I am working on standard naming conventions for Civil 3D objects. Surfaces, alignments, profiles, etc. This is so everyone in the company will name their C3D objects with names that make sense to everyone. So far I have the surfaces done, but am unsure of where to go with the other types of objects. If anyone has a standard naming conventions that works well, I'd like to hear it. Here is what I have for surfaces:
a) EG - Existing grades surface
EG is used to identify any surface created from any type of existing data.
b) FG - Finished grade surface
FG is used to identify any final grade surfaces
c) SG - Survey grade surface
SG is used to identify any surface created from survey data.
d) TG - Transitional grade surface
TG is used to identify any surface created to transition between other surfaces. These surfaces are only used to create topo for a feature and then the surface is added to an FG surface at a later point.
e) VOL – Volume surface
VOL is used to identify any surface created as a volume surface to calculate the volume between two other surfaces and/or to display the cut/fill between the two surfaces. To make it easy to tell which surfaces the volume surface is doing the calculations for be sure to include the surface names in the name of the volume surface. See below for an example.
Template looks good. Keep going
For a reconstruction job we will typically have at least two alignments for a street:
CL OLD STREET the actual control line, stationing etc.
XCROWN OLD STREET alignment along the existing crown. This will be profiled and superimposed so we get existing crown profile on control line stations
We may also superimpose profiles from the matchpoint, so I have used the names
for the back of sidewalk alignment. Typically I will give the same name to the profile too.
Credit where credit is due! Give kudos or accept as solution whenever you can.
To my thinking, simply using EG and FG for surface object may confuse your folks because EG and FG could equally mean existing and finished profile. I'd suggest something like
EG-SURF and FG-SURF
EG-PROF and FG-PROF
Just to reply we use a similar practice and no one confuses an FG surface with an FG profile lol... not even sure how one could.
I agree. And I follow the EG FG convention from all the Autodesk tutorials. I like short names & long descriptions
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register