Allow personal markups to be exported as shapefiles in Field Maps

[SWATConsultingInc]

I've read that "A .markup file is a proprietary file format for Esri mobile apps and can only be opened by importing it into the ArcGIS Field Maps mobile app on a mobile device. It is not directly compatible with desktop software like ArcGIS Pro or ArcGIS Online's Map Viewer".

With the geospatial PDFs functionality being added to ArcGIS Field Maps, it would be helpful if a user could now export their personal markups drawn on that geospatial PDF as geo-enabled files (shapefiles, KMZs) to a GIS for inclusion in mapping. Similar functionality as Avenza.

[JeffShaner]

@SWATConsultingInc can you give us a bit more detail on your specific use case for this and if you've looked at using a feature layer and the collect experience to satisfy this need?

[LindsayRaabe_FPCWA]

Hi @JeffShaner . I reckon the use case would be similar to mine in this idea (similar but used KML as a more universal format instead of shapefile output). Export Field Maps Markup to KML - Esri Community

Opening PDFs in Field Maps that have been downloaded to device means you don't have feature layer functionality - only markup, meaning you have no way to capture and share data to other users who have also downloaded the map or are at a different location. 

[AlfredBaldenweck]

You can use PDFs as a basemap, although that has issues offline?

But yeah, there is a need to be able to just have quick feature support in cases like you describe, such as when you're just opening up the PDF as its own thing.

I have a related Idea about just giving us a generic point, line, polygon so that we don't need to go through the process of setting up a dedicated set of features manually for each map. Markups are pretty useless in general, and I think we would all prefer using real features, but there isn't an easy way for that to happen in general, and especially not when using PDFs.

In any case, I think that being able to do graphics to features in Field Maps would be a good capability even if getting a set of generic features was possible.

[JeffShaner]

@LindsayRaabe_FPCWA you can use a PDF as a basemap in your web map and that web map can include a feature layer that supports editing. We are planning to improve the map capture experience for data capture in Field Maps, including free-hand sketch, so wondering if this would be the desired experience or if there is more here that we need to understand.

[LindsayRaabe_FPCWA]

My specifc use cases is for when our staff arrive at a fire managed by another agency, we can download their geoPDF map of the event and open in Field Maps (avoiding the need for Avenza) but we can't capture and share data to send back to their Incident Mapping team because we're not a part of their org (and they don't use Esri or Field Maps). Internally, we build traditional webmaps and I can't see us using PDFs as the basemap unless it was for a small project of some sort. 

[JeffShaner]

@AlfredBaldenweck want to dig in on your markup comments and the related idea. 

Can you explain why you think markups are generally useless for you? Is it because you want the markup as a feature? If yes, what are you wanting to do with the generic sketch that is captured?

[JeffShaner]

@LindsayRaabe_FPCWA this makes sense, thank you. It's unfortunate that agencies within Australia have not centered on one platform, like is present here in the US. The additional management of separate files on an incident is error prone, likely requires a GIS analyst to important, merge, and QA/QC content, and makes real-time response challenging.

It would be useful to know what type of data your would capture in markup that would be shared? Also, if you're not aware, this article shows how to publish a .markup file.

[LindsayRaabe_FPCWA]

@JeffShaner Yeah - I and many others wish there was a common operating system across the board too. Even just in our state, we have 2 main controlling agencies, but with a large volunteer base in one of them combined with career personnel in both, plus other smaller agencies (like ours) and contractors involved, it seems to be in the too hard basket. 

It could be anything really from an estimated fire boundary, hazard information, water or location information, etc etc. Really anything that may need to be communicated either to other users or back to a command point. Currently if we had to do this, it would be sending the screenshot with markup or manually relaying coordinates over radio/sms/phone. 

Another use case for us is viewing maps that have been distributed to contractors that work for us (who also are not Field Map users - typically Avenza users). We distribute these maps as geoPDF's and generally we use Field Maps internally, but I can see cases where we may want to view the PDF they were sent to discuss something with a common picture to work from. 

[AlfredBaldenweck]

For posterity here's a similar Idea to this one: ArcGIS Field Maps Shapefile Export - Esri Community

And we have other complaints about Markup floating around, like this one: Ability to add "Sketch Layer" to Field Maps - Esri Community

On topic, however:

@JeffShaner Pretty much, yeah. It's the same thing as trying to get my users to stop using Graphics in Pro. It's not real data, and it's "designed for personal use", which means that it really isn't meant to be useful to anyone but me? That's great if I'm trying to mark where I parked or something, but not if I need to communicate that information to anyone else.

I suppose I could share it directly as a .markup file and then airdrop it or something to another person and they could use it? Only it comes in into the exact same layer as any markup they already had, so now the two are commingled and there isn't any easy way to tell whose is whose (Note: I think this is the case based on my results when I tested it? The documentation seems sparse on this.). Also, only useful in the context of the app and not when I'm trying to send it back to home base.

