nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Locate > Layer Search — Sort by the Value/Layer/Field results

Bud

Edited; clarified the issue.

Requesting ArcMap equivalency in the Locate pane > Layer Search in ArcGIS Pro.

Use case: Searching for a specific value in a specific field across multiple feature classes.

Idea: Sort by the Value/Layer/Field results

ArcMap equivalency screenshot:

I haven't included an ArcGIS Pro screenshot, because to be honest, I can't get the Locate pane to work at all in my old version of Pro - 2.9.5. From memory, I believe the above idea applies to the latest version of Pro - 3.4.2.

Find more posts tagged with

Geocoding

Status: Open

Comments

Bud

I edited the idea to clarify what I'm looking for.

GemB

This would be very very helpful!!! I used this function in ArcMap all the time for my basic workflows, and it is maddening that there isn't equivalent functionality in Pro. Having to search for a term in a specific field across c.100 feature class by individual feature class is not an efficient way of working!

Bud

JamesRains

I agree!! Sorting results seem like a basic function that would've been moved from Map to Pro. I just don't understand the reasoning for not doing so. Also, in Map you could open the dropdown and start typing to quickly find the layer you were looking for. It is utterly ridiculous and a waste of time to scroll through looking for a layer! We are a utility company so I have Water layers and Sewer layers. There is a System Valve layer in both, so when scrolling through layers in the locate tool you can easily pick the wrong one if you're not careful because there is no way to tell if it's part of the Water group or the Sewer group. In Map I could at least click on the Water group and search for a value within the entire group. This needs to be fixed!!

Bud

@JamesRains You could submit a separate idea for the search thing. It’d be more likely to get implemented that way.