[survey123] Mapping related table based on coordinates in parent object

[iesisk]

Hello, I am very new to ArcGIS.

We have an install of ArcGIS pro, and a subscription to Survey123. We have collected data using repeats in this approximate structure of the parent and child tables/repeats:

Site (coordinates recorded)

---repeat:object1 (coordinates recorded)

---repeat:object2 (no geodata recorded)

I thought this would be easy to map, and I have been able to map the "sites" and the "object1s." But my efforts to map object2 (they need to use the coordinates from the parent site) have not worked at all.

I have been able to "join" the site data to the object2 entries, but it eliminates the geodata in this process. All I get are the non-geolocation questions.

There are multiple object2's per site, so I cannot merge it in the other direction, nor do I want to.

I'm sure I am making some mistakes, but why does a join destroy location data/shapes? How can I map these objects?

[DavidSolari]

Creating a spatial layer by joining features to a parent table has been a long-running deficiency in ArcGIS. The classic method to work around this is to create Query Layer or database view but this only works for EGDBs and a few other products and I assume your Survey123 data is all hosted which rules this out. The other workaround is to write a Python script that loads both tables, joins them and then outputs features to a third shadow table that you use for analysis. This prohibits real-time analysis and requires tool maintenance but it works! If there's been platform advancements to handle this use case then I haven't heard of any but that doesn't mean they aren't out there, worst case scenario you file or bump an Idea post and hope for the best.

[iesisk]

Thank you for this information!

I found a very flawed workaround, where I use "Add XY coordinates", then convert a copy of the "Site" layer to a table, then work on that table. Then I can join the tables and ultimately map them with "XY to map."

The reason I say this is flawed, is because object2 has photos associated, which do not survive this process. So in essence, my efforts to map this data required destroying the value of survey 123 integration.

I think I will have to add the photos as rasters during the table stage, fun.