0

When exporting feature class to shapefile, fields in attribute table are approx. half disappears (because of maximum number of characters in field and maybe because of Arabic fields language ).

How can we keep fields (or Number of characters) the same, when exporting as a shapefile?

2
  • 4
    The shapefile table is basically a dbf file and that format limits the size of field names. The only way to use long field names with it is having field aliases and that information is in the project, not the layer itself. If you want to keep the same field names you should export to the format your feature class is in (if you weren't using aliases) or another type such as a geodatabase feature class.
    – John
    Commented Apr 13 at 10:33
  • 1
    Shapefiles are based on the dBase-III+ format, last modified in the mid 1980s (before UTF). It's astounding that they work at all 34 years later. They are especially challenging when working with multi-byte UTF codepoints. You should use a different format, since there is no way around this limitation.
    – Vince
    Commented Apr 13 at 12:53

2 Answers 2

1

As noted in the comments, shapefiles are an old format that as part of their design have a 10 character limit in the field names. If you want to keep the full field name exactly the same in both feature classes and shapefiles then your original feature class field name also needs to be 10 characters or less.

Abbreviations can be a helpful tool in shortening names, for example Percent_Change could be shorted to something like PerChg. As John noted in the comments, in an individual project you can use aliases to expand the field name into the original longer version.

0

To compliment @ycartwhelen's answer when I am developing a dataset in a file geodatabase and I know the client will inevitably want the output in shapefile format I keep the field name length below 10 characters but provide a more descriptive name in the alias.

Whilst the field names can become a little bit cryptic it completely avoids the problem of the field names becoming truncated and impossible to understand unless you have prior knowledge of the source data the export came from.

How many times have I seen (sometime from government agencies) field names like Cat_type_1, Cat_type_2, Cat_type_3... when something like ctype_BL, ctype_WT, ctype_UR would be so much more helpful.

Basically poor data management.

If you are supplying just data quickly to a client, I would now be considering using the geopackage format as an interchange format. Unfortunately the current release (3.2) of arcgis pro does not support metadata. If it is a final deliverable then send it as a file geodatabase.

Shapefiles are a very old format, a file geodatabase is superior in every way.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.