(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. 🙂

[Anonymous]

'Got it now - thanks.

John

"Dave Walsh" wrote in message
news:533045E4CD632EF17945756B7CF1FAAA@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> 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]

Springboard for further discussion: How many layers do you
realy need and why?

I work in the mechanical/piping discipline. Here is the
client's standard where I am working now:

Linetype bylayer; Color bylayer

piping-new
piping-exist
eqpt-new
eqpt-exst
text-dimensions
hatch
cl-datum line
border
struct-exst

Each layer is prefixed with a dicipine code and there is a
similar structure for each discipline, not necessarly
exactly the same.
This simple convention shows them everything the want to see
the way they want. Yes, we do change linetype as necessary
for hidden lines.

From what I understand, this has held them in good stead for
more than a few years.

Pete

"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
> >>>>>SNIP>>>>>

[Shibish]

Civil types might want to look at the Tri-Services CADD Standard (watch for wordwrap)http://tsc.wes.army.mil/products/standards/aec/toc-index204.asp
More layer names than you'll ever need! They also have sample linetypes, symbols and hatches.

[Anonymous]

"Pete Gaudette" wrote...
> Springboard for further discussion: How many layers do you
> realy need and why?

Well, with autocad you get one set of layers of equal status to work with.
The number is unlimited, but they all reside at the same hierarchical level
within the set. (The AIA scheme's major and minor groups are an attempt to
create a hierarchy, but it's a naming trick and only adds functionality
through the ability to sort by name and use wildcards - good, but not quite
a relational database.) These are the constraints. Typically, the idea is
to isolate different systems (or types of data) onto separate layers. For
example, a civil roadway improvement plan drawing might contain a layer for
edge of pavement, a layer for curb and gutter, a layer for the drainage
system, a layer for right-of-way, etc. This is a popular approach, and
serves most quite well. How many you end up with depends on how many unique
systems you must keep isolated. If a given system is sufficiently complex
to require further subdivision, that should be accomplished without losing
the ability to modify the entire system as a whole while gaining the ability
to modify the parts independently. AIA's major and minor group codes handle
this quite well, IMO.
What I do to determine the needed layers is to consider the purpose of the
drawing. If the drawing is for construction documents, then the layers
required is dictated by the requirements of the plan set. Determining what
information is to be displayed on each type of sheet is relatively straight
forward. If removal items must appear existing in one view, emboldened and
annotated on a removal plan, and be absent in other drawings, then it
becomes clear that those items must reside on a layer independent of
existing-to-remain features, be bylayer/bylayer (or otherwise account for
the different ways it is to be shown), etc. In fact, every necessary layer
for a set of plans can be determined this way. If you don't ever need to
show back-of-curb without also showing edge-of-pavement, then there is no
earthly reason to put them on separate layers. This is the one area where
I've had success in keeping drawings up to standard.
Where I have more trouble is in the realm of multiple purpose drawings.
IMO, there is no appropriate and workable standard for dealing with a single
drawing that is to be used for CDs, for pretty exhibits, for quantity calcs,
for wrapping paper, for design, etc. These must all be recognized and
different tasks with different approaches to using the drawing data. This
is where some kind of relational database would be super nice. Luckily,
much of the 'grouping' of information can be accomplished with the skilled
use of selection sets, which can be operated on. This means that you don't
necessarily need a separate standard for each of these tasks. On my team,
the designers are aware of the standard for CDs, and they must provided me
with completed designs that adhere to the standard which I insert into the
base drawings for the CDs. How many/which layers they use to get there is
entirely up to them, as long as the copy I get in the end is clean.

FWIW, if you 'tag' all the objects in a drawing with xdata, you could build
selection sets based on that data. Layers would be wholly unnecessary,
though still somewhat helpful.

--
Adam

[Anonymous]

Wait, wait... don't tell me you've had to deal with the "1" block too?

I had to beat that into my cad users for weeks before they would listen.
It took an accidental redefinition of over one hundred elect outlet
into return ducts (both had were an imbedded block named "1") before
they got the point.

