Why Still Using Shapefiles?

[BarryNorthey]

I am updating my notes on the pros and cons of shapefiles vs file geodatabase. Esri has documented the limitations of shapefiles and has long recommended using the no longer proprietary (file) geodatabase format instead, yet I see that many posters are still using shapefiles in ArcGIS Pro. Other than interfacing with third party software that only accepts shapefiles, what other reasons are there for continuing to use them? Serious question, not a criticism.

[JustinJohnston]

Its not just interfacing with 3rd party software.  If I do a wetland delineation, I need to provide the data I collect in the field to civil engineers and surveyors.  Shapefiles are easier to send.

Cheers,

Justin Johnston

[jcarlson]

We just give out service URLs to those folks, most of them have software that can work with Feature Services nowadays, at least around me. Sending a link is easier than any file type, and I don't have to re-export and send files when updates are made.

[JustinJohnston]

I have had myriad occasion where it has been beneficial to have a snapshot of a moment in time from sending shapefiles vs a link to a feature service that is always current.  Sometimes you need to know what was sent rather than what exists or is current.  If using a feature service, you would need versioning to know what the state of things were back then.  Shapefiles keep it clean and you have an email with a record.

Cheers,

Justin

[jcarlson]

I get your point, but that "benefit" isn't inherent to the file format. I could email other spatial files and get the same thing. But really, if having point-in-time snapshots of your data is important to your organization, you really ought to be using some kind of database archiving.

[JustinJohnston]

It’s less about the moment in time I guess and more about having a clean record of what was sent. It’s also nice to be able to forward an email with the shapefiles attached when others request it.  Links to a feature service just aren’t the same for documentation. Note, that seldom is the map our product. We are usually designing stuff and the shapefiles are typically one component that gets integrated into a design. We are not trying to just depict data. So usually a lot of manipulation has to happen and usually different things for and from different people. Shapefiles just seem like an easier starting point that everyone knows how to use. I would never send a GDB to my surveyor or engineers. They’d just ask me what I sent them. Although Autodesk is getting easier and might be more simple to open them these days. Not sure how it works with Carlson software though.

Cheers,

Justin

[Luke_Pinner]

@BarryNorthey wrote:

... the no longer proprietary (file) geodatabase format ...

---

It's still proprietary.  Esri provide an API for 3rd party software for read-only access to FGDBs, but have not published the specification.  The GDAL OpenFileGDB driver is based on a reverse-engineered specification of the FileGDB format.

Once GeoPackage support becomes more polished (i.e. QGIS and ArcGIS support it, but there are some niggles using it I've found) then I think it could replace shapefiles.

And it's easier to send a single .gpkg file than multiple shp, shx, dbf, etc files. 

[BarryNorthey]

Thanks for the GDAL clarification.

[jcarlson]

Team GeoPackage!

[wayfaringrob]

When I get a .shp, I tend not to convert it unless I really need to. If I get a feature service "in," I try to keep it a feature service in my project but more often than not I'm needing to add fields or edit, and at that point I'm saving as a .gdb feature class usually.

Sharing those is harder, though (i.e. you can't drag and drop from file explorer into an email), and I usually do give out .shps due to their ease of portability (well, not the 5+ 'files' part...) and widespread compatibility...unless it's already online, which certainly is preferable, but not always practical. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense just to go hosting a bunch of stuff against our AGO storage quota just in the off chance someone asks for it, especially if the source data is public third-party data. Plus, you sacrifice performance when storing online. If it's our own data, then we're more likely to host online, though.