Or maybe I could export it as a .markup file and convert to in Pro? Only I followed the video linked in that post and there isn't an option to Share to ArcGIS Online, at least on iOS. Could be user error on my end. I then tried just directly uploading a markup file to AGOL and it says it isn't supported, so really, is this even possible these days? That might be answered by that help article you posted

After the September 2025 release of ArcGIS Field Maps, the handling of markups on the map has changed. The primary difference is the new and improved personal markup experience, which consolidates all individual markups into a single comprehensive layer. However, the layer does not display in ArcGIS Online. Displaying the layer in ArcGIS Online enables users to share, manage, analyze, and reuse personal markups across devices and applications as part of broader GIS workflows.

This article outlines the workflows to publish a personal markup from a map as a hosted feature layer, incorporating point, line, and polygon features from the ArcGIS Field Maps mobile app into ArcGIS Online using Python.

That is, quite frankly, entirely too involved. I really have to script something that should be came-with-the-box functionality? Why isn't there native support for a file format that Esri wrote? Again, it appears to only be useful in the context of the Field Maps app. 

Regardless, we should be able to export it to a useful format (e.g. KML) directly from the app so, for example, I could directly email it to someone who is not a GIS person from my mobile device. Again, also not great in a time-sensitive situation, and quite frankly I'd be pretty annoyed if I received a weird file format instead of like, a shapefile and then had to figure out how to convert it to something usable so I could add some fields and stuff. Everyone knows what a shapefile is, no one knows what a .markup is. (And I'm not having any luck converting it, so...)

Real use cases of markups seem to be related to a need for a quick and dirty, "I really just need something on this map right now so I can deal with it later" thing.

For example, I went out on an archaeology survey with a dedicated data dictionary and found a trespass that had to be reported. The program I was using was using had a generic feature option and that was great.

In comparison, however, using Field Maps a few years later, we went out with a carefully designed schema and then we kept finding things that didn't fit but we were miles out and weren't going to be able to come back to do it properly, so we ended up stuffing it into the most similar layer and then I had a real headache properly teasing it out later. 

There's also the issue of geometry, namely that it took several tries while typing this to determine that points and polygons are possible at all, and then some trial and error to get a consistent point. Also having to manually close the polygon is kind of a pain. With real data, I know exactly what I'm putting down because the app is already designed to usher me into that workflow. I pick from a list of options and I don't have to experiment to get my desired outcome. Polygons close themselves because they already know that they're supposed to be polygons, instead of it being a surprise as you place their last vertex. Editing the markup's geometry after placing it doesn't seem to be possible, so it appears I have to just delete and redraw it? That's not good. As much as I complain about graphics in Pro, at least I can edit them after they've been created. It looks like the best I can do now is change its color and its name/notes.

Additionally, there's the problem of like. How do I know what that red line is when I get back to looking at this project in a few months? There isn't a comments box . Maybe I always use red for dangerous things I find? There's pink and green in this markup layer, too, so perhaps I was trying denote different types of things? But my coworker uses red for game trails, so that's confusing. Tables aren't confusing because they're real data instead of scribbles. Whoops, I found out there's a notes function in there. So, there's that at least.

There's also a rename function, which was cool to find out, but I don't understand why it isn't just a field the way the notes function is. Kind of confusing; if I'm going to be editing what would a field in real data in one place (notes), why am I going to a different menu to enter what would be a second field (name)? Also, I initially assumed that it was to rename the entire color because the name is "Pink" until you change it, so I could make the decision that all pink stuff is related to wildlife, which would kind of help the "how do I know what this is" problem. That being said, even though the default name is "Pink", when you click on your markup "feature", its default name is "Line" or "Point" or "Area". 

Assuming I could actually figure out how to make it work, I suppose I can convert to KML in Pro, then convert the KML to a feature class, and then I can finally look at the table to start cleaning the data up. To this Idea's point, wouldn't it just be easier to export to a shapefile or something? It'd skip 3 steps.

I'm willing to be wrong on all this, too. I'm sure at least part of that wall of text can be explained away as user error on my part.

So, something I'd be interested in hearing is success stories of how people are actually using this functionality. I've just never been able to justify telling my users about it in any detail because you just can't do anything with it. Maybe mark a rendezvous point or something ? You can export an image of the map with your markup, which would be kind of cool if it also included a legend (see this brand-new Idea to export a full layout), but as it is it's basically a screenshot without the various menus. A geospatial pdf (please check out that Idea), however, would kind of solve the problem of "seriously I don't know where this is, time to georeference" that @LindsayRaabe_FPCWA is having.

So, that's my experience today in trying to use these things. I hope I haven't derailed the conversation too much.

Overall, it seems like markups are in this weird halfway state where they aren't simple graphics but they aren't real features, either, and it makes them kind of awkward. I'd personally prefer just having a set of generic features for consistency and ease of sharing, but if markups are going to be a thing, I think they should be easier to work with, most notably when it comes to sharing whatever information they contain.

To be fair, I haven't spent a ton of time experimenting, so maybe I'm missing something really cool, but by and large I really just don't get it. 

[JeffShaner]

@AlfredBaldenweck appreciate your feedback and opinions. Thank you for responding.

In case you were unaware, you can disable use of personal markup in web maps from the app settings in Field Maps Designer. Given your needs and concerns, it might be best.