Correct. Bear in mind that any map view is broadly defined by attribute values†. All map view, regardless of tab/window context use the same attributes. Thus, as a user we might choose to store 2, even 20, variants of $Shape, but all maps of a given container will draw a note’s icon in the shape defined by its current $Shape value. So, whilst we can swap out values for $Shape we can’t tell a map (per tab) to use a different attribute for the value of its Shape definition.
This is why working back from an (imagined) visual outcome may offer rich ideas but ones which imply significant and complex re-design of what you see, i.e. the view. That doesn’t imply such ideas are bad, far from it. But, often those ideas might but not tractable in the current design.
My 2¢ is that the concept here is nice but it would need map view to be re-coded such that some c.50 attributes needed to make the view might need a per-tab abstraction rather than simply use per note values. …And, if they were, what existing behaviour would that break? It’s also easy to overlook that Tinderbox is now 21 years old and has plenty of docs happily still around that were made a long time ago; arbitrary changes for today’s new ideas need to be considered for unintended effect. Lest that appears to be a rejection of the new, I’m currently beta-testing (betas are not public) improvement brought about by user comments within the last week. Some things are easily do-able others far more complex: there’s no antipathy to improvement.
One practical test, that someone wanting this could do, might be to make a document with a developed map, then save a copy and make a different map. Then annotate what changes to the original (attributes, view settings etc.)‡. I’m not sure anyone’s actually done that before. not a 5 minute task by any means but if proposing this change something perhaps useful to try. Though the forum can’t do the first part (maps are highly subjective in layout/meaning), with two different maps of the same data, albeit in different files, experienced users here might be able to help figure how much change is involved.
I think two agent related factors are getting mixed here. What is/is not on a map is controlled by the query. The map is updated every agent cycle: that is a continuous process but can be throttled back pr turned off entirely so the map stopes being (agent) updated. See $AgentPriority](AgentPriority). That is what get on a map.
How agent map contents are arranged is a different and separate process controlled by the agent’s $CleanupAction. It too can be turned off (from the default auto grid layout).
Does that help clarify a bit?
†. Some more recent Tinderbox view types, e.g. Attribute Browser and Crosstabs, define more in the view settings than in note attributes. But, as at today, a Map view is closely tied to attributes of the items shown on it (plus a few from the parent (container) note)
‡. To makes maps dynamically switchable (i.e. same UI area showing a different map render), for N different renders you’d want N+1 attributes for a feature. So $Xpos, the X axis position on the action map, $XposA and $XposB to hold the same for Map version A vs. Map version B. Rinse and repeat for about 50 other attributes. IOW, 50 existing attributes with A and B version of each. For 20 different map versions you’d need 21 ‘versions’ of each affected attribute. At that scale you might make a List-type for each of the 50 with 20 different list items. But it’s all a job for the user at this point. something this process can’t sustain is link line (and link label) placement. Initial layout is auto by the app but many like to manually tweak that but those settings aren 't saved—at least not in a user-accessible manner.