[GIS] Converting map coordinates using AutoCad to Excel sheet

autocadcoordinatesexcel

I have some maps of pieces of lands and I want to convert the coordinates to excel sheet

I want to arrange the data like this in the excel sheet:

land number( the pink number in the pic) accompanied by its coordinates in each row

I will be really thankful if you can help me

enter image description here

link to the map file above:

update

I want to have 3 columns in the excel sheet

1) representing the land number text value

2) representing the the coordinates of that land separated by "_" like this
23.87718162405882_57.10554858573619_23.877357092058385_57.105595188322354_23.877292855536815_57.10588146117277 each two representing a point/corner

3) the block number where the land is

if the format of the coordinates can not be like above then there is no harm having 3 columns x and y or easting and northing plus point number. therefore each land will have rows of the same points number

Best Answer

You can use the query to report, or the export functions.
report query
I will wait on your reply to the comment question and fill in more detail.

Related Solutions

[GIS] Convert X Y Pixels to Easting Northing

GIS file formats contain georeferencing information. This ties image pixel coordinates to grid references in a projection system, in this case British National Grid.

There are lots of ways this information can be stored depending on image format. A basic tool to get you started is gdalinfo which will query the extents of the image in British National Grid.

You can also look for an accompanying world file. The wikipedia page contains details for converting from pixel to projected coordinates.

Based on you example of Edinburgh at pixel coordinates x=3270 and y=6264 gives the following:

A = 100
D = 0
B = 0
E = -100
C = 50
F = 1299950

Northing

    F+(E*y)
    1299950+(-100*6264)=673550

Easting

    C+(A*x)  
    50+(100*3270)=327050

[GIS] Converting Excel Sheet to Shapefile without XY Coordinates

I think you might use Add Join as mentioned above. Yet I belive that Join Field will be of a better use. It simple works as Add join, but adds flexibility to the process, enabling to add only some fields, or all of them. Otherwise, "regular join" will join all fields, which can make quite a mess with big datasets.

To elaborate on the "conversion" to Shapefile. This would be a crooked way of handling this situation. Shape files are first of all spatial; that is to "make up" some (x,y) coords just to add it would be inefficient and basically wrong. In addition, using merge would not aid your problem, since merge binds rows together, and you are looking to bind coloumns.

edit - due to comments:

Note that when using join in a model, whether it is join field or other join tools, that data is being joined to the original table, i.e. there is no new file being generated. For example:

If you start with Shapefile and join a table to it within a model you will see the output as shapefile(2), or (3) etc. That is, the same input file after you ran an operation on it. Therefore setting shapefile(2) as a model parameter would not help, since there is no new file as an output.

If you insist on a new file for an output, I suggest you use the Copy Features tool, to copy the file after you have joined a table/field. Than you can set its output as a model parameter.