Has anyone noticed that when a csv file contains multiple points with the same Point ID they are merged on import without being prompted to do so with the point merger dialogue box in TBC v5.0?
I just tested this by creating points with ID 1-9 3x and all had different coordinates and code. When I drag and drop the file the data imports and I then get this dialog pops up
From here check the Rename unmerged points check box and I typically add a prefix like AS and then it brings in all the points correctly as I would expect.
I am not sure what you are doing different to me - whether I use Import and browse for the file or drag and drop I get the same dialog comes up.
If you are not seeing this, can you send me a file and tell me which method you are using to import the data and I will take another look, but I am not seeing what you are seeing. Maybe you could record a short video as well if it continues to be a problem
Here is the file I am testing with
Try importing the csv as control quality and not unknown. I think this might be the difference. I do get the proper dialogue with the unknown classification.
Nathan Sellers PLS, PE
Caltrans District 2
In Both TBC v5 and BC-HCE v4.12 the behavior is identical. If you import as Unknown Quality you get the Merge Points Dialog Pop Up. If import as Control then the points get Merged and the Import Report has Warnings that Duplicate ID were encountered. Nothing has changed between versions as far as I can tell.
If Importing as Control we are assuming that the Duplicate IDs are caused by Duplicate Observations to the same Control Points and all of the Points that have the same ID are in fact the same point although they may have different coordinate values. As a result they get stored on the same point ID in the Project Explorer, and if the point tolerance fails they get flagged Red in the list and Flags on the points and in the Flags pane. This is entirely expected and planned behavior for Control Quality Information on Projects.
This seems like a poor assumption on the software’s part and should be left to the judgement of the user. In my opinion it would not make sense to have a control file with duplicate observations for the same control point as it is presumably an adjusted control file where duplicate observations would have been associated to one point for a least squares adjustment resulting in only one coordinate value per control monument. As far as being expected and planned, every other method of importation that I have experienced prompts the dialogue to merge except this one. Having one similar function that behaves inconsistently with the rest seems unexpected and has the appearance of being unplanned (like a bug). In my opinion it is more critical in this import process to be alerted that similar Point ID’s exist because it is more critical to be alerted to a potential issue with Control quality points than any other data source. The dialogue is the best way to both evaluate and fix the issue as it is quantified and can be quickly and easily be merged or not merged as appropriate. I would be surprised if I am in the minority on this one and would like to see this addressed.
I have forwarded your comments to Survey Product Management as they manage
this part of the software. I will let them communicate back with you. I am
just trying to assist people through providing information as to how the
product works and thinks. I also try to provide work arounds or solutions
to questions. I also check and validate every comment made to make sure I
understand the issue so I can direct internally if needed. I also check
Current vs Prior versions to see if behavior changed. I feed back what I
find out to try and assist users in the field. Apologies that my answers
are not always what people want to hear. Anything can be "fixed or changed
in software of course" but we always have to prioritize requests and for
sure we cannot do everything that everybody wants all of the time. We are
however trying to do a lot here.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:28 AM firstname.lastname@example.org <
Thank you Alan,
I can appreciate that. I am new to the TBC Beta program and am learning the interface and process. In the past I have sent in questions through equipment dealers or to Joe directly so I apologize if this is not per the norm. I appreciate the outline of the roles and processes and understand prioritization needs.
Retrieving data ...