Cheers,
CMF

Greg Alford wrote:
> "Kirsten" wrote in message
> news:70F6D08F1D707C8FFDFB4F5696BCDDD4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
>>We have templates that contain the "starting" layers,
>>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.
>
>
> Agreed, that is what we try to do here. We have the same problem with
> people making stuff up. If you think layer names are bad, you ought to see
> some of the block names they come up with 🙂
>
>

[Anonymous]

That's it? Wow...Land Development Desktop automatically creates that many
layers just for one vertical profile alone.

"Pete Gaudette" wrote...
> Springboard for further discussion: How many layers do you
> realy need and why?

> piping-new
> piping-exist
> eqpt-new
> eqpt-exst
> text-dimensions
> hatch
> cl-datum line
> border
> struct-exst
>

[Anonymous]

These files are used only to produce one drawing without
ever, almost ever, being used as a xref anywhere. That
makes layering real easy. There is really no need for
freezing or not freezing layers to either produce another
drawing , or for use by someone else. Simple, hugh!

Pete


"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:37884B61D4FAD451182D8A6AFF7B6B9A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> That's it? Wow...Land Development Desktop automatically
creates that many
> layers just for one vertical profile alone.
>
> "Pete Gaudette" wrote...
> > Springboard for further discussion: How many layers do
you
> > realy need and why?
>
> > piping-new
> > piping-exist
> > eqpt-new
> > eqpt-exst
> > text-dimensions
> > hatch
> > cl-datum line
> > border
> > struct-exst
> >
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that link.

"Shibish" wrote in message
news:f170aec.41@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Civil types might want to look at the Tri-Services CADD Standard (watch for
wordwrap)http://tsc.wes.army.mil/products/standards/aec/toc-index204.asp
More layer names than you'll ever need! They also have sample linetypes,
symbols and hatches.

[Anonymous]

Yep, thanks Shibish.  I went through it and
looked at the layers they suggested, and it does seem more oriented towards site
design versus highway design but I'm sure there are many layers there that could
still work.

--
Kirsten
"A friend helps you move.  A good friend helps
you move dead bodies."

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"Shibish" <
href="mailto:pike_hunter@hotmail.com">pike_hunter@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
href="news:f170aec.41@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f170aec.41@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Civil
types might want to look at the Tri-Services CADD Standard (watch for
wordwrap)http://tsc.wes.army.mil/products/standards/aec/toc-index204.asp

More layer names than you'll ever need! They also have sample linetypes,
symbols and hatches.

[Anonymous]

Ni-i-i-i-i-ceeee...

:)

"Pete Gaudette" wrote...
> These files are used only to produce one drawing without
> ever, almost ever, being used as a xref anywhere. That
> makes layering real easy. There is really no need for
> freezing or not freezing layers to either produce another
> drawing , or for use by someone else. Simple, hugh!
>
> Pete
>
>
> "Kirsten" wrote in message
> news:37884B61D4FAD451182D8A6AFF7B6B9A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > That's it? Wow...Land Development Desktop automatically
> creates that many
> > layers just for one vertical profile alone.
> >
> > "Pete Gaudette" wrote...
> > > Springboard for further discussion: How many layers do
> you
> > > realy need and why?
> >
> > > piping-new
> > > piping-exist
> > > eqpt-new
> > > eqpt-exst
> > > text-dimensions
> > > hatch
> > > cl-datum line
> > > border
> > > struct-exst
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Beats the days when a composite on the Big Dig would produce
a file with close to 1000 layers. As I said in another post
talk about learning VISRETAIN real quick.

Pete


"Kirsten" wrote in message
news:89BE1B1E634348113A528B5A81F0FBD7@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Ni-i-i-i-i-ceeee...
>
> 🙂

[Shibish]

One company I worked for switched to that layer naming format, tweaked here and there for specific disciplines. Worked out well once everyone was comfortable with them. Didn't use the linetypes, hatch or symbols though. Custom linetypes and Land Desktop symbols worked OK for us. Good luck!