets of wells, getting the same discrepancy.

Outcomes