GeMS/community

Discussion about the GeMS geologic map database schema

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

Welcome to the GeMS Gitter room. This is the place to discuss questions about using the GeMS schema for organizing data in a geologic map database.

If you are here to report a specific problem with a tool in either the ArcMap or the ArcGIS Pro GeMS Tools toolboxes, please go to the appropriate GitHub repository and open an issue there.

Amber Wittner

@awittner

This is pretty slick!

Caroline Rose

@cmrRose

During today's webinar, we discussed the issue of trying to find GeMS tools, documentation, and other resources that are shared by individual surveys (aside from the USGS tools)... We are sharing documentation and tools developed here at the Wisconsin survey through this repo: https://github.com/wgnhs/gems

If you know of other collections of documents or tools, please post them!

Jacque

@stub0035

Thank you Caroline!!

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

@cmrRose Thank you, Caroline! I should point out, to everyone, that if you have written a tool that you think would be useful in the GeMS Toolbox, I encourage you to fork the repo, add your tool, and submit a pull request.

Rachel Beard

@rbeard09

At the California Geological Survey we have recently begun finalizing methodology for converting previously published geologic maps to a GeMS complaint database format. In addition, we are refining the workflow for all new mapping to be GeMS compliant. I will try to share the the documentation and resources that we have produced soon. Look forward to feed back.

Jacque

@stub0035

Are most surveys using ArcMap or ArcPro these days? If you are using ArcPro for GeMS, how is it working? Minnesota is still using ArcMap as ArcPro would not work with our processes. The latest upgrade in ArcPro may make it possible for us to utilize ArcPro. Any impute would be great.

Rachel Beard

@rbeard09

@stub0035 I work almost exclusively in ArcPro with very few exceptions. @ethoms-usgs has done a great job trouble shooting and putting the tool box together for ArcPro. I am almost the only one here working exclusively in ArcPro and I am only bringing in and cleaning up legacy data. But ArcPro is working fine for that task, the challenge is the learning curve. There are few bugs that are problematic but it is possible to work around them.

Caroline Rose

@cmrRose

@rbeard09 I'm curious about how you deal with the .style file requirement when using ArcGIS Pro... unless you are interpreting the .style /representation requirement to include .stylx? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m3EpqVClDAa6Lyd14uZ_FX20gTbT730n3fDfQLBbhw4/edit#heading=h.elbgsjkxa5db

Rachel Beard

@rbeard09

@cmrRose that’s a great point. Thank you for sharing the link. I think we will need some guidance from USGS. If the whole product is created in ArcPro we would not be able to meet the .mxd requirement as well. It is impossible to hack our way back to an .mxd.

Rachel Beard

@rbeard09

Wow. I can think I can hear the cheering from the crowd. Another reason not to move to ArcPro.

Jacque

@stub0035

Caroline, Great notes on the .style ! GeMS is going to have to add ArcPro standards if USGS is going to move forward to the next century. I don't see this as a problem, just a hurdle.

Caroline Rose

@cmrRose

"another reason not to move to Pro" -- Actually, I think it's more a reason to update the GeMS schema to keep up with new technology. The CIM (Cartographic Information Model) in ArcGIS Pro is much better than ArcMap, and ArcGIS Pro's .stylx is an open spec. It's a SQLite database containing mostly JSON descriptions of the symbols... which makes open source people very happy.

Jacque

@stub0035

Agreed!

Carlos Gutierrez

@cgutierrez-01

@cmrRose I think Rachel's statement about not moving to ArcPro was more a comment on it's general bugginess and lack of equivalent functionality to ArcMap. There are definitely some good things about Pro but still to many other issues for us to fully switch over.

Amber Wittner

@awittner

@rbeard09 There are construct differences between ArcGIS Desktop (ArcMap, ArcCatalog etc) and ArcGIS Pro. But the reasons are founded in the retooling and updating of the software's core code base to better integrate with web/server GIS systems. I do agree that some cartographic elements for map making do have a strong learning curve in Pro, but having been a user of Pro since it first came out 4 or so years ago...it has vastly improved. Regarding the .mxd factor, yes National Program needs to provide guidance. BUT if the mxd requirement is for supporting integration with the Pubs Office/editing(speaking to USGS workflow here)...they too should be testing Pro. The equivalent to an ArcMap .mxd is a Pro Project .asprx . Based on the fact that one can have one or many layouts, one or many maps, one or many models, one or many scenes (3D) - in a single "project file" - I feel sharing maps/data will be much more straight forward. The data when stored in default project .gdb - curated when you "create" a project - will contain the data and all else without having to fix broken links/set relative path after sharing. Recall that when you author a 10.4 mxd....10.3 cannot open it - you have to "save as". All "major" releases of Pro can open any Pro Project built using the same major release. Right now, Any Pro project can be opened by ArcGIS Pro v2.X. However, ArcGIS Pro v1.X cannot open a Pro 2.X file. (major improvements at 2.X) Hardly anyone is running 1.X any longer. Food for thought anyway - not GeMS specific, but relates to working with GeMS.

