Attribute Table formatting should be driven by map and not data source

[ThomasHoman]

My Idea: Move attribute table formatting to be within a map and not the data source.

Currently, if there are multiple maps in a single project that tie to a common data source in Pro, changing the attribute field mapping in one map results the attribute field mapping in other maps being changed as well.

I handle the addressing for the County I work in and am currently involved drilling into properties with subaddressing (trailer parks, apartments, ...) for 911 purposes. To work effectively on this specific task I created a new map and changed the attribute table field view to present a very narrow selection of fields for the address point. My main map in the project needs to retain the full field configuration for regular business inquiries.

Unfortunately Pro appears to tie the attribute table field mapping to the data source and not the map so either the main map or the work task map ends up misconfigured and inefficient for data management.

One of the early discussed benefits of Pro being the replacement for ArcMap was the availability of multiple maps in a single application. If the attribute table of a feature class cannot be configured differently across multiple maps in a single project I have no other option other than to run multiple instances of Pro like I did with ArcMap.

Regards,

Tom

[CraigWilliams]

Can you clarify what you're referring to as "attribute field mapping" in this context?

[KoryKramer]

@ThomasHoman I followed what you're describing. Can you please confirm I am doing what you are?

I have two maps. Both have a layer from the same data source (in my case, Populated Places). I can set up my attribute tables differently for each map:

Note that when you go into Fields View, you have the option to work with the Data Source or the layer. So I set up the visibility on the Populated Places layer in Map.

I can then set up different field visibility for the Populated Places layer in Map1

Is that what you are trying to do? 

[ThomasHoman]

Hi Kory,

That appears to be exactly what I am trying to do. I never paid any attention to that section of the fields view. Leave it to y'all to have already figured this out 😀

Tom

[KoryKramer]

Thanks for the confirmation @ThomasHoman I'll mark this one already offered.