Skip to main content


Hi All,

i have a problem with
linear referencing in FME! I use a filegeodatabase (see attached zip file) that
contains a event tabel with a subset of traffic jams, a route key (route) and
measures (hm) are included in the table. In the database there is also a roadnetwork
featureclass that contain measures. The common route field in the roadnetwork
is "ROUTE_CH". In the fme workbench a tried to do a linear ferencing
with those event tabel and route feature class but the result is not what i
expect. The tabel contain 250 features but the output in the FME workbench has
only 94 features as output (the "ArcGis" method results in an output
of 250 features), output feature class from the workbench is
"Trafficjams2016_FME"..

Of course i can use ArcGis
for linear referencing but i prefer FME because i wil made a complete automatic
proces that wil daily update and publish the trafficjams on Dutch highways.

So what is going wrong in
my workbench? I expect in the FME output feature class all the items from the
table!

(the attached zip file
contains the fgdb en de FME workbench)

Thanks for your help!

Peter

Don't know the complete reason yet but I took a peek at FME 2017 seems to end up creating a pile of warnings in the log coming out of the Snipper. So understanding those is the first thing.

The second thing is that the Snipper is creating 185 points and 65 lines. And so those points will not be able to be written into the same table in file geodatabase as lines.

I suspect this is not expected, and so understanding the Snippers complaints as noted in the log will be key.


Hoi @poppendamme, alles goed?

You are feeding the snipper aggregates that make him choke......so by adding a deaggregator you get the 250 results you desire.

The original lines are partially composed of aggregates (multi-lines), succes!

nwbfiles.png


Hoi @poppendamme, alles goed?

You are feeding the snipper aggregates that make him choke......so by adding a deaggregator you get the 250 results you desire.

The original lines are partially composed of aggregates (multi-lines), succes!

nwbfiles.png

 

As @daleatsafe noted, lots of warnings resulting in my case too, beware!

Hi @itay,

Thank you so
far! The dedeaggrgator split the lines in parts with the same route key, that
results in a lot of warnings (because every Traffic Jam feature can be joined
to more than one line part). I think I resolve this problem with the use of a
set of transformers. At first I extract the measure from the network shape (use
MeasureExtractor/Listexploder), then I aggregate the line parts by Route key
and line part number and calculate the minimum and maximum measure for each
line part, for this I used the Statisticscalculator. This result can be joined
to the deaggregated lines. Then an InlineQurier is used to join de TrafficJams
and the lines (joined on route key and the TrafficJam hm position is equal or
between the minimum and maximum measures of the lines). This results in a attributable
with all the traffic jams but also the
attribute line_part_number is including in the output. A featuremerger join the
TrafficJams and route lines (joined on route key and line_part_number so that I’m
sure that the trafficjams are joined to the right route line). The Snipper
makes the point features based on the Hm position of the traffic jam table
(start and ending point = Hm).

Almost all
the traffic jams will be referenced correct to the network (some features don’t
have correct or have missing Hm values, they will be ignored) and I have less
warnings! I think there is an easier way to do this job but for now it works!

Peter

workbench-lrs.png


I've attached a variation on your first workspace which might be a little more straightforward than your revised version. It's more or less the same as your first version. but I've reversed the inputs on the FeatureMerger so that you join the events to the LRS routes. As you mentioned, since there are multiple segments for each route you get duplicate joins. But we can thin these out by testing the event measure against the start/end measure of each segment. I hope this helps.

test-lrs-v01-2016.fmwt


Reply