Once upon a time file names were limited to 8 characters (plus a three character extension) by DOS. Also, those file names needed to be typed out in full every time the file was accessed. In response the practice developed of naming file names with cryptic abbreviations and acronyms.
While that motivation disappeared with the introduction of Windows over 20 years ago, the common practice hangs on as a habit. For example, I recently received a batch of civil drawings for staking with names like 14021TP1_EM.dwg and FFA005base.dwg. As it occurs, the former is a topo survey and the latter is a civil design base map. BTW, in this package there is also FFA005surv.dwg, which appears to be the topo survey with an alternate laying setup.
I'm guessing that the "14021" is the surveyors project number and FFA005 is the civil's. Which is fine. But why not 14021 Topography.dwg instead of the cryptic TP1_EM? What's the gain here? Just an old habit, IMO. Time to rethink this, isn't it?
BTW, this is typical. I get files from several sources and they universally have cryptic file names, some more so than others. Can someone give me a good reason, post-Windows95, to not use full and descriptive words as file names?
PacSoft had an 8 character limit as well. When I transitioned into AutoCAD in 2005, I too held on to that, for about a year. Now, a file name might look like C:CarlsonData16Mark_Mayer_40_Acre_Subdivision_on_FM_2138_South_of_CR_3215.dwg I typically make the field note descriptions the same thing and add Tract 1 or Tract 2 or something to the *.doc files. That way if you know one, you can at least search the documents for the field notes much quicker.
Since I started doing this, many times I do not need to pull the file when looking up a job and I can spool up on a question much quicker.
Mark Mayer, post: 375970, member: 424 wrote: Once upon a time file names were limited to 8 characters (plus a three character extension) by DOS. Also, those file names needed to be typed out in full every time the file was accessed. In response the practice developed of naming file names with cryptic abbreviations and acronyms.
While that motivation disappeared with the introduction of Windows over 20 years ago, the common practice hangs on as a habit. For example, I recently received a batch of civil drawings for staking with names like 14021TP1_EM.dwg and FFA005base.dwg. As it occurs, the former is a topo survey and the latter is a civil design base map. BTW, in this package there is also FFA005surv.dwg, which appears to be the topo survey with an alternate laying setup.
I'm guessing that the "14021" is the surveyors project number and FFA005 is the civil's. Which is fine. But why not 14021 Topography.dwg instead of the cryptic TP1_EM? What's the gain here? Just an old habit, IMO. Time to rethink this, isn't it?
BTW, this is typical. I get files from several sources and they universally have cryptic file names, some more so than others. Can someone give me a good reason, post-Windows95, to not use full and descriptive words as file names?
Old habits probably. Most cad files (including my own) are a deep dark cellar known only to the operator. I've seen a few like "good topo" and then "new good topo" and then "new good topo rotated.." ...and possibly even a "new new good topo rotated good z"....and on and on...;-)
Actually I'm fortunate that most of my files have 8 or 9 numerical digit work order numbers assigned by the client. So my files look like "8325567 topo or 8325567 parcel 1", etc.
The one I like (and I receive a few each month) is when the utility company gets a site plan from a consultant for planning and they forward it to me. They are all named "base.dwg" ! :pinch:
paden cash, post: 375974, member: 20 wrote: ...I've seen a few like "good topo" and then "new good topo" and then "new good topo rotated.." ...and possibly even a "new new good topo rotated good z"....and on and on...;-)
Which brings me to a separate but related topic of "housecleaning" of files. I like to keep a "Drawing" directory under each project, and stuff any old iterations I feel a need to save under an "archive" subdirectory (I could rename that archive "old iterations"). Only the current version is in the top directory.
paden cash, post: 375974, member: 20 wrote:
... most of my files have 8 or 9 numerical digit work order numbers assigned by the client. So my files look like "8325567 topo or 8325567 parcel 1", etc......The one I like ...a site plan from a consultant ...They are all named "base.dwg" !
Which could be easily rectified by naming the files Site 832557 Design Base.dwg or some such.
Mark Mayer, post: 375977, member: 424 wrote: Which could be easily rectified by naming the files Site 832557 Design Base.dwg or some such.
20160607_6 SITE 832557 DESIGN BASE.DWG (This is the sixth rendition of today's drawing efforts) :woot:
DDSM
Dan B. Robison, post: 375983, member: 34 wrote: 20160607_6 SITE 832557 DESIGN BASE.DWG (This is the sixth rendition of today's drawing efforts) :woot:
DDSM
And if you're using AutoCAD, by this afternoon it will be 20160607_7 SITE 832557 DESIGN BASE RECOVER.DWG.....
Mark Mayer, post: 375970, member: 424 wrote:
Can someone give me a good reason, post-Windows95, to not use full and descriptive words as file names?
Yes. Within certain limits, fully descriptive file names (as many Mac users have been using for ages) are a great idea.
However the limit for the number of characters in Windows is 260, but it includes the FULL PATH. We recently ran across this problem uploading a complete drawing package to an FTP site. It had many, many, many nested directories, at the end of which was a very long descriptive file name.
The recipient could not open them. We did not realize the problem because we had created the entire structure on the Mac side (The path length limitation in Unix, upon which the Mac OS file system is based is over 1000 characters).
So the advice might be: Use descriptive names but don't go hog wild, and keep an eye on nested directories.
Dan B. Robison, post: 375983, member: 34 wrote: This is the sixth rendition of today's drawing efforts
When complete will there be any need to save any version other than the final for posterity? Do your housecleaning. Don't be a hoarder.
Mark Mayer, post: 375993, member: 424 wrote: ...Do your housecleaning. Don't be a hoarder....
OMG Mark. If we had kept our files cleaned up over the years, MS and everybody else would have had no reason to invent the insanely large HDs we have nowadays! We would all still be using 80MB drives...
With 2 TB I never have to delete anything!
"when complete" ... some projects last several years, sometimes the Client wants something that was kinda "preliminary" but 99.9% spot on.
space is no longer an issue. record keeping is simple... if you develop and utilize a system.
I prefer to use lots of Folders, it keeps the path shorter.
paden cash, post: 376005, member: 20 wrote: With 2 TB I never have to delete anything!
Remember that final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Where we see the ark being stored in a huge warehouse?
Mark Mayer, post: 375970, member: 424 wrote: Once upon a time file names were limited to 8 characters (plus a three character extension) by DOS. Also, those file names needed to be typed out in full every time the file was accessed. In response the practice developed of naming file names with cryptic abbreviations and acronyms.
While that motivation disappeared with the