I wonder if you've over-cooked your 'Point Tolerance' parameter? If you set it too large, i.e 100 for 72 points that are clustered within say a 50 meter radius of each other, you'll have 72 overlaps. Try setting the tollerance to say a value of 0 for exact overlaps or 1 for overlaps within 1 meter*.
* Assumes of course your data is in a native Meter based coordinate reference system (CRS). Otherwise, replace with Feet or Degrees!
I wonder if you've over-cooked your 'Point Tolerance' parameter? If you set it too large, i.e 100 for 72 points that are clustered within say a 50 meter radius of each other, you'll have 72 overlaps. Try setting the tollerance to say a value of 0 for exact overlaps or 1 for overlaps within 1 meter*.
* Assumes of course your data is in a native Meter based coordinate reference system (CRS). Otherwise, replace with Feet or Degrees!
Hi @1spatialdave,
The point tolerance is set to .1 meters. I will try setting it to 0 and see what happens.
Thanks!
I wonder if you've over-cooked your 'Point Tolerance' parameter? If you set it too large, i.e 100 for 72 points that are clustered within say a 50 meter radius of each other, you'll have 72 overlaps. Try setting the tollerance to say a value of 0 for exact overlaps or 1 for overlaps within 1 meter*.
* Assumes of course your data is in a native Meter based coordinate reference system (CRS). Otherwise, replace with Feet or Degrees!
I adjusted the tolerance to 0 and I received values that I was more expecting. It's weird that with a tolerance set to .1, I was receiving much different results. Thanks for the help!