Allow users to validate topology within a defined extent via python

739
2
04-05-2016 06:34 AM
Status: Under Consideration
Labels (1)
SarahMoussadji
Occasional Contributor

With the current 'Validate Topology' geoprocessing tool, there is an option to use the 'visible extent' parameter to validate only the current extent of your data. If I were to create a python script to validate topology, I would still need to execute the script from within ArcMap if I wanted to validate portions of the data at a time (using the visible extent). 

The reason I want to be able to validate portions of the topology of a time is because if I were to validate the entire dataset I would exceed the error threshold for topology. The reason I have so many errors is because I am creating a topology to load into a parcel fabric, and my staging data has a significant number of connection lines that must be marked as exceptions. 

My ideal is to build the topology and validate it all within a stand alone python script, but with the current Validate Topology tool, I have to run the process from within ArcMap. I think it would be very helpful if instead of a simple "visible extent" checkbox, I could manually specify the extent (either by typing in the coordinates, or by loading a polygon feature class to define the extent). This would make the tool much more robust when being run from a stand alone python script. 

2 Comments
SSWoodward
Status changed to: Under Consideration
 
ChristalHigdon_USFS

This is critical for the Forest Service to have the capability to input an extent through arcpy for processing. We are migrating our land records system national extent data into the ArcGIS Parcel Fabric, which crashes the topology engine when running the Validate Topology tool on the entire dataset. We used the Validate Parcel Fabric tool in 3.2 but that is deprecated in Pro 3.3, with the suggestion of using Validate Topology as a replacement. However, the replacement tool does not currently allow for processing by an input extent, so it is not a viable replacement for our large dataset.

It was listed above as Under Consideration in 2022 and here we are in 2024 and it is still not implemented. We will be in a bind soon, when 3.2 is replaced on our systems with 3.3, and we cannot validate the topology for our migration into Parcel Fabric.