AcrPro Random Color Symbology

2105
21
Jump to solution
08-31-2018 06:27 AM
pctuserpittsfield
New Contributor III

I am trying to replicate the automated random color symbology in ArcMap for tax neighborhoods but ArcPro tends to group unique values together (or use only about 6 different colors) defeating the point of unique value symbolization... is there a work around?  See screen shots for exact example

ArcMap:

ArcMap unique Random Symbology

ArcPro

ArcPRO unique Random Symbology

21 Replies
pctuserpittsfield
New Contributor III

Unfortunately that did not provide different outcome, but I am satisfied with the Layer file export from ArcMap for now.

DanPatterson_Retired
MVP Esteemed Contributor

Why don't you add a second field to the symbology classification. You could probably use an existing field, just make sure it isn't one that has the same pattern as your main field... that might mess with the apparent sequential pattern

0 Kudos
SeanSummers_CC
New Contributor III

I am still having this issue as well.  The "Random" symbology is not very random.  Most of the time I get groups of varying shades of the same colors.  I feel like the random symbology in Desktop gave a much better color spread.  I have been using the work around of importing symbology from a layer created in Desktop, but what happens when Desktop goes away?  I would really like to just pick "Random" and get a random symbology instead of tinkering around with all of the settings.  I'm hoping it is something ESRI is looking into.

ThomasIsraelsen
New Contributor III

I am having this problem as well. None of the workarounds introduced here work for me and I cannot in good conscience recommend Pro over ArcMap to customers with this (pretty basic) need.

Sure, exporting a lyr file from ArcMap gives a better color scheme in Pro, but only until we get new values in the feature class to classify by, which is a common and frequent workflow for us.

It seem like Pro really goes out of its way to make sure that features that are geographically close together get the same or almost the same colors. I even tried generating random values for the field that I am classifying by to see if that helps. Does not help. 

It is really stupid.

I have contacted support and they referred me to this thread. Wonderful...

Robert_LeClair
Esri Frequent Contributor

Thomas - from what I'm reading of "What's New in 2.3 ArcGIS Pro", there will be 24 new random color schemes from ArcMap added to ArcGIS Colors to improve upon the random symbology issues.  I believe AGP 2.3 is listed for a Q1 2019 release time frame.

0 Kudos
ThomasIsraelsen
New Contributor III

Robert - Where can I find the What's new article for Pro 2.3? I actually have beta 2, but cannot find what's new.

I do see a lot of new color schemes, but they do not seem very useful. Most are tones of the same basic color and so not very useful for showing a lot of different colors.

I tried displaying the same data I have been having trouble with in beta 2 with the regular "Basic Random". No improvements...

Thomas

0 Kudos
Robert_LeClair
Esri Frequent Contributor

The current "What's New at 2.3 ArcGIS Pro" is currently INTERNAL only and will be made public upon the release of AGP 2.3.  I have not worked with AGP 2.3 BETA and will download the new app upon release.

0 Kudos
pctuserpittsfield
New Contributor III

I am hopeful.  I am still having this issue also.  Happens roughly two times a year when classifying unique values (neighborhood tax rolls) with random color scheme... there is no variation, always comes up with mono chromatic scales.

0 Kudos
Robert_LeClair
Esri Frequent Contributor

Have you upgraded to ArcGIS Pro 2.3 yet?  The new update has more color schemes to choose from. I read somewhere that AGP 2.3 now displays data similar to ArcMap in with default symbologies and default colors.  Haven't checked the Random Color Scheme yet.

0 Kudos
SeanSummers_CC
New Contributor III

I have upgraded to 2.3 and after using for a few days, I am much happier with the random color patterns.  It appears to be working as expected now.  Thank you ESRI for looking into this and fixing it.