When stting up a WFS connection, make it possible not to set a limit for the features returned

[CordulaGöke]

At the moment, ArcGIS Pro sets an automatic limit for the returned features of 3000. If you do not know it, there is a high risk that your map/analysis will not be based on the full dataset. With the current technological progress, I suggest not to set a limit by default and to include the option to set a limit into the setup dialog.In general, all that can be found in the Layer Properties of a WFS layer should be possible to be set up in the setup. Alternatively it should be possible after connection in the catalogue view. At the moment you have to add the layer to a map first to access the Layer WFS properties.

[nadja]

I agree, it's far too easy to not include the full dataset. I don't see the advantage of 3000 features returned. this should be an easy and quick fix for a future update with a huge impact on a datasource, which would have huge potential. 

We dont care too much about how the map would look with that many points, for us it is far more important that an analysis is carried out with the entire dataset. It might be that the service will be slow, but there's certainly other ways to boost the performance. Even if not - ana anlysis without the entire dataset is simply pointless. 

[RussellBrennan]

This idea has been implemented in ArcGIS Pro 3.5. The Add WFS Layer(s) dialog box appears when you add a WFS layer to the map. Use this dialog box to optionally limit features to an area of interest, set the maximum number of features returned, or set the page size to be used. The default value being used to limit the number of features added to the map will be displayed and available to edit before adding the layer to the map.

The link above will have additional details when 3.5 goes live.

[CordulaGöke]

@RussellBrennangreat, the popup-dialogue is a great idea. I just tried with setting the limit to a very high value and that works fine, but not writing a value does not work. There it sets the limit to 3000 again without even writing anywhere  that a limit is set. So I can totally see that it is an attempt to implement, but I would not consider it implemented.