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

@cmrRose @stub0035 @awittner Yes! I think the schema documentation should be re-written to be more open-ended regarding software versions. I would not want anyone to feel locked in to using any particular version. As a reviewer, if I was given an AGP project, I would not ask for an mxd or style file. While it is true, at the USGS, that new versions go into a vetting period before they are officially cleared for general use, most of us are going to be at or very near the latest version (echoing Amber's point).

That said, if you are interested in using a GeMS toolbox tool that has not been edited to work with version-specific files, that's a problem. Log an issue at the appropriate github repo or propose a merge with new code as a collaborator.

Regarding symbology, one thing I look for that is sometimes missing is the text description of a symbol and/or the FGDC symbol name. You want users of your data who have no access to your ESRI-built symbol containers (style files, layer files, map/project files, carto reps) to be able to discover how a feature is meant to be symbolized. In the case of the AreaFillRGB field (which should probably be re-named to something like AreaFillValue because you should be allowed to use whatever color palette value you are working in), that might be all the recording of the symbol you need because ArcGIS Pro and QGIS can symbolize polygons based on the values in this field.

And if you didn't know, at ArcGIS Pro 2.5 you can once again Match Layer Symbology To A Style

Lainey L

@LLeBlanc110

@ethoms-usgs does the GeMS Toolkit work only in 10.5 and older?

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

@LLeBlanc110 I have tested most, maybe not all ?, of the tools with 10.7.1 and I would expect them to work with 10.8. The python base is very stable and I think the .tbx files will always be backwards compatible. Are you getting an error with a newer version?

Amber Wittner

@awittner

@LLeBlanc110 Pyth0n 2.7 is used in 10.1 and up. GeMS t00ls f0r ArcMap are auth0red in Pyth0n 2.7. see: https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000013224

Lainey L

@LLeBlanc110

@ethoms-usgs I haven't gotten that far yet. I was stuck using 10.5.1 for a different USGS Toolkit (NHD), and didn't want to uninstall/reinstall newer version if GeMS toolkit was limited to 10.5 or older. But, if it works in newer versions then I'll proceed - and of course will let you know if I encounter any errors.

Caroline Rose

@cmrRose

Hi everyone, The Create New Database tool in the USGS toolbox has an option to create a "GenericPoints" feature class. Is anyone keeping GenericPoints as the name for a feature class? We have several point features that are not orientation points -- such as wells, test holes, and outcrops-- I'm not sure whether to keep GenericPoints or to go with GeologicPoints (to parallel GeologicLines)..?

1 reply

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

I just enabled threaded conversations for this room. If you are the first to reply to someone's message, click on the ellipsis that appears to the right of the author's name when your cursor hovers over the message and choose 'Start a thread'. If you are replying after a thread has been started, choose 'Reply in thread'.

2 replies

Lainey L

@LLeBlanc110

We have maps with abandoned gas wells and dry hole well points. Any recommendations on whether or where these would be included in GeMS?

2 replies

jeathey

@jeathey

Hi folks, In the Label fields in GeMS (such as in MapUnitPolys), has anyone thought about making the default font to be the FGDCGeoAge font, instead of Helvetica(Arial), so that you don't have to worry about nearly as many font tags for special characters? For example, <FNT name = "FGDCGeoAge">^</FNT> could just be written as ^.

4 replies

Paul Smith

@pls256

Hi All, I currently have 2 older NCGMP09 GDBs which cover a country and are in 2 adjacent UTM zones. I am looking to upgrade to the GeMS standard and merge into a single gdb to standardize the MapUnits etc.. This raises a few questions. 1a.) Should I merge data from the two different UTMs zone or create two GeMS gdbs one per UTM Zone. 1b.) What's the best way to then maintain standards between multiple GeMS Gdbs. 2.) Should the GeMS database be stored in a Geodetic CRS or a Projected CRS. or does this not matter. 3.) I used the NCGMP Toolbar for creating the original Geologic maps. Can this still be used with the latest GeMS Schema or is there an alternative or is it just a manual process with GeMs tools.

5 replies

Lainey L

@LLeBlanc110

I have a heading unit (Pottsville Formation) that is not located elsewhere in the gdb besides the DMU table, which gets flagged in the new database validation tool as an error and bumps it down to a Level 2 compliant gdb. Can I ignore this error, or how should it be corrected? Members of the Pottsville are mapped, but not the Formation as a stand-alone map poly.

5 replies

Andrew Zaffos

@aazaff

Hi all, I'd like to make a recommendation for GeMS 2.1.

