0

I have a set of points that represent the meter locations for my electric company. These points contain a 3 digit code that represents the route number for the meter reader routes. I also have a shapefile with polygons that delineate the meter reading routes. My problem is that the route polygons haven't been updated since 2013, while the route numbers given by the meter points are updated nightly. I have been assigned to update the route number polygons and am having trouble creating new polygons. My main issue is that the polygon shapes are very irregular (eg. some routes are two polygons connected by a small strip of road). I have tried dissolving buffers together (couldn't get this to work/find a reasonable buffer distance), creating a fishnet grid and dissolving them into polygons based on the 3 digit code (too many features, ArcGIS won't complete the process), and my best attempt has been creating Thiessen polygons (creates good polygons but leaves enclaves of differing routes inside other routes). I have 2 questions: Is there a better tool other than creating Thiessen polygons? Is there a way to avoid having these small enclaves of routes within other routes (make all Theissen polygons continuous)? I can't provide actual data for security reasons, but the points are mainly grouped by route number, with the boundary areas becoming more mixed together. I have attached scrrenshots of: (1) the Thiessen polgons I created with a highlighted example of non-continuous polygons created and (2, in comments) meter points that are in the INCORRECT route based on the old 2013 route polygons (Note: Thiessan polygons were created using all meter points, not just incorrectly located ones)Thiessen polygons with enclaves

Edit: second image here: Incorrect meter points

3
  • If 2 lines intersect each other and intersection point is not at the end, polygons around them will have a common part. It is not possible to create single part polygons without overlap.
    – FelixIP
    Commented Feb 22 at 3:29
  • @FelixIP I get what you're saying, but is there no tool that will reduce the size of one polygon if it means keeping the polygons continuous? OR would I be able to have the polygons overlap, then determine which polygon will take over the larger area? Thanks for the help
    – user238803
    Commented Feb 22 at 15:58
  • I'd stick with multipart polygons, nothing wrong with it. Alternatively create overlapping polygons. - dissolve points to multipart points and compute their convex hulls
    – FelixIP
    Commented Feb 22 at 18:43

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.