Latest Contributions by RodNielson1

I save the CSV file as a new CSV file then created the point FC again and had the same result. In ArcMap, the point file still complained of having no definition.  I saved as a .xlsx file, recreated the points FC again and that opened in ArcMap without the issue.  I've been using the tabular data in CSV format for months, and this only started, and then only for one project, when I upgraded to Pro 3.2.  ... View more

Hi Robert, Made the change that you suggested and then recreated the FC from the CSV file I have, saved it to the FD in the geodatabase where all of the data is being saved. Then tried to import the new FC into ArcMap 10.8.2 and I got the "doesn't have a definition" again. One of the confusing things is that I'm doing the same process twice (we're currently tracking 2 feral pigs with GPS collars, Kelly and Angie), and I'm only getting the issue with Kelly's data. I create a FC for Angie the same way and when I import that into ArcMap, I have no issue.  Both FD's for Kelly and Angie are in the same geodatabase, and both were created 6 months ago using ArcMap 10.8.2.  ... View more

I had a similar issue. I saved my project as Arc 10.7 and Feature to KML worked fine. All of the other things mentioned here I did and go no result, but going back to 10.7.1 worked.  ... View more

Wow ... it's surprising that this issue goes back to September 2017, and that nothing has been done about it.  Of course, we have to remember that developers don't actually use the software to do their work on a day-to-day basis like GIS analysts do, hence they don't understand the issue it causes for users. For me, I regularly have to make apparent electromagnetic conductivity (ECa) soil maps with data at 6 depths. My map template in Pro has 7 map frames (including a location map) and 2 map layouts. All map frames in the layouts have the same extent and orientation (except the location map).  So I not only have to set the map extents mutiple times (currently I'm using bookmarks), but I have to do the map orientation multiple times as well. If I set the orientation in my map frame to 45 degrees (for example) to suit the shape of the field I'm working on, I shouldn't have to set the orientation of the map frame in my map layout as well. It creates twice as many steps and takes twice as long to what I was doing in ArcMap. At the very least being able to link data frame extents to data frames in layouts, should be an option, switched on by default. And this capability should be extended across multiple map layouts as well.  To not have this addressed after 4 years is worrying, to say the least.  ... View more

Hi Dan, Equal widths is no good. I have a field with a sugarcane crop. Sugar cane is grown in rows ~1.8 metres apart. I may need to split my polygon based on a number of rows of cane. E.g. 25 rows of a new variety (25 x 1.8). Cane row widths vary between 1.5 and 2.1 metres, and a cane field may need several splits. Cheers Rod Nielson GIS Officer Herbert Cane Productivity Services Ltd E. rnielson@hcpsl.com.au P. 07 4776 5660 M. 0403 215 594 F. 07 4776 1811 ... View more

Many of my projects have geodatabases already set up with pre-set feature datasets and directories. I would like to not have any of the automatically created stuff ... at all ... ever. It is just extra unwanted stuff that takes up space.  ... View more

I agree. This functionality should be a part of Collector rather than being a separate app. ... View more

A change in elevation producing a change in yield is not a ridiculous statement when you consider the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars spent every year on laser levelling and forming to enhance field drainage. If the numbers support the results you have to determine if elevation is a factor, or is something else may be causing this effect. Given that drainage is an issue and that a 50mm depression in a field may pool water for extended periods of time during the wet season, severely reducing yield and even killing a proportion of the crop. An almost imperceptible ridge through a field, even 150mm or 200mm above the height of the rest of the field often produces a higher yield. Every grower in the industry is aware of this. What the intent is to find if there is actually a correlation between these slight changes in in-field elevation and yield. Of course this will not be the end of the story, finding a positive or negative correlation is not an end in itself, but provides an indication of one variable to consider. One of the papers at the recent international conference for precision agriculture in St. Louis, advised producing a scatterplot between soil electromagnetic conductivity and yield, as a correlation has been found between these variables. In our part of the world, given our seasonal rainfall, drainage and therefore in-field elevation does make a difference in yield. Unfortunately none of the tools mentioned are giving me the option of using a raster as an input layer, and none of them are allowing me to add more than one FC at a time. I have an interpolated raster of crop yield, based on yield monitor and GPS data, and an elevation raster developed from LiDAR collected at 1 point per sqm. I would like to avoid going back to the original point data due to the high numbers of points to deal with. I am currently limited to ArcGIS Advanced with Spatial Analyst. A couple of tools I have looked at require 3D analyst, and if I have to purchase that down the track some time then so be it, but for now I have this limitation. Sorry for the long-winded explanation, but for decades there has been a suspected association between changes in in-field elevation, even small ones, and yield. Until recently we have not have the tools to measure/collect or to analyse the data that we now have available to us. As we do our analysis our results are reviewed by statisticians/biometricians to maintain rigour. Regards Rod Nielson GIS Officer Herbert Cane Productivity Services Ltd. Ph: 07 4776 5660 Mob: 0403 215 594 Email: rnielson@hcpsl.com.au Fax: 07 4776 1811 ... View more