Arc Collector - Part 2

Introduction 

For this assignment, students used Arc Collector to gather data on a topic of their choosing. The research question that was posed was "What is the level of difficulty of each hole at Mt. Simon Disc Golf Course based on how the holes are set up relative to the landscape?" Mt. Simon is a park located in Eau Claire, WI and features a 9-hole disc golf course. To answer this question, or any research question for that matter, it's important to develop a proper project design that is going to allow the researcher to gather the necessary and correct data for adequately answering the question at hand.

The objectives for this activity include:

• Develop a database in ArcMap to be used with Arc Collector
• Use Arc Collector to gather data
• Use data collected by Arc Collector and make a map that provides an answer to the research question

The instructor provided students with the following link of a tutorial for showing students how to set up and deploy a database in ArcMap for Arc Collector: http://doc.arcgis.com/en/collector/

Methods

The study area for this activity took place at the disc golf course at Mt. Simon (figure 1). To answer the research question, each hole was assessed based on the following criteria:

• Distance (in feet, disc golf courses in the U.S. are measured in feet)
• Elevation change
• Number of obstructions between the tee and the basket

Figure 1: Google map image of Eau Claire with pin over Mt. Simon park

The criteria for this activity included that a point feature class be created with at least three fields for attribute data where:

• One field is a text field for notes
• One field is a floating point or an integer field
• One field has a category of some type for the user to choose from

The first step was to set up a geodatabase where domains, feature classes, and subsequent project work could be saved in. A geodatabase was created titled 'MtSimon.gdb' from which the 'Distance' and 'ElevationChange' domains were then created (figures 2 and 3). The domain type for both domains were 'Coded Values' where the 'Code' and subsequent 'Description' for the 'Distance' domain included:

• 0-200 (0-200 feet)
• 201-300 (210-300 feet)
• >300 (over 300 feet)

and for the 'ElevationChange' it was:

• Flat (no elevation change)
• Slight elevation change
• Moderate elevation change

Figure 2: Distance domain with coded values

Figure 3: ElevationChange domain with coded values

After the geodatabase domains were set up, a point feature class was created titled 'Holes' and would serve to mark the tees and baskets on each hole (2 points per hole for a total of 18 points). In the 'Feature Class Properties' under the 'Fields' tab, the fields were then set up where the 'Field Name' and subsequent 'Data Type' were as follows (see figure 4):

• Hole_number; Short Integer
• Distance; Text (this field utilized the 'Distance' domain)
• Number_obstruct; Long Integer (number of obstructions)
• Elevation_change; Text (this field utilized the 'ElevationChange' domain)
• Notes; Text

Figure 4: Fields for the 'Holes' feature class

After the domains were set up and the feature class was created with the necessary fields, the next step was to upload the map to Arc Collector which would then allow the user to enter data into this map via mobile device. The data was collected in the early afternoon on a weekday where disc golf course activity would be minimized. Each tee and basket and subsequent fields were plotted and recorded where the notes, if any were taken, were only entered after the first point on each hole since entering that section twice was unnecessary. Data collection went smoothly without any issues and the attribute table that went along with the feature class turned out as good as expected (figure 5).

Figure 5: Attribute table of the 'Holes' feature class

Results/Discussion

In order to determine the difficulty of each hole, each hole was "scored" based on the criteria discussed at the beginning of the methods section. Keep in mind, the difficulty ratings given to the holes in this exercise are only relative to each other on this course as opposed to being compared to holes of different courses. The scoring system was broken down as follows:

1. Distance

• (0-200 feet) = 1
• (201-300 feet) = 2
• (>300 feet) = 3

      2. Obstructions

• (0-15) = 1
• (16-20) = 2
• (21-30) = 3

      3. Elevation Changes

• Flat = 1
• Slight elevation change = 2
• Moderate elevation change = 3

Holes with the most points would be deemed the most difficult holes while holes with the least points would be deemed the easiest holes. The holes received the following scores:

1. 6
2. 6
3. 3
4. 4
5. 7
6. 5
7. 5
8. 3
9. 5

Since there were five different integer values for the final scores (3, 4, 5, 6, 7), the holes were given a value ranging from 1 through 5 where 1 was the easiest and 5 was the most difficult. These difficulty values were then added to the map and placed directly between the tee and the basket for the hole that is represents (figure 6).

Figure 6: Final map of Mt. Simon Disc Golf Course hole difficulty rating

Conclusion

Proper project design is essential for adequately answering a proposed research question. For this activity, setting up the geodatabase with its domains and the feature class with the necessary fields allowed Arc Collector to be used properly to collect the data and provided an adequate answer to what the difficulty levels of each hole at Mt. Simon Disc Golf Course are. This sort of project could be used on other disc golf courses, but could be much more elaborate. The criteria for this activity was kept very simple and the layout of the DGC at Mt. Simon is a very simple one as well that allowed the results to match up well with the given criteria. The criteria would have to be more elaborately developed and perhaps more tools would need to be utilized for more technically designed courses.