Closed MikeMillerGIS closed 5 years ago
John, this is my interpretation of your first case. I took the liberty of adding a service point at the next point/tap/attachment of the secondary underbuild.
Your second case is confusing me. I'll have to carefully plot that out on Monday morning, my brain is full now.
Question: on the left side of the secondary underbuild, is it correct to add an attachment from the line end to the pole? I'm asking because in other cases, like the junction box, recloser bank, transformer banks, we had distinct line ends and attachments and only added a attachment relationship from attachments, never from the line end. The same issue applies to the bottom service point. I remember talking with Tom last year about this issue and I think we allowed structural attachments from line ends then, but I'm not sure what our current model pattern is. This boils down to: is the only junction feature that an attachment can be made from is the attachment features?
Change structure point to structure junction
Ok, I think this is what you mean above. I also added an attachment feature to the secondary line so it is properly attached to the top-left pole. One thing bugs me: when I try to visualize this in the field, I think they are in fact two separate physical secondary lines.
looks good!
There are three examples of the standard overhead service that would be important to show.
Single Service from Transformer
Two Services from Overhead Transformer using same Low Voltage line
Service tapped from overhead secondary