A question about Utility Network Connectivity Rules | J-E vs E-J-E rules

430
6
11-27-2023 01:42 AM
Occasional Contributor

Do I need E-J-E rules if J-E rules cover the connectivity?
for example - If I have 2 J-E rules
HV ->Tx
LV ->Tx

Then do I need a E-J-E rule that states HV -> Tx -> LV?

Tags (2)
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Occasional Contributor

Hi @gis_KIWI4 based on my expirience you don't need E-J-E so your rules are perfect. You need to set the E-J-E rule when the junction must necessarily be connected to two edges to exist.

Instead if you need HV -> Tx -> LV without  the possibility of even having elements on the network as HV ->Tx or LV ->Tx alone you have to set E-J-E rule only.

6 Replies
Occasional Contributor

Hi @gis_KIWI4 based on my expirience you don't need E-J-E so your rules are perfect. You need to set the E-J-E rule when the junction must necessarily be connected to two edges to exist.

Instead if you need HV -> Tx -> LV without  the possibility of even having elements on the network as HV ->Tx or LV ->Tx alone you have to set E-J-E rule only.

Occasional Contributor

@gpgisandsky - Thanks for confirming. I will run enable topology in the next day or two and test it out as well.
I am trying to keep things simple and configure all the connectivity in J-E rules alone.
I will circle back and accept the solution if it works.

Appreciate the help 🙂

Occasional Contributor

you are welcome

New Contributor III

Hi @gis_KIWI4 If I read this correctly you have HV line and LV lines and then TX junctions. so your original rules as stated and the answer from gpgisandsky are correct.

I do want to mention a caution. Anytime you make a rule that rule can be leveraged in a way that you may not have intended. example would be users using the TX junctions to connect HV and LV items that you do not want connected. we sometimes simplify the rules to make things easier on our seasoned employees and in the process harm ourselves with regard to our new hires who are not as familiar with the model and system. This will require you to have a way to ensure your model is maintained the way you want it to be. Reporting? Double check by senior employees? or some other method you may come up with.

try and ensure you are not sacrificing data and model integrity for momentary ease and simplicity.

Take care and Happy Mapping

Richard Koch

Occasional Contributor

Thanks Richard,
I completely agree with you. What you said makes perfect sense.
We are attempting a first iteration of the migration to UN and our network model is relatively simplified compared to ESRI foundational model. Now that the difference between the two rules is clear I will revisit the rules in the second iteration of the data load.

Currently with our GN, we have FME workbenches that check for some of these rules and I imagine going into UN we may have a hybrid approach of Connectivity rules and FME.

I appreciate the quick responses, the community never ceases to amaze me 🙂

New Contributor III

Glad to be of help and yes, the community is fantastic. Especially when you are head down in the middle of migration with a million things going on.