I'm using ArcGIS 10.4.1


I have several layers. I combined all of them into one layer using union. I saved the result of union in geodatabase based on the suggestion by @GISGe.

You can download the data from this link.


I wanted to convert the geodatabase feature class to shapefile.

I did this using Feature Class to Feature Class. It went well without any errors however I found the columns of the attribute table of the shapefile created after using Feature Class to Feature Class messy as shown below.

BEFORE using Feature Class to Feature Class

enter image description here

AFTER using Feature Class to Feature Class enter image description here

Any suggestions how can I fix this problem?


In response to the comments

  • I have tried using right-click on the feature class in the geodatabase and export it to shapefile but it didn't work.

  • I have tried Copy Features but it gave me the same result.

  • I'm exporting the feature class to a different location not to the same geodatabase

  • 2
    That shapefile is corrupted. This is not the usual outcome of this command.
    – Vince
    Jan 6 '17 at 2:12
  • 2
    I'm not in the habit of downloading corrupt data from unknown sources.
    – Vince
    Jan 6 '17 at 2:28
  • 2
    Perhaps Copy Features instead?
    – J Kelly
    Jan 6 '17 at 2:56
  • 1
    @Vince the gdb fc has 1.3 million features. Could the OP be running into a memory/space limitation in the shapefile format?
    – mkennedy
    Jan 6 '17 at 18:50
  • 1
    @aelwan You might try splitting the feature class into 2, then converting to see if you're hitting a size limitation. And/or converting it to another geodatabase feature class first--see if that works correctly.
    – mkennedy
    Jan 6 '17 at 18:57

There is a bug discovered in ArcGIS 10.3, so it probably applies to newer versions since it hasn't been solved:

Bug BUG-000084520 - Field values in a shapefile attribute table are corrupted when viewed in ArcGIS 10.3.

It shouldn't occur in older versions, but I can't test this to confirm, and it's probably not a convenient option for you neither.

Working with geodatabase feature classes instead of shapefiles seems to me to be the most reasonable (and easy) alternative.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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