-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Editing lines and redrawing polys, Make Polygons tool #62
Comments
Of course, it depends on your workflow, but mine has always been to
I haven't actually worked on a map in a long time, but when I was last doing a lot of editing, when new polygons were created (after editing linework) that didn't have attributes, I would just copy and paste attributes, rather than building a new label point to be used at the time of building polygons. Does that make sense or help somehow? |
That makes sense. My workflow sounds the same up until point 3. Whenever I edit contact or fault lines I always create a new label point if my newly edited lines intersect creating what will be a new polygon. It would be interesting to hear input from others on this. Is it possible to give the tool the option to take attributes from either existing polygons or label points rather than both? Would that mess up some other part of your workflow? |
Here in Idaho, we sometimes use the method Evan described; but more often than not we use domains.
We create a domain for MUP and then after polygons are made we attribute using dropdown list of domain.
From: Ben Melosh ***@***.***>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:19 PM
To: usgs/gems-tools-arcmap ***@***.***>
Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [usgs/gems-tools-arcmap] Editing lines and redrawing polys, Make Polygons tool (#62)
That makes sense. My workflow sounds the same up until point 3. Whenever I edit contact or fault lines I always create a new label point if my newly edited lines intersect creating what will be a new polygon. It would be interesting to hear input from others on this. Is it possible to give the tool the option to take attributes from either existing polygons or label points rather than both? Would that mess up some other part of your workflow?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/usgs/gems-tools-arcmap/issues/62*issuecomment-801449749__;Iw!!JYXjzlvb!3uUSMZxqUi_9OBZe2n5k-rvGRd3mwxjSf9zHIYi8Iruxax3bIF9-Me0R-LqH1dYm$>, or unsubscribe<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKYEVB4PAHWHTCVP2QU3P4TTEEMDTANCNFSM4ZJRS4IQ__;!!JYXjzlvb!3uUSMZxqUi_9OBZe2n5k-rvGRd3mwxjSf9zHIYi8Iruxax3bIF9-Me0R-FDD_hZ0$>.
|
It might more complicated than necessary but the tool is supposed to be able to work with both sources of attributes. Can you give more details about it seems to be failing? Are you checking the errors_ feature classes if they get created? |
Thanks @ethoms-usgs, Yes I am checking the the errors_multilabelPolys, which shows all the doubly labeled polygons. The code isn't failing, it just seems like it is prone to producing multilabel polygons, I was just trying to understand the best workflow for using it. Seems like if I stop relying on label points than it might be smoother. |
Ok, good to know. I will have to set up an mxd with some dummy data to check this out, but will try to make sure it works as you are expecting it to. |
Hi everyone, |
I'm having issues redrawing polys after editing ContactsAndFaults lines or relabeling MapUnitPoints. The issue I am having is that after editing and redrawing polygons I have many polygons that have multiple labels and I have to edit those manually.
As the tool says:
Attributes polygons using (1) attributes of any existing polyygons in MapUnitPolys and (2) if a label points feature class is specified, attributes of points in this feature class.
Is there a certain advantage to using attributes from existing polygons? Seems perhaps more efficient to do one option or the other, in my case only the second option.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: