Add a geodatabase feature that is a simple organization tool (e.g. folders) that doesn't add any functionality to the data or impose any restrictions like the feature dataset imposes.
Given the widespread misuse of 'feature datasets' could ESRI consider creating a new database structure equivalent to adding a subfolder in windows?
e.g. geodatabase (right click)> New > feature class OR feature folder (bucket, compartment whatever you want to call it...) OR feature dataset OR rest of the options.
Thanks for the Idea, @Anonymous User. It looks like this Idea may be a duplicate of one posted on the Data Management Exchange. I've linked it below. If you think it's similar, I'll merge them so your comments and kudos are added to it.
Great idea. Here's the deal. Almost everyone in the REAL world uses Datasets as folders. Many folks do not know the implications of this, and are not aware that was not their original intent. They were for topology, networks and other complex functionality. They lock all FCs in them. However, we still use them like folders. Almost everyone does. Because what is the alternative? There isn't one. Hundreds of layers in a flat list is unwieldy.
When I asked the Data Management team leads at a UC sometime early last decade, they said " just use a different database for a different group of layers". With dozens of 'groups' of layers, like by jurisdiction or utility category etc, that won't work, to have dozens of SDE db connections. So we soldier on, with Datasets and their Locks. Hope they can create a concept of SDE database 'folders' that merely serve to organize visually. No locking, no need to include networks and topologies. Simply visual appearance. This should be very easy to code. And I love your idea of sub-folders. Allow infininite sub-directories.
