Standard Point/Block-Scaling Practices

[Joshua7812]

This is more for discussion purposes. I apologize if this isn't the correct place for this kind of post. If it's not, please let me know where it should be. I just couldn't find any board/forum that stood out as the obvious place.

Short Question:

What are the "standard" scaling practices when working with point markers (symbols) in Civil 3D? Should symbols, with the exception of trees and such, be scaled based on the drawing scale or based on their typical real-world size?

Backstory/Reason for the Question: (Basically a longer version of the question)

I work for a land surveying company and have since they opened in 2013. When I got hired here, I had no CAD experience, land surveying experience, anything. I'd just started at ITT Tech for drafting and design 1 month prior to my interview for this company and it was going to be about 4-5 months until I even opened CAD at school. This company said they'd hire me and I could do mortgage inspections in the field and, as opportunity allowed, one of the owners would teach me to use AutoCAD—which he did.

However, I was using vanilla AutoCAD for basic drafting purposes. I wasn't even drafting the real surveys, just the mortgage inspections, which require very basic drafting/software knowledge and no use of blocks or symbols. On the survey department side, they were using Eagle Point for processing field data and producing surveys. For anyone unfamiliar with Eagle Point, it didn't automatically insert blocks, auto-create linework, anything. It brought in the points from the ASCII file, and it was up to the drafter to review the data and connect all of the dots, insert the appropriate blocks, etc. In 2016/2017, they switched to Civil 3D. I was still using vanilla AutoCAD because my department didn't have a need for anything more advanced.

They hired a second licensed surveyor who was familiar with Civil 3D, and he got our template setup. But he left not too long after, and at that point I had to start learning Civil 3D. I had a small learning session or two with him so he could give me a quick rundown of the software and the survey drafting process, but we didn't get into any of the backbone of setting Civil 3D up, and with the massive learning curve I was about to have, those training sessions were nothing. In mid-2017 I started drafting our surveys, I had to start from the ground up on my own to really learn Civil 3D after he left—stressful, but at this point I'm also kind of happy I was able to learn things in my own way and order as I went.

To wrap things up, I'm rebuilding our company templates from scratch now. There were too many problems I would find, or things not quite setup right, and I have a much better understanding of the software now so I can base it more on our style and needs. But the question that frequently pops up in my mind is "should my point markers scale based on the drawing scale or be left at a fixed scale?" Obviously, Civil 3D has the intention of scaling the markers. But one of the company owners has said before that the blocks are already created at the appropriate size for the feature they represent (he was the drafter before me, when they were using Eagle Point, and very, very early in their adoption of Civil 3D). He says when they're scaled with the drawing they don't look right, especially when trees get scaled based on trunk diameter and all of the other symbols get scaled based on the drawing scale, and it just muddies up the survey. My issue, and what our licensed surveyor (the other owner) agrees with, is that the symbols are also far too small and almost unnoticeable on surveys of larger scales if they're left at their original size.

So, from you guys with more knowledge and experience in the software/industry, what are the standard practices? I'm entirely unfamiliar with any other way companies approach these things because this is the only one I've worked at, and I'm self-taught/learned in Civil 3D. To me, scaling based on drawing scale is the correct solution for everything except trees. After all, the symbols are there to represent what was located in the field, not necessarily reflect the appropriate size of the feature. At the same time, I see the perspective of it making things look weird when a parking meter, for example, is shown 2+ times the size of a tree. On the other hand, meters and manholes (and everything really) are just tiny specs on a large enough survey, and I've moved us from the abbreviation legend we used when one of the owners was drafting to a (primarily) symbols and linetypes legend, with a few necessary abbreviations added in. So that legend is, and symbols in general are, useless if you can't even tell what a symbol is because it's a 1:1 sized spec on the survey. I'm just looking for thoughts, opinions, and a little more insight into standard practices which, from everything I've seen online and from other companies over the years, appears to be scaling the symbols based on drawing scale so they're visible on the survey.

[Joshua7812]

This is more for discussion purposes. I apologize if this isn't the correct place for this kind of post. If it's not, please let me know where it should be. I just couldn't find any board/forum that stood out as the obvious place.

Short Question:

What are the "standard" scaling practices when working with point markers (symbols) in Civil 3D? Should symbols, with the exception of trees and such, be scaled based on the drawing scale or based on their typical real-world size?

Backstory/Reason for the Question: (Basically a longer version of the question)

I work for a land surveying company and have since they opened in 2013. When I got hired here, I had no CAD experience, land surveying experience, anything. I'd just started at ITT Tech for drafting and design 1 month prior to my interview for this company and it was going to be about 4-5 months until I even opened CAD at school. This company said they'd hire me and I could do mortgage inspections in the field and, as opportunity allowed, one of the owners would teach me to use AutoCAD—which he did.

However, I was using vanilla AutoCAD for basic drafting purposes. I wasn't even drafting the real surveys, just the mortgage inspections, which require very basic drafting/software knowledge and no use of blocks or symbols. On the survey department side, they were using Eagle Point for processing field data and producing surveys. For anyone unfamiliar with Eagle Point, it didn't automatically insert blocks, auto-create linework, anything. It brought in the points from the ASCII file, and it was up to the drafter to review the data and connect all of the dots, insert the appropriate blocks, etc. In 2016/2017, they switched to Civil 3D. I was still using vanilla AutoCAD because my department didn't have a need for anything more advanced.

They hired a second licensed surveyor who was familiar with Civil 3D, and he got our template setup. But he left not too long after, and at that point I had to start learning Civil 3D. I had a small learning session or two with him so he could give me a quick rundown of the software and the survey drafting process, but we didn't get into any of the backbone of setting Civil 3D up, and with the massive learning curve I was about to have, those training sessions were nothing. In mid-2017 I started drafting our surveys, I had to start from the ground up on my own to really learn Civil 3D after he left—stressful, but at this point I'm also kind of happy I was able to learn things in my own way and order as I went.

To wrap things up, I'm rebuilding our company templates from scratch now. There were too many problems I would find, or things not quite setup right, and I have a much better understanding of the software now so I can base it more on our style and needs. But the question that frequently pops up in my mind is "should my point markers scale based on the drawing scale or be left at a fixed scale?" Obviously, Civil 3D has the intention of scaling the markers. But one of the company owners has said before that the blocks are already created at the appropriate size for the feature they represent (he was the drafter before me, when they were using Eagle Point, and very, very early in their adoption of Civil 3D). He says when they're scaled with the drawing they don't look right, especially when trees get scaled based on trunk diameter and all of the other symbols get scaled based on the drawing scale, and it just muddies up the survey. My issue, and what our licensed surveyor (the other owner) agrees with, is that the symbols are also far too small and almost unnoticeable on surveys of larger scales if they're left at their original size.

So, from you guys with more knowledge and experience in the software/industry, what are the standard practices? I'm entirely unfamiliar with any other way companies approach these things because this is the only one I've worked at, and I'm self-taught/learned in Civil 3D. To me, scaling based on drawing scale is the correct solution for everything except trees. After all, the symbols are there to represent what was located in the field, not necessarily reflect the appropriate size of the feature. At the same time, I see the perspective of it making things look weird when a parking meter, for example, is shown 2+ times the size of a tree. On the other hand, meters and manholes (and everything really) are just tiny specs on a large enough survey, and I've moved us from the abbreviation legend we used when one of the owners was drafting to a (primarily) symbols and linetypes legend, with a few necessary abbreviations added in. So that legend is, and symbols in general are, useless if you can't even tell what a symbol is because it's a 1:1 sized spec on the survey. I'm just looking for thoughts, opinions, and a little more insight into standard practices which, from everything I've seen online and from other companies over the years, appears to be scaling the symbols based on drawing scale so they're visible on the survey.

[neilyj666]

I don't think there is a standard method as it depends on what information is being shown and the end use - to a great extent it is down to the producer of the drawing and the required specification/local standards/company standards. I will tweak Point styles as appropriate to achieve the required end result

It will be interesting to see how other approach this subject

[neilyj666]

I don't think there is a standard method as it depends on what information is being shown and the end use - to a great extent it is down to the producer of the drawing and the required specification/local standards/company standards. I will tweak Point styles as appropriate to achieve the required end result

It will be interesting to see how other approach this subject

[Joshua7812]

That makes sense. I appreciate your input.

Since I started using Civil 3D, I think there's been 1 time that I modified point styles to use a fixed value instead of scaling with the drawing, and that's when it was a site that just had tons of features and improvements and it was just a big mess with everything scaled up. So, my general thought up to now has been that it's best to scale them based on drawing scale and adjust that on the rare occasions it's necessary.

I'm curious to see how others approach this subject, as well.

[Joshua7812]

That makes sense. I appreciate your input.

Since I started using Civil 3D, I think there's been 1 time that I modified point styles to use a fixed value instead of scaling with the drawing, and that's when it was a site that just had tons of features and improvements and it was just a big mess with everything scaled up. So, my general thought up to now has been that it's best to scale them based on drawing scale and adjust that on the rare occasions it's necessary.

I'm curious to see how others approach this subject, as well.

[chriscowgill7373]

At my previous company, we set all of our block sizes based on what we thought was appropriate for plotting at our standard scale.  Trees were scaled based on their trunk size with a rule of thumb 1' of canopy for each 1" of trunk size.  So those were the only symbols that were scaled, everything else was based on our base scale, and C3D took care of the scaling for other sizes.  All of this was configured within our Description Keys.  If I remember right, the blocks needed to be non annotative blocks or it could mess things up when exporting to AutoCAD.

[chriscowgill7373]

At my previous company, we set all of our block sizes based on what we thought was appropriate for plotting at our standard scale.  Trees were scaled based on their trunk size with a rule of thumb 1' of canopy for each 1" of trunk size.  So those were the only symbols that were scaled, everything else was based on our base scale, and C3D took care of the scaling for other sizes.  All of this was configured within our Description Keys.  If I remember right, the blocks needed to be non annotative blocks or it could mess things up when exporting to AutoCAD.

[Joshua7812]

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it!

[Joshua7812]

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it!