I'm having regular discussions with clients and team members about the best way to manage map drawings (figures) for theirs and our projects?
Historically, with ArcMap, you have 1 MXD for every drawing. There isn't the functionality for additional layouts in the same document.
But with Pro, we have the option to store many layouts and layout componenets within the same Pro document. But how are people doing this to best effect. I feel that each approach has positives and negatives.
Take the example of a 2 year old project, which has 200 unique map drawings:
Option 1 (ArcMap approach): You have a unique APRX for all 200 drawings.
Option 2: Unique drawings have individual APRX projects, but any new revisions/versions/issues of the original drawing are stored in the same APRX as duplicated & renamed layouts/maps.
Option 3: You group your drawings by topic/department, and have an APRX to cover each of these.
Option 4: You store all your drawings in one APRX for your whole project.
My personal preference is for Option 2, for the following reasons:
1. It's admistratively easier to duplicate an APRX (copy and paste) and then modify the content to produce a new figure, than it is to duplicate a layout inside an APRX, and then duplicate the maps, relink the maps to the map frames, and also any other layout components like tables. It's also easier to start with a blank APRX and import a layout template, or work with a blank project template.
2. If an APRX corrupts itself over time, you only have to migrate/lose the content for a few drawings, not your entire project.
3. If you need to share drawings with external consultants or other team members, it's easier to just share a single drawing.
4. APRX performance can drop off a cliff if you have lots of information stored in the catalog, including folder connections.
5. You have additional administraitve burden if you have inset maps that need relinking, and you risk modify the content of other drawings if you inadvertantly update shared content rather than a duplicated content.
I've clearly exposed my bias at the end, but I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think is the best practise. All ideas welcome!
I also don't believe that ESRI have any best practise guidance on this topic, which is a shame. But I would love to be corrected on that.
