-
Let’s play “Guess That Cryptic Layer Name”
e-crbt-l
-
19 Replies
-
C-MAGD-L
-
e-crbt-l
ok, i’ll bite..
existing-curb top-left?
-
C-MAGD-L
My guess is Magnetic Declination Lines 🙂
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for providing the AutoCAD drawing. In order to improve the functionality of this drawing and to reduce the potential for misinterpretation, please provide the layering scheme key that the drawing is based on.
Your future best friend forever,
Norm
-
I meant to write Calculated Magnetic Declination Lines
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
e-crbt-l
erase curbtop Line
C-MGD-L
copy Magnetic Direction _ Lefthand(counter clockwise)
-
AutoCAD has had long layer names for 20 years yet people still use layer names like this.
-
I do my entire drawing on layers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and points, north, east, elevation and description.
Boundary drawings usually have found, set and computed items and not much more.
I zapped most every layer that Carlson started with.
Minimal is better for me.
-
Having used descriptive layer names since ACAD 10 I tend to keep them short. Back then it was important to group layers so that a quick keyboard command like e* would “turn/freeze”-“on/off” all your existing layers. I like to be able to see the descriptive part of the layer name on the screen so I still keep them relatively short, pnts-whatever instead of p-whatever, since I also have prop(osed)-whatever layers. I sat down with the field crews, draftsmen, engineers and survey staff and a few pizzas many years ago and we spent a long session agreeing on field to finish abbreviation, which golly gee match layer names. I found that I did not need such breakdowns as pnts-survey-elev when I could turn off the elevations for my pnts-survey, by turning off pnts-elev. I feel my layer names are pretty self explanatory to those that receive and use my drawings. Before I send out or archive a drawing I do strip out all the layers not used.
Paul in PA
-
e-crbt-l
existing-curb top-line
C-MAGD-L
civil/proposed-mass grading-line
-
-
“The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.” ~Andrew Tanenbaum
. -
Years ago we were aligned with a big brother company and were obliged to adopt their cad standards. Roll on to the present day and there’s still one of their layer names that persists (it’s somewhere in one of the title blocks and I haven’t had the time to ferret it out) in our drawings:
S001G400000
All the layers were named like that, and the cad jockey had a 2 inch thick A7 size code book that deciphered the codes, such that S001G400000 stood for something like “kerb”. Yeehah. I assumed the logic was to prevent everybody from making up their own codes, but anyway, Yeehah.
-
We have a long list I created that has a 1:1 translator to the NCS layers which I loathe using. I keep starting scripts to reduce my layers down using line types then restore them to NCS layers but I lose steam.
I get many complaints on my layers except from the firms who demand NCS layers.
-
AutoCAD has had long layer names for 20 years yet people still use layer names like this.
My point exactly. Plus, there is an opportunity for a “Description” to be added.
-
Why do people still use names like this?
Because sometimes, it makes the most sense to do so.
When you say “long layer names” I suspect you mean – names like “curb” or “trees” or “Storm Drain Manholes” – this type of system becomes cumbersome when you start working with lots of data types in a single drawing and it gets worse when you share that drawing with others. Long layer names are most effective for those drawings that have very limited content type and don’t have many downstream users (such as a boundary drawing that has no/limited topo info and the .dwg doesn’t get share with others. )
There are pros and cons of the various systems – here are some things to consider when thinking about layering.
I know of 4 basic categories of layering schemes (there may be others but I’m not familiar with them yet):
1. Numeric (the most basic, arbitrary, and cryptic)
2. Language based (Long layer names like Vegetation, Fire Hydrants, Water Lines, etc.)
3. Group based (like the architects cad standard – officially and erroneously dubbed the National CAD Standard)
4. Column based (where each column represents a category describing the elements on it such as 1. Source; 2. Entity Type; 3. Discipline; 4. Item; 5+. Item detail – one example ELUW would contain existing linework utility water items)
Whatever approach you take, it has to meet your modeling objectives. And it has to be consistently used.
