Work Order Mapping and GIS Integration

A SQL workflow that connects Cityworks work orders to GIS assets, bringing maintenance activity and its spatial context into a shared reporting structure.

My contribution

I built the SQL workflow to combine work-order details, reconcile asset references, and associate records with authoritative geometry. I separated point and line reporting layers, then configured asset-specific symbols and structured popups so the map retained both the maintenance context and the asset relationships.

Result: A shared reporting structure for viewing work-order activity alongside the point and line assets involved, with diagnostic queries to examine record counts and geometry coverage.

Tools

  • SQL Server
  • T-SQL
  • Cityworks
  • ArcGIS Pro
  • SQL Server spatial types

Reconstructed demonstrations use entirely synthetic records and geography. The figures illustrate the workflow, not production performance or complete geometry coverage.

Connect the work to the assets

A work order may reference several assets, each with its own GIS geometry. I brought together the work-order attributes, comments, and selected custom fields, reconciled the asset identifiers, and matched the records to authoritative geometry. Coordinate-based fallback logic adds another route to locating a record.

I staged the results before replacing the reporting cache within a database transaction. Separate point and line layers in ArcGIS Pro use asset-specific symbols and structured popups to show the work alongside the assets involved.

A shared view with explicit checks

The result is a shared reporting structure for examining maintenance activity in its spatial context. Diagnostic queries distinguish work-order counts from asset records and examine geometry coverage, making those differences visible when reviewing the output.

Technical details

SQL integration · Point and line asset reporting

Maintenance records describe the work, while GIS layers describe the assets involved. Differences in identifiers and geometry make those records difficult to review together.

  • Work-order attributes, comments, and selected custom fields feed a shared reporting structure. Asset references are reconciled before matching records to authoritative GIS geometry; coordinate-based fallback logic provides another location path when an asset match is unavailable.
  • The workflow stages the combined results before replacing a reporting cache within a database transaction. This separates data preparation from the cache replacement step.
  • Separate ArcGIS Pro point and line layers represent the different asset geometries. Asset-specific symbols distinguish feature types, while structured popups present the related work-order details.
  • Diagnostic queries distinguish unique work-order counts from asset records and examine geometry coverage. Keeping these measures separate avoids treating a work order associated with several assets as several distinct work orders.
  • The portfolio images are reconstructed demonstrations using entirely synthetic records and geography. They illustrate the reporting design and workflow; they are not operational application screenshots or native ArcGIS interface captures.

Image viewer

100%