Error when calculating X/Y Coordinate for point feature class

Question

I am receiving an error when I try to calculate X/Y coordinates, and I cannot understand why the process is not working. I am working with a point feature class in an SDE database. The point feature class has about 3,255 records. Within the point feature class I have two fields to represent the X coordinate and the Y coordinate. Both of these fields are a double field type with precision 9 and scale 5. Both fields are set to allow NULL values, and no domains are assigned.

When I go to calculate geometry I choose the coordinate, use the current data projection, and select US feet. Everything up to this point seems fine, however, as soon as I initiate the calculation, ArcMap kicks back the following error:

enter image description here

In this case, the feature with Object ID of 3256 is the first record in the feature class. If I select yes then I get this error message:

enter image description here

Any ideas as to why this is happening? Am I using the wrong field type or do I have the wrong precision/scale for the double fielt type?

• Phil G: What Projection/Reference system is your data in?
• Jacob DA: @PhilG NAD_1983_StatePlane_Indiana_East_FIPS_1301_Feet
• Phil G: I'd try reducing the scale of the fields to 0 or increasing the precision. As it's a feet based reference system it could well be that the precision and scale combined produces values that can't fit into those parameters. Would have to test this theory myself though and haven't got access to Arc for a few days.

Answer 1

The precision is much too small for the coordinates that you want to store. The scale determines how many places to the right of the decimal--do you really need 5? The precision is the scale value, plus the maximum number of digits to the left of the decimal place.

Indiana East using US survey feet needs at least 7 digits to the left as the northing (Y) values reach over 2 million. If you want to keep the scale equal to 5, the precision needs to be 12.

Here's a link to a very old, but still valid, document that discusses it.