The best system for your application considers:
- Who are the primary users of the drawing (are they CAD savvy)?
- How many types of data are going into the drawing?
- Will the drawing contain just existing data or will there be proposed, features to be demolished)
- Will the base data all be from field surveyed sources or will it come from record data, aerial mapping, GIS sources, or ??)
- Is it important to understand the pedigree of the data?
- How many disciplines will use the drawing?
- How granular does the system need to be?
- How likely is it that the system will be followed?
- Can it be easily converted to the format required for delivery?
- What are the impacts of not following a layering standard?
Language based layering falls apart when you have lots of data types – it tends to be inconsistent and it doesn’t work with wildcards. Same problems with numeric layering.
Column and Group based layering is more wildcard friendly and column based is ideal for drilling down to relevant data in drawings with lots of data and lots of data types. On large projects a well organized drawing is more important than an accurate survey! (that ought to get some pushback- but there’s a strong case supporting that statement – think about it)
Keep the language based layering to very simple drawings that won’t be shared with others and they’ll work well.
Column based have the greatest potential for managing lots of diverse data among a wide range of users – but it has a steep learning curve (probably not as steep as the “National CAD Standard” as the column based is more rigidly defined.) Once you learn a granular column based system you can manage large quantities of drawing data quickly and efficiently – a good system for surveyors who encounter a wide variety of features in their CAD modeling. It’s true, you will be dangerous if you try to use a column based CAD drawing without understanding the schema.
Keep in mind that it’s relatively easy to convert granular layering to more generalized layering – as the surveyor you are the initial data creator and there is a LOT of d0wnstream activity (read $$) based on your drawing. Keep your drawing spatially valid and be consistent with symbology, linework, and layering.
And… if your drawing is going to folks that don’t understand the layering scheme – by all means use the description field – it should be populated as part of your template drawing or the script/lisp/vba/c routines that create your layers.
-
Or you can go the other way:
POLY_BOARD_OF_PEITTIIONERS
and
POLY_WVIEW_28OCT2010
I have no idea what that first one is, but there were quite a number of lines drawn in it.
-
Mark,
I’m guessing your working a drawing prepared by, or someone with ties to, WHP. If not than it is something very close. I will admit that I was one of the those responsible for developing CAD standards before I left (20+ years ago). The system was well though out and worked great if you had the legend. The prefix identified the source of the data ‘S’ for survey, ‘P’ for proposed, ‘E’ for existing , ‘C’ for calculated, ‘D’ for digitized. The Suffix identified the feature type: ‘L’ for line, ‘D’ for dimension, ‘S’ for symbol. The body describes the feature. I still use a revised version the system to this date. I make sure to include a layer list with drawing for my newer clients. Better yet, I should add the feature description to my layers in my template. I would consider the NCS but I’m not going to pay the fees they want. I would guess that is the reason they are note the actual national CAD standards. Not to play my own horn but the system is far better than most I see.
-
Mark,
I’m guessing your working a drawing prepared by, or someone with ties to, WHP. If not than it is something very close. I will admit that I was one of the those responsible for developing CAD standards before I left (20+ years ago). The system was well though out and worked great if you had the legend. The prefix identified the source of the data ‘S’ for survey, ‘P’ for proposed, ‘E’ for existing , ‘C’ for calculated, ‘D’ for digitized. The Suffix identified the feature type: ‘L’ for line, ‘D’ for dimension, ‘S’ for symbol. The body describes the feature. I still use a revised version the system to this date. I make sure to include a layer list with drawing for my newer clients. Better yet, I should add the feature description to my layers in my template. I would consider the NCS but I’m not going to pay the fees they want. I would guess that is the reason they are note the actual national CAD standards. Not to play my own horn but the system is far better than most I see.
This does happen to be WHP. 20 years ago, when we were all still restricted to 8 character layer names, I wouldn’t have any problem (that is, I would understand the need) with these names. And this is just the example of the moment. I see worse nearly every day, including stuff from Otak which I had a part in.
Log in to reply.