(lack of) Consistency in layers

[Anonymous]

Our guys make layers like they're going out of style. Often, these layers
have goofy names that offer no real clue to what lies on the layer, every
one of them has a different color, and the plot styles are a mess.

We have templates that contain the "starting" layers, but when involved in a
1 to 2-year long project, obviously other layers will be needed. At this
point, we don't have a clear Naming Convention for those new layers but we
are working on one. In Civil, we don't use the three-tiered system that
Archies use (111-222-333) although maybe that's not a bad idea.

I was considering creating a drawing that contains every conceivable
possiblity of layer names and instructing people to use Design Center to
access the layers. Then they would ONLY use those layers. (right? right?
lol) There's always a few oddball layers that are needed but I'm thinking
this might cut down on the number of layers created on the fly.

But I wanted to see what other's people's experiences have been. How do you
cut down on all these crazy layers? If I see one more layer called "Bob's
Layer" or "Jim's Layer", I'm gonna cry. 🙂

[cprettyman]

Curious, I never got that error - when you diagnose it, please let us know hwat caused it, for future reference.

[Anonymous]

"David Claflin" wrote in message
news:2FC03DDDF00080EA387C4166FAD85E5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> FYI,
> The National CAD Standard and the AIA CAD LAYERING Guideline are one and
the
> same. It does cover all fields of construction, even Civil Engineering.

My problem is that the civil layers seem tailored for site work, and kind of
leaves road projects that don't interface with architectural plans out in
the cold. I think this may change in future releases, since I am now seeing
clients adopt the standard regardless. As far as the system itself goes, I
think it's pretty nice - consistent and extensible. I could make up my own
layernames (that fit the guidlines) for any layers that I feel are missing,
but it wouldn't *really* be a 'universal' AEC CAD standard until non-archie
workflows are incorporated into the scheme. That means civil roadway, not
just civil site. I think I'd advocate it, though, if only for the sake of
getting everybody on the same page, so that layer management routines can be
developed more fully by autodesk and third-party developers. Either that,
or forget the whole idea of layers - they can be a pretty thin analogy for
reality anyway.

--
Adam

[Anonymous]

Then you pick them, and tell them that if they want them changed to decide
on what and let you know. They'll probably speed it up a little if they
don't like your names.

I have discovered that the longer the names, the more likely they are to
drag them in from ADC than try to retype them. That really helps with the
consistency.

[Anonymous]

That's a great idea, Karen.

And to the moderator, sorry about the word in the previous post...Since most
10-year old kids use that word in front of their mother, I didn't think it
was over the line in here but I can see how it may not go with the
"professional" tone.


"Karen McCoy" wrote...
> Then you pick them, and tell them that if they want them changed to decide
> on what and let you know. They'll probably speed it up a little if they
> don't like your names.
>
> I have discovered that the longer the names, the more likely they are to
> drag them in from ADC than try to retype them. That really helps with the
> consistency.

[Anonymous]

In the other software, there is the ability to assign a level library that
is read only
that is attached to the dwg/dgn.
I wonder is AutoCAD has this ability?? Its nice that no one can create
layers
and must use pre-assigned layers, colors, styles, for everything, this is a
built in
cadd standard tool.

"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:70F6D08F1D707C8FFDFB4F5696BCDDD4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Our guys make layers like they're going out of style. Often, these layers
> have goofy names that offer no real clue to what lies on the layer, every
> one of them has a different color, and the plot styles are a mess.
>
> We have templates that contain the "starting" layers, but when involved in
a
> 1 to 2-year long project, obviously other layers will be needed. At this
> point, we don't have a clear Naming Convention for those new layers but we
> are working on one. In Civil, we don't use the three-tiered system that
> Archies use (111-222-333) although maybe that's not a bad idea.
>
> I was considering creating a drawing that contains every conceivable
> possiblity of layer names and instructing people to use Design Center to
> access the layers. Then they would ONLY use those layers. (right? right?
> lol) There's always a few oddball layers that are needed but I'm thinking
> this might cut down on the number of layers created on the fly.
>
> But I wanted to see what other's people's experiences have been. How do
you
> cut down on all these crazy layers? If I see one more layer called "Bob's
> Layer" or "Jim's Layer", I'm gonna cry. 🙂
>
>

[Anonymous]

we're still on a2k - and we have lisp routines to translate, create and set
layers in model or in viewports.
we find these to be easier and faster by far than any other method. But
design center or dws are both very good methods too.