We are currently required to convert each feature class into a shapefile for the "open" publication. However, there are many well-known problems with Shapefiles that make them very ill-suited to serve as long-term, cross-platform archive. I would like to recommend that we replace the "open" version to something better suited to long-term archival like OGC Geopackages. It is a simple mater to import or export a geopackage to arc or comparable open-source platforms, it is a single file format so there is less chance of data loss (how many times have you lost the projection information for a shapefile!?), is a true FOSS format, and is much easier to transfer across the web. Even ESRI recommends it.

We can still keep the "simplified" shapefile version as is to continue serving the part of the community that is interested in simpler and more familiar data types.

3 replies

mjohnsonIGWS

@mjohnsonIGWS

Hi I am getting a level 3 error when using the ArcGIS Pro validation tool but when I run the ArcGIS 10.x tool the database validates as a level 3. Not sure if this is a bug or something on my end. Thanks for any help anyone can provide. I would assume there is something in the script adding the proceeding "b" but I could be wrong.

6 replies

Andrew Zaffos

@aazaff

The validation tool doesn't work without a HierarchyKey field in the DMU. I cannot tell from the GeMS text if it is actually a required field?

The problem is I want to move headers out of the DMU because they are not units and end up forcing you to put NULL in a lot of NOT NULL fields

4 replies

hsnellen

@hsnellen

LindaTedrow

@LindaTedrow

I would like to modify the GeMS_CreateDatabase_Arc10.1.py to add a couple of fields to existing feature classes. Does anyone know where in the code to do this?

2 replies

Andrew Zaffos

@aazaff

Silly question, is GeMS 2.0 or something like 2.0xx?

6 replies

Amber Wittner

@awittner

@ethoms-usgs has there been discussion on versioning format(s)? I am most used to Semantic Versioning, but overall approach should be evaluated. see: https://medium.com/swlh/automatic-semantic-versioning-by-using-gitversion-9e22edecb116 The community could really use a set standard. It's going to become more and more important for everyone to easily understand which version(s) (if they use both arcmap and pro) they use and what version is most up to date. More so...when rGeMS grows into using the Git Space.

1 reply

Andrew Zaffos

@aazaff

@ethoms-usgs was anyone at CDEFG able to get you access to an SDE?

7 replies

Jacque

@stub0035

GeMS Training -- Hi Everyone, I was looking forward to seeing everyone at DMT last summer but COVID. This year is a new ball game and a new start for many. It will be a new start for our geologists here in Minnesota. They do not now what GeMS is and I have the wonderful opportunity to train them all. I have a few questions to other surveys as to what they have done to train their Geo's. Have you trained your entire survey at once or have you broken up any training for specific groups such as bedrock geo's vs surficial geo's? What seemed to work best in your training and what didn't work well? Does any survey have a good power point presentation that they would like to share for reference? Thank you for any recommendations and or references. Cheers!

6 replies

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

Hi everyone. Just a brief announcement that I have pushed changes to the ArcMap and ArcGIS Pro toolbox repos that include the new geologic names check tool for verifying unit names against Geolex. Make a copy of the old one before you download the new in case I botched the merge.

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

After some discussion with the GeMS team, I should recommend that you consider this a soft release and that items or content could change before the official public notice.

Lainey L

@LLeBlanc110

24 replies

Andrew Zaffos

@aazaff

1 reply

Hi, has anyone tried uploading to the NGMDB using the new form? None of us can make accounts it says

Caroline Rose

@cmrRose

As I prepare for next Monday's CDEFG webinar presentation, what are your questions about capturing Quaternary and/or surficial features in the GeMS schema?

LindaTedrow

@LindaTedrow

Hello all. I am looking for examples of GeMS databases to help with discussions with coworkers, does anyone have good examples? Especially would like to see some examples of datasources.

3 replies

mjohnsonIGWS

@mjohnsonIGWS

@ethoms-usgs - Hi Evan. I downloaded the latest version and I am getting an error with the validation tool I believe the issue has something to do with the metadata.txt file not being written. I have attached a screen shot of my error. I tried to see if something with pathing was causing the issue but didn't see anything.

2 replies

Jacque

@stub0035

Hello Everyone. Has anyone had issues running the DMU to .docx tool? I run it on my GeMS geodatabase and it creates a docx file that is corrupt and can't be opened. When I'm finally able to open the file it just has title 'Description of Map Units' and nothing else. Am I missing something or is that what it's supposed to do? Thanks for your help!

4 replies

Evan Thoms

@ethoms-usgs

Just a note that there are new versions of the toolboxes at the repos. v2.5 for ArcGIS Pro and v1.5 for ArcMap. The tools will now perform a check to see if you are using the most recent version. If not, a warning message appears in the geoprocessing results though the tool will still run. If you are offline or Github can't be reached for some reason, you will get a warning that the version could not be verified.

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity