I've worked for both owner-operators and engineering service providers regarding P&IDs. I've seen them broken out by service, size, location, etc., In other words, there isn't necessarily a wrong way to do it, but at the end of the day, I think the biggest thing to be mindful of is the P&ID symbology.
PIP PIC001 is a common standard in Process Piping (i dont think it has a layering component), but there are usually proprietary (regarding the facility designer) standards that are also followed. Who ever designed your process probably had a decent enough layering standard. I would just adopt thiers.
If you want to create your own layers, some options are to have equipment on a layer, vales on a layer, revision clouds on a layer, and Process lines on a layer. It really comes down to how the documents are used.
It quite often that we circuitized P&IDs meaning we create special layers for different needs that follow the same paths as the lines. An example would be in older plants they will have lines on the P&ID that have asbestos mitigation requirements. Showing those indications on a P&ID aren't necessarily part of the intended function of the P&ID qua P&IDs but its very help when it comes to planning. I have also seen circiuitization used for making down lines for inspection and maintenance and reliability. This is usually the biggest use of layers that I've seen in P&IDs.
I also second the use of Plant 3D. It has the some really good out of the box tools for P&IDs.
CADnoob
