Hi Dana,
First take Bill's (wfb) advice. You must start with a metric template
and develop your from there or you will end up with all sorts of
inconsistencies.
If you station in 100' increments, then in metric you would station at
30m increments which is nominally equivalent of 100'.
Other than for kerb details, where quarter point stationing may be used,
I have never seen a drawing where the stationing was not a multiple of 5m
Although Allen's suggestion of 1 and .25m contours is appealing, it is
likely to have derived from imperial thinking converted to metric,
rather than metric thinking. Most metric drawings would use major
contours as 5 times the minor contour.
Combinations of 0.2m minor and 1.0m major would be suitable for many
road work jobs.
The actual values you use should be such that you convey the information
you need and have the contours as sparse as possible so as to reduce
drawing clutter.
Typical Vertical exaggerations can be
1:1 true scale
1:2
1:5
1:10
1:20
Which one to use is largely dependent of the over elevation changes
shown on the profile.
For example you would not use true scale in the flat land of the mid
west USA, but you might for the road up Pike's Peak.
You should talk with your client as they may have standards for you to
meet, and opinions given here would not necessarily agree with a client
requirement.
Regards,
Laurie Comerford
dana_kennell wrote:
> My company has landed its first metric job. I've done an okay job so far setting up the templates, but I have a few questions. First, how does metric stationing work? Since a station is 100', what is the equivalent in meters? I assume it's not as simple as converting 100' to meters and that metric stations are an even number of meters. Second, what are the typical vertical exagerations for profiles? I'm just wondering if there are somewhat standard metric scales that are used. Thanks.
>