How to deal with extra columns while migrating from Utility Network to Geometric Network?

[Anonymous User]

I am migrating my data to UPDM 2019. The current data has Geometric Network (GN) and many other tables, in Utility Network(UN) there is single feature class to accommodate the data for all devices. I have done the schema mapping and now doing the field mapping. The challenge that I am facing is only very few fields are mapped from current feature classes in GN to device feature class in Utility Network.

Do I need to create extra fields in Device feature class to accommodate data in GN's feature classes?  If yes, there will be many fields in final Device feature class. What is the good practice in such scenarios??

[Anonymous User]

@UtilityNetwork ????

[GavinRunyon]

We are working through the same issue. We have added some additional fields to the feature classes which are part of our business practice, and common across most of our geometric network feature classes. We are trying to avoid adding fields which will only be used by a few subtypes. We are trying to utilize the multiple alias fields such as designtype and designinfo which can house different attributes of the same data type across the subtypes. However we can't seem to find a way to distinguish the data when viewing it in the attribute tables, only through the maps when popups have been configured.

I would love to hear any feedback about best practice or performance regarding this.