Block names? The worst are those created by paste as block. I rant at
anyone who doesn't explode and purge or rename such monstosities. I have
seen .dwg drop from 9 MB to 650 K by getting rid of these.


Jamie Duncan

Consulting - If you're not part of the solution, there's good money in
prolonging the problem.
"Karen McCoy" wrote in message
news:189D7ED88999C0E7BD2F2872A6D00A79@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Then you pick them, and tell them that if they want them changed to decide
> on what and let you know. They'll probably speed it up a little if they
> don't like your names.
>
> I have discovered that the longer the names, the more likely they are to
> drag them in from ADC than try to retype them. That really helps with the
> consistency.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Kirsten.. I wish the same for you, good luck with your pooch.

--


Jamie Duncan

Consulting - If you're not part of the solution, there's good money in
prolonging the problem.
"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:E678636DB39D539919EB661A6DAD4967@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> That would be fantastic, Tom. Welcome back, btw. Hope the trip went
well.
> Could you email it to kirsten.olson@co dot anoka dot mn dot us?
>
> Buds,
> Kirsten
>
> "ScaramouchLIVES!" wrote...
> > Hey Flippy... I have a civil/survey layering convention that works
> > fabulously. If you'd like, I will email it to you...
> >
> > You're buddy...
> >
> > Tom B
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Aw the old layer standards question.

Layer standards reminds me a lots of Little Legend. There can be any
combination of players (layers) to make a winning combination (standards),
But it takes a strong, smart coach (management) to make things happen
(Enforced Layer Standards). Who cares if you e-???? or x-???? for a layer of
an existing -???, just as long as it is consistence....for everyone...no ego
trips...which is why there is so much trouble with layer standards.

Just my thoughts...JoeB


"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:70F6D08F1D707C8FFDFB4F5696BCDDD4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Our guys make layers like they're going out of style. Often, these layers
> have goofy names that offer no real clue to what lies on the layer, every
> one of them has a different color, and the plot styles are a mess.
>
> We have templates that contain the "starting" layers, but when involved in
a
> 1 to 2-year long project, obviously other layers will be needed. At this
> point, we don't have a clear Naming Convention for those new layers but we
> are working on one. In Civil, we don't use the three-tiered system that
> Archies use (111-222-333) although maybe that's not a bad idea.
>
> I was considering creating a drawing that contains every conceivable
> possiblity of layer names and instructing people to use Design Center to
> access the layers. Then they would ONLY use those layers. (right? right?
> lol) There's always a few oddball layers that are needed but I'm thinking
> this might cut down on the number of layers created on the fly.
>
> But I wanted to see what other's people's experiences have been. How do
you
> cut down on all these crazy layers? If I see one more layer called "Bob's
> Layer" or "Jim's Layer", I'm gonna cry. 🙂
>
>

[Anonymous]

Well, there will always be the need for some layers to be created "on the
fly" (at least until we get every single layer we may ever possibly need
figured out and put into our "Layer Library". So I don't want to stop them
from creating layers at this stage in the game. But I can't wait to check
out the Cad Standards checker that "prevents" the creation of non-conforming
layers.


"KARL DETRICK" wrote...
> In the other software, there is the ability to assign a level library
that
> is read only
> that is attached to the dwg/dgn.
> I wonder is AutoCAD has this ability?? Its nice that no one can create
> layers
> and must use pre-assigned layers, colors, styles, for everything, this is
a
> built in
> cadd standard tool.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you - the standards are skewed a bit, but they are looking for
input/feedback.
Their website is http://www.natonalcadstandard.org

I like the layer standards/format we developed better, but I am changing,
thinking the more people who adopt the standard, the easier collaboration
will get.


"Adam Wuellner" wrote in message
news:E451FCC5AFD13918BC77A96C44C1CFCC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> "David Claflin" wrote in message
> news:2FC03DDDF00080EA387C4166FAD85E5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > FYI,
> > The National CAD Standard and the AIA CAD LAYERING Guideline are one and
> the
> > same. It does cover all fields of construction, even Civil Engineering.
>
> My problem is that the civil layers seem tailored for site work, and kind
of
> leaves road projects that don't interface with architectural plans out in
> the cold. I think this may change in future releases, since I am now
seeing
> clients adopt the standard regardless. As far as the system itself goes,
I
> think it's pretty nice - consistent and extensible. I could make up my
own
> layernames (that fit the guidlines) for any layers that I feel are
missing,
> but it wouldn't *really* be a 'universal' AEC CAD standard until
non-archie
> workflows are incorporated into the scheme. That means civil roadway, not
> just civil site. I think I'd advocate it, though, if only for the sake of
> getting everybody on the same page, so that layer management routines can
be
> developed more fully by autodesk and third-party developers. Either that,
> or forget the whole idea of layers - they can be a pretty thin analogy for
> reality anyway.
>
> --
> Adam
>
>

[Anonymous]

I think another reason there is trouble with standards is the sheer speed at
which the software is upgraded. As soon as we get one procedure down (say
for Points or Point Groups), the whole Point system changes and our old
Standards fly out the window.

