I have been having a problem lately with point groups not being stable. I have a standard point group defined by raw description to isolate all of my survey control point monumentation. It is a rather lengthy list of maybe 25 different monument descriptions. My issue is that every now and then, I will go into the point group definition and like all but 2 of the raw descriptions that I had previously listed are gone. As a result all of my survey monumentation disappears from the point group.
Now just today one of our engineering techs noticed an issue with our surface not using the ground points we shot. I checked our surface point group, which usually contains them with all of the other ground feature point descriptions and sure enough all but one of them was gone. As a result, our surface was corrupted.
Has anyone else run into this issue?
For the second issue, maybe check they are not being collected in another group, by description or point number. Our Civil 3D "template" rolls on from the last project, so often there are groups that include/exclude by point number that were specific to that project.
Remember that you can "lock" your point group definitions.?ÿ Might help.
I haven't seen this in a while, but I believe that the Description Key Sets can screw up point groups. Importing new sets, or shuffling multiple keys and applying them might reset or remove the raw descriptions available for selection in the group definitions.
We have not experienced that issue and use point groups daily.?ÿ Which version are you using?
We control survey monument point groups by point number range and our surface points by a predefined include and excluded code listing.
I've never encountered any issues with keeping point groups populated.
Do you use wildcards with all of your description keys??ÿ Were the files corrupted prior to the point groups becoming corrupted??ÿ Did you run an audit?
We've gone with point ranges with our groups and used layers as well. I'm not sure what the best method is though.
Control = 1-999
Locations = 1000-9999
Proposed = 10,000-14,999
Collected = 15,000 +
We then have layers.
I myself prefer point groups and layers, but I just sign things and use cad to check/setup and resolve. I no longer draft.
We just adopted the MTO (Ontario DOT) point ranges per their manual:
"6.1.5 Point Numbering
Keeping to a consistent scheme of assigning blocks of point numbers helps expedite organizing data collection over several days, and CAD work later on.
The following point numbering scheme is strongly recommended:
Alignment Points of Intersection (PI??s) 1-99
Horizontal Project Control 100-299
Vertical Project Control 300-599
Primary Horizontal Control 600-699
Primary Vertical Control 700-799
Corridor boundary monuments 800-999
Topographic features 1000-
Topographic features will be further separated into point ranges so that the collection method can
be readily identified by the point numbering scheme i.e.
Total Station 1000- xxxx
RTK, RTN yyyy-zzzz
Lidar derived aaaa-bbbb
The point numbering system shall be clearly outlined in the Drafting Report (section 9.4.3)."
?ÿ
Worked well for small to medium sized jobs.?ÿ On very large ones, we just multiplied the ranges by 10.?ÿ We also separated things out by layers.
?ÿ
As to the original question--no idea.?ÿ I've never had that happen.?ÿ Only thing I can think of is a conflict in the definition of the groups and the order being changed (ie. which group had priority over the other due to the definition of the groups).
I've been connecting many projects together for 40+ years and some of my files have 5k points and I have found it difficult to use such a numbering system.
I do attempt to keep one individual and adjoining tracts within a certain numbered sequence and that is difficult on some files.
This is an important issue and will help identify which group a point is by its number.
???