Closed johnclary closed 4 years ago
@johnclary - Looks like CTM-GIS has not completed changing the name for all features from Manchaca to Menchaca. I looked at some of the most commonly used location datasets - address points and street segments. Though a lot of the records show the name has been changed, some don't. I will reach out and see why that is the case, and also confirm my assumption that the modified date is for the name change.
Most common street location sources from GIS.
Name | Geo ID | Date of Change | Change in ID? | Check with CTM GIS |
---|---|---|---|---|
TRANSPORTATION.street_segment | SEGMENT_ID | Nov 10, 2019 (modified_date) | since most of the segments were created in 2005, but modified in 2019, looks like the segment ID remained the same. (4 out of 72 segments are still Manchaca, one is null) | Exceptions are in the 2 mile ETJ and not in Full Purpose Jurisdiction. Not sure what the time line for those will be. |
LOCATION.address_point | PLACE_ID | Nov 10, 2019 (modified_date) | since most of the segments were created much earlier, but modified in 2019, looks like the segment ID remained the same. (37 out of 502 points are still Manchaca) | Exceptions are in the 2 mile ETJ and not in Full Purpose Jurisdiction. Not sure what the time line for those will be. |
@johnclary I have listed some other geospatial datasets, I am not sure if any of these are being referenced in the apps. Please let me know if any of these need to be considered as well.
Check if any of these are being pulled into Knack for location -
@johnclary - I went over the Data Tracker app and tried to gauge which of the objects was the main location provider based on connections, and it looks like the street_segment object is the primary, with locations being a secondary source. I have tried to see how many existing records would be affected, but not sure if this is comprehensive. Let me know if there is something I am missing, because I am looking at the objects one by one. Not sure if there is a ~simpler~ better way.
Name of Application | Location Object | Location Object Connects To | Connects to Location Object | Connection Field | No. of Records Affected |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Data Tracker | locations | street_segments | PRIMARY_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | ||
street_segments | CROSS_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | ||||
cameras | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 17 | |||
construction_cost_estimate_reports | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 0 | |||
damage_reports | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 2 | |||
dms | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 0 | |||
hazard_flashers | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 1 | |||
pole_attachments | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 1 | |||
school_beacons | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 0 | |||
signals | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 22 | |||
signal_requests | location | 29 | |||
tmc_issues | location | 551 | |||
travel_sensors | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 3 | |||
work_orders_signals | ATD_LOCATION_ID | ||||
locations_traffic_counts | street_segments | PRIMARY_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | |||
locations_traffic_counts | street_segments | CROSS_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | |||
traffic_counts | ATD_LOCATION_ID | 2 | |||
street_segments | locations | PRIMARY_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | 52 | ||
CROSS_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | 4 | ||||
locations_traffic_counts | PRIMARY_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | ||||
PRIMARY_ST_SEGMENT_DISPLAY_NAME | |||||
traffic_counts | STREET_SEGMENT_IDS | ||||
vision_zero_enforcements | enforcement_primary_street_segment | ||||
enforcement_cross_street_segment | |||||
tmc_activities | 1611 | ||||
street_segments | STREET_NAME | 49 |
https://www.kut.org/post/city-council-votes-change-spelling-south-austin-street-manchaca-menchaca
Selected features are still Manchaca.
Signs and Markings
Name of Application | Location Object | Location Object Connects To | Connects to Location Object | Connection Field | No. of Records Affected |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Signs and Markings | street_segments | work_orders_markings | STREET_SEGMENT_IDS | 90 | |
street_names | work_order_markings | PRIMARY_STREET_NAME | 24 | ||
CROSS_ST_1_NAME | |||||
CROSS_ST_2_NAME | |||||
street_names | work_order_signs | PRIMARY_STREET_NAME | 36 | ||
CROSS_ST_1_NAME | |||||
CROSS_ST_2_NAME | |||||
work_order_signs_locations | SIGNS_LOCATION | 15 | |||
csr_issues | CSR_ADDRESS_csr | 23 |
Signs and Markings
Name of Application | Location Object | Location Object Connects To | Connects to Location Object | Connection Field | No. of Records Affected |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Street Banner Program | banner_locations | banner_reservations_lpbs | banner_locations | 24 | |
TO_REMOVE_lpb_banners_district_sub_districts | banner jobs | ||||
street_banners_inventory_transactions | work_order_ots_banner_job | ||||
street_banners_inventory_transactions | work_order_ots_banner_job | ||||
banner_over_the_street_locations | 2 | ||||
banner_locations | 2 | ||||
over_the_street_loc_direction | 2 |
thank you @SurbhiBakshi for this excellent research. i believe the easiest approach would be to export the affected records to csv, modify them, and import them back into each application. we only need to update the primary objects, and the connected objects should be updated accordingly:
Can you work on this? You'll definitely want to do this in test first.
@johnclary, yes, will work on this issue. Planning to wait to hear from CathyW from CTM GIS who will be able to give me an estimate on when the ETJ street names will change, since that may affect some of the records.
This name change potentially impacts Data Tracker, Signs and Markings, Banners — and the way this data is stored is different in each app.
Are we going to retroactively update all of our records? Ensure we have the new street name in all our apps. Verify that the street segment ID hasn't changed.
@SurbhiBakshi will provide geo expertise and take the lead on looking at this. We'll have a meeting if it turns out the impact is significant.