"Joe Butler" wrote...
> just as long as it is consistence....for everyone...no ego
> trips...which is why there is so much trouble with layer standards.

[Anonymous]

You guys brought up a good point here, so I did some research yesterday. I
found an article at CadOnline that stated the following:

--------
"A variety of industry organizations publish documents that address various
parts of the CAD standards puzzle. Check out these resources.

The American Institute of Architects, http://www.aiaonline.com/, publishes
CAD Layer Guidelines, Second Edition. Order it from the AIA (888/272-4115,
order number R809-97). It costs $21 for AIA members and $30 for everyone
else.

The Construction Specifications Institute, http://www.csinet.org,publishes
the UDS (Uniform Drawing System), which currently comprises modules that
cover drawing set organization, sheet organization, and schedules. It lists
most of the nuts and bolts of CAD standards concerns (layer names and
symbols) as "future modules." UDS costs $50-$160 depending on format and
whether you're an Institute member.

TThe CADD Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences
http://www.nibs.org is developing a consensus National CADD Standard using
the AIA CAD Layer Guidelines, CSI Uniform Drawing System, and DOD
Tri-Services Center CADD Standards.

The International Standards Organization's, http://www.iso.ch, document
ISO/DIS 13567 defines a layer name format. See p. 24 of the AIA CAD Layer
Guidelines, Second Edition.

The British Standards Institution's, http://www.bsi.org.uk, BS 1192 Part
Five appears to be a popular layer standard among CAD users in the United
Kingdom."
------

Okay, so according to this, the AII Cad Layer Guidelines are different from
the National CADD Standard. But the National CADD Standards is being put
together by the Nat'l Inst. of Building Sciences, so there's still no help
for civvies that I can see.

Hey, Adam...wanna get together and create our own National Civil Standard?
(he he he)




--
Kirsten
"A friend helps you move. A good friend helps you move dead bodies."
"Adam Wuellner" wrote in message
news:E451FCC5AFD13918BC77A96C44C1CFCC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> "David Claflin" wrote in message
> news:2FC03DDDF00080EA387C4166FAD85E5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > FYI,
> > The National CAD Standard and the AIA CAD LAYERING Guideline are one and
> the
> > same. It does cover all fields of construction, even Civil Engineering.
>
> My problem is that the civil layers seem tailored for site work, and kind
of
> leaves road projects that don't interface with architectural plans out in
> the cold. I think this may change in future releases, since I am now
seeing
> clients adopt the standard regardless. As far as the system itself goes,
I
> think it's pretty nice - consistent and extensible. I could make up my
own
> layernames (that fit the guidlines) for any layers that I feel are
missing,
> but it wouldn't *really* be a 'universal' AEC CAD standard until
non-archie
> workflows are incorporated into the scheme. That means civil roadway, not
> just civil site. I think I'd advocate it, though, if only for the sake of
> getting everybody on the same page, so that layer management routines can
be
> developed more fully by autodesk and third-party developers. Either that,
> or forget the whole idea of layers - they can be a pretty thin analogy for
> reality anyway.
>
> --
> Adam
>
>

[Anonymous]

