Common ArcGIS Utility Network Errors and How to Fix Them

Organizations are increasingly adopting Esri’s ArcGIS Utility Network (UN) as the modern platform for modelling utility assets within GIS. At its core, the Utility Network uses topology to model how assets connect and how resources flow through the system, enabling powerful tracing and analysis.

But with its powerful analytics comes a challenge: Network Errors. Utility Network errors may seem intimidating at first, but they are a natural part of the implementation process. In the long term, they can serve as signposts guiding organizations to cleaner data and more reliable systems.

Understanding Utility Network Errors

Errors occur when features violate connectivity rules or restrictions in the network. Errors are limited to network features that participate in topology (Device, Junction, Line, Assembly, and Structure feature classes). Features such as GPS Points and Easement Boundaries do not participate in topology; therefore, they do not create errors.

For example, a service valve and a service tap cannot be stacked on top of one another; nor can a water main connect directly to a service line without an appropriate point feature, such as a tap. When a rule or restriction is violated and topology is re-validated, the system flags the issue by creating an error, shown as a red-hatched box around the feature(s) in violation.

Once errors are resolved and the topology is validated, the error and its red-hatched box disappear. Because the Utility Network enforces stricter rules and restrictions than previous models, every migration project will uncover some issues, even when the data may seem clean. Addressing these errors during implementation is essential to unlocking the full capabilities of the Utility Network. If errors remain, subnetworks cannot be built, and traces may return invalid results until the data is corrected.

Common Utility Network Errors

Over the course of multiple implementations, a familiar set of errors appears time and again:

• Stacked Points: Multiple features occupying the same location (horizontal and vertical), such as a service tap and service valve created at the same location. 

• More Than One Network Rule Applicable: Ambiguous connectivity where the system cannot determine which feature to connect to and therefore which network rule to apply.

• No Network Rule: Features connected without a defined rule in the system.

• Duplicate Vertices: Extra vertex point(s) for a linear feature. 

• Self-Intersecting Lines: Lines looping back on themselves. 

  
  

If left unresolved, these errors can compound throughout the network, leading to ambiguous trace results and preventing subnetworks from being built correctly.

Tools for Identifying and Resolving Errors

Organizations do not have to face these challenges alone. Over the years, the GIS community has developed a suite of tools and best practices for identifying and resolving Utility Network errors. Each stage of an implementation benefits from a different set of tools, ranging from pre-planning assessment to ongoing system monitoring:

• Pre-Implementation Data Assessment: During planning and road mapping, existing data can be evaluated with tools such as ArcGIS Data Reviewer, FME, or the ArcGIS Interoperability Extension (Esri-licensed FME). These tools highlight common issues such as stacked points, duplicate vertices, invalid domain values, or features outside the service territory, helping to build a remediation roadmap during the project planning phase. 

• Esri’s Migration Toolset: Once implementation begins, out-of-the-box tools can be used to summarize errors and apply fixes. These tools can be run iteratively to identify and resolve errors.

  • Analyze Network Data scans the Utility Network to identify errors by type and location, creating a clear summary and generating an Error Resolutions table. This table can be auto-populated by the tool and refined by the user.

    
    

• Apply Error Resolutions references the ErrorAction in the Error Resolutions table and implements that action automatically.

  

  
  

  • Esri has published a helpful post that walks through using these tools in detail: Analyzing and Resolving Topology Errors

• Automation with FME or Python: For more complex or organization-specific issues, automated workflows can provide repeatable, transparent solutions. Logic can be built to handle error-specific scenarios, while detailed logs provide accountability and insight into what changed. FME and Python often complement one another to build scalable, repeatable solutions.

  
  

• Dashboards for Tracking Progress: As remediation progresses, dashboards become invaluable. Connected directly to live data, they provide transparency by showing error counts, types, and locations. They also track progress as issues are resolved. Beyond go-live, these dashboards can serve as ongoing monitoring tools to maintain network health.

Why a Hierarchy Matters in Error Resolution

Regardless of the tools used to resolve network errors, the order of operations makes a significant difference. Error remediation is most effective when approached in a logical sequence. Certain errors, like stacked points, cascade into multiple other error types. By resolving stacked points first, you can eliminate other related errors, such as Error ID 9: “Invalid connectivity—More than one junction-edge or edge-junction-edge connectivity rule is applicable.”

A hierarchy-based approach typically follows this sequence:

• Stacked Points: Update or remove features that occupy the same horizontal and vertical location.

• Geometry Errors: Address duplicate vertices, empty geometries, or self-intersecting lines.

• Edge Connectivity: Address features that should not be placed midspan on lines.

• Missing Junctions: Validate that junctions and lines connect correctly. Add missing junctions or update asset groups/asset types, as needed. 

• Missing Rules: Review and update connectivity rules. 

• Ambiguous Connectivity: Resolve invalid terminal assignments. 

This structured approach prevents rework, maximizes efficiency, and steadily improves data quality to support advanced Utility Network functionality.

Sustaining a Healthy Utility Network

Error monitoring and resolution do not stop once the Utility Network is deployed. A Utility Network is only as reliable as the practices that maintain it. Sustainable data quality comes from embedding validation, automation, and governance directly into day-to-day workflows. Some of the most effective strategies include:

• Validating Topology while editing in a named version, preventing errors from being posted to the Default version.

• Leveraging Attribute Rules to automatically calculate and constrain inputs, reducing human error during editing. Attribute Rules can also be used to validate data. 

• Using Group Templates to guide proper asset creation, such as automatically adding taps and meters when service lines are placed.

• Validating Integrated Systems thoroughly to avoid duplicate, stacked, or inaccurate features being introduced into GIS.

  
  

Together, these measures establish a sustainable framework for long-term data quality. By embedding validation, automation, and governance directly into editing workflows, the Utility Network can remain a reliable digital representation of real-world operations. 

Final Thoughts

Utility Network errors are not obstacles to implementation; they are opportunities to strengthen the system. Each resolved error means better data and more confident analyses. By combining Esri’s built-in tools with automation, dashboards, and governance practices, organizations can turn a challenging migration into a launchpad for long-term success.