Forum Discussion
Mapping locations with drill-down into sublocations
Hi danielc7150 - I can get a test to work the way I think you want it to by doing this:
Location
Coordinates [Site]
Coordinates [Block]
Latitude
Average of Coordinates [Latitude]
Longitude
Average of Coordinates [Longitude]
Size
Count of 'Processed Jobs' [Area/Block] <-- note this is from 'Processed Jobs' NOT 'Coordinates. Also, make sure this is set to Count and not Count (Distinct)
I only have one relationship, and that is from Processed Jobs (Area/Block) to Coordinates (Block)
If I set it up like this, the bubbles at the size level are sized based on the total number of 'jobs' for the entire site. When I drill in, the bubbles are sized by the total number of 'jobs' for each block.
Thanks for the reply Sean.
The size needs to be determined by the amount of total job entries in the table of total jobs (processed jobs) for that specific area.
For example, if Maple bank block 1 had 5 reported jobs, and Maple bank block 2 had 7 reported jobs. The overall area of maple bank (before drilling down) should show a bubble of size 12, and the two Maple Bank blocks should be a bubble relative to the count of jobs there.
At the minute, each block in maple bank is just taking on the total for the whole of maple bank, instead of having separate ones.
The drill down works with this set up (block taken from coordinates table), however each individual block takes on the same count as the site that it belongs to.The location drill down doesn't work with this set-up (block area from the processed jobs table), but each bubble shows the correct size.
So as you can see from both of the drill-downs, currently I can only have one or the other, from correct bubble sizes to correct map placement.
Community ChampionOkay create a Measure which you'll use for the Size - it should look something like this...
Size Measure = IF ( HASONEVALUE( Sites[Block] ), AVERAGE(Main[Max Days]), COUNTA(Sites[Site]) )
the True part of the IF should calculate the Size when at the Block Level and the False when at the Site Level
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any questions! :smileyhappy:
So, the site and block for location should both be from the table listing them with the coordinates, right?
Unfortunately I wasn't able to get it to work :( your visualisation looks perfect though!
The table below shows the main 'jobs processed' table and how they are entered.
What's weird is that by using bar charts, i am able to drill-down successfully and it will correctly show the amount of jobs by the overall site, then the block, etc.
However it just cannot map them correctly with location.
So, for the formula:
I have values for site and block in both the table containing all accomodations with coordinates (the '1' in the 1-to-many relationship), as well as the table with many entries (the 'many', pictured above).
Which versions of site and block do i include in each section of the formula? I've tried a few different combinations and cannot get it to work.
Thanks so much for your help so far, and sorry if I'm not understanding something quite simple!
Dan
- Sean
Can you post the formula of the Measure you are trying to use?
MalSResolver III
Hi danielc7150 - I can get a test to work the way I think you want it to by doing this:
Location
Coordinates [Site]
Coordinates [Block]
Latitude
Average of Coordinates [Latitude]
Longitude
Average of Coordinates [Longitude]
Size
Count of 'Processed Jobs' [Area/Block] <-- note this is from 'Processed Jobs' NOT 'Coordinates. Also, make sure this is set to Count and not Count (Distinct)
I only have one relationship, and that is from Processed Jobs (Area/Block) to Coordinates (Block)
If I set it up like this, the bubbles at the size level are sized based on the total number of 'jobs' for the entire site. When I drill in, the bubbles are sized by the total number of 'jobs' for each block.
Many thanks to everyone that contributed!
It seems as though I was missing a relationship between the two 'blocks' entries - one which I thought I had implemented, but apparently did not!
Thanks again!
Dan