Someone needs to do it -
The national cad standard uses the AIA layer standards, and then the
tri-service plotting standard (sheet border size and pen table), and then
goes into the murkier waters of blocks and symbols and text placement, etc.,
using the CSI stuff.
The AIA/NCS is improving - I do not know what you all use, but it seems if
anyone can help these guys improve the civil/survey side it's the people who
post here.
"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:3295A7DE13C74864E1A3B67DAA33C419@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> You guys brought up a good point here, so I did some research yesterday.
I
> found an article at CadOnline that stated the following:
>
> --------
> "A variety of industry organizations publish documents that address
various
> parts of the CAD standards puzzle. Check out these resources.
>
> The American Institute of Architects, http://www.aiaonline.com/, publishes
> CAD Layer Guidelines, Second Edition. Order it from the AIA (888/272-4115,
> order number R809-97). It costs $21 for AIA members and $30 for everyone
> else.
>
> The Construction Specifications Institute, http://www.csinet.org,publishes
> the UDS (Uniform Drawing System), which currently comprises modules that
> cover drawing set organization, sheet organization, and schedules. It
lists
> most of the nuts and bolts of CAD standards concerns (layer names and
> symbols) as "future modules." UDS costs $50-$160 depending on format and
> whether you're an Institute member.
>
> TThe CADD Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences
> http://www.nibs.org is developing a consensus National CADD Standard using
> the AIA CAD Layer Guidelines, CSI Uniform Drawing System, and DOD
> Tri-Services Center CADD Standards.
>
> The International Standards Organization's, http://www.iso.ch, document
> ISO/DIS 13567 defines a layer name format. See p. 24 of the AIA CAD Layer
> Guidelines, Second Edition.
>
> The British Standards Institution's, http://www.bsi.org.uk, BS 1192 Part
> Five appears to be a popular layer standard among CAD users in the United
> Kingdom."
> ------
>
> Okay, so according to this, the AII Cad Layer Guidelines are different
from
> the National CADD Standard. But the National CADD Standards is being
put
> together by the Nat'l Inst. of Building Sciences, so there's still no help
> for civvies that I can see.
>
> Hey, Adam...wanna get together and create our own National Civil Standard?
> (he he he)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirsten
> "A friend helps you move. A good friend helps you move dead bodies."
> "Adam Wuellner" wrote in message
> news:E451FCC5AFD13918BC77A96C44C1CFCC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > "David Claflin" wrote in message
> > news:2FC03DDDF00080EA387C4166FAD85E5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > FYI,
> > > The National CAD Standard and the AIA CAD LAYERING Guideline are one
and
> > the
> > > same. It does cover all fields of construction, even Civil
Engineering.
> >
> > My problem is that the civil layers seem tailored for site work, and
kind
> of
> > leaves road projects that don't interface with architectural plans out
in
> > the cold. I think this may change in future releases, since I am now
> seeing
> > clients adopt the standard regardless. As far as the system itself
goes,
> I
> > think it's pretty nice - consistent and extensible. I could make up my
> own
> > layernames (that fit the guidlines) for any layers that I feel are
> missing,
> > but it wouldn't *really* be a 'universal' AEC CAD standard until
> non-archie
> > workflows are incorporated into the scheme. That means civil roadway,
not
> > just civil site. I think I'd advocate it, though, if only for the sake
of
> > getting everybody on the same page, so that layer management routines
can
> be
> > developed more fully by autodesk and third-party developers. Either
that,
> > or forget the whole idea of layers - they can be a pretty thin analogy
for
> > reality anyway.
> >
> > --
> > Adam
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Check-out Layer Lexicon http://www.caddee.com/llexicon.html

"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:70F6D08F1D707C8FFDFB4F5696BCDDD4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Our guys make layers like they're going out of style. Often, these layers
> have goofy names that offer no real clue to what lies on the layer, every
> one of them has a different color, and the plot styles are a mess.
>
> We have templates that contain the "starting" layers, but when involved in
a
> 1 to 2-year long project, obviously other layers will be needed. At this
> point, we don't have a clear Naming Convention for those new layers but we
> are working on one. In Civil, we don't use the three-tiered system that
> Archies use (111-222-333) although maybe that's not a bad idea.
>
> I was considering creating a drawing that contains every conceivable
> possiblity of layer names and instructing people to use Design Center to
> access the layers. Then they would ONLY use those layers. (right? right?
> lol) There's always a few oddball layers that are needed but I'm thinking
> this might cut down on the number of layers created on the fly.
>
> But I wanted to see what other's people's experiences have been. How do
you
> cut down on all these crazy layers? If I see one more layer called "Bob's
> Layer" or "Jim's Layer", I'm gonna cry. 🙂
>
>

[Anonymous]

That link didn't work for me - 'temporarily down?

John

"Dave Walsh" wrote in message
news:9D963CD07B7E39003EEB792A6E55AD34@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I agree with you - the standards are skewed a bit, but they are looking
for
> input/feedback.
> Their website is http://www.natonalcadstandard.org
>
> I like the layer standards/format we developed better, but I am changing,
> thinking the more people who adopt the standard, the easier collaboration
> will get.

[Anonymous]

something else I am struggling with - someone wrote in the land desktop 3
group about the layer names for creating pipes - they wanted the prefix
to be c-*.
What do you do with all of the LDD created layers, alignment names,
etc? -PFGC is just not anywhere;)

"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:7B92F9094F895D105EF74D537032BF5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I think another reason there is trouble with standards is the sheer speed
at
> which the software is upgraded. As soon as we get one procedure down (say
> for Points or Point Groups), the whole Point system changes and our old
> Standards fly out the window.
>
> "Joe Butler" wrote...
> > just as long as it is consistence....for everyone...no ego
> > trips...which is why there is so much trouble with layer standards.
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

worked for me

--
Everybody need a little good luck charm
A little gris-gris keeps you safe from harm
***********************************
Tracey <(*)(*)>


"John Schmidt" wrote in message
news:DA83548B4155A10F5366FCE171EB6049@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> That link didn't work for me - 'temporarily down?
>
> John
>
> "Dave Walsh" wrote in message
> news:9D963CD07B7E39003EEB792A6E55AD34@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I agree with you - the standards are skewed a bit, but they are looking
> for
> > input/feedback.
> > Their website is http://www.natonalcadstandard.org
> >
> > I like the layer standards/format we developed better, but I am
changing,
> > thinking the more people who adopt the standard, the easier
collaboration
> > will get.
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

sorry - I am crummy at spelling/typing (and the page is loading slowly)
http://www.nationalcadstandard.org
"John Schmidt" wrote in message
news:DA83548B4155A10F5366FCE171EB6049@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> That link didn't work for me - 'temporarily down?
>
> John
>
> "Dave Walsh" wrote in message
> news:9D963CD07B7E39003EEB792A6E55AD34@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I agree with you - the standards are skewed a bit, but they are looking
> for
> > input/feedback.
> > Their website is http://www.natonalcadstandard.org
> >
> > I like the layer standards/format we developed better, but I am
changing,
> > thinking the more people who adopt the standard, the easier
collaboration
> > will get.
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

Yep, more fun to deal with, right Dave? lol.

First, you have to have standards for all your alignment names. (yippee,
more standards 😕 )Once you have the correct alignment name, the layers
create themselves.



"Dave Walsh" wrote.....
> something else I am struggling with - someone wrote in the land desktop 3
> group about the layer names for creating pipes - they wanted the prefix
> to be c-*.
> What do you do with all of the LDD created layers, alignment names,
> etc? -PFGC is just not anywhere;)
>
> "Kirsten" wrote in message
> news:7B92F9094F895D105EF74D537032BF5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I think another reason there is trouble with standards is the sheer
speed
> at
> > which the software is upgraded. As soon as we get one procedure down
(say
> > for Points or Point Groups), the whole Point system changes and our old
> > Standards fly out the window.
> >
> > "Joe Butler" wrote...
> > > just as long as it is consistence....for everyone...no ego
> > > trips...which is why there is so much trouble with layer standards.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

I think Design Center will accomplish what we need. I get a little leery of
adding on to many third party software programs because they don't always
keep up with the new releases of Autocad.

Although, having the ability to put the layers in subcategories sure was
appealing, as there are going to be a LOT of layers in this "Layer Library"

"Jim Dee" wrote in message
news:BBF206B9E956E7B5FB8EF04732E025C3@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Check-out Layer Lexicon http://www.caddee.com/llexicon.html
>
> "Kirsten" wrote in message
> news:70F6D08F1D707C8FFDFB4F5696BCDDD4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Our guys make layers like they're going out of style. Often, these
layers
> > have goofy names that offer no real clue to what lies on the layer,
every
> > one of them has a different color, and the plot styles are a mess.
> >
> > We have templates that contain the "starting" layers, but when involved
in
> a
> > 1 to 2-year long project, obviously other layers will be needed. At
this
> > point, we don't have a clear Naming Convention for those new layers but
we
> > are working on one. In Civil, we don't use the three-tiered system that
> > Archies use (111-222-333) although maybe that's not a bad idea.
> >
> > I was considering creating a drawing that contains every conceivable
> > possiblity of layer names and instructing people to use Design Center to
> > access the layers. Then they would ONLY use those layers. (right?
right?
> > lol) There's always a few oddball layers that are needed but I'm
thinking
> > this might cut down on the number of layers created on the fly.
> >
> > But I wanted to see what other's people's experiences have been. How do
> you
> > cut down on all these crazy layers? If I see one more layer called
"Bob's
> > Layer" or "Jim's Layer", I'm gonna cry. 🙂
> >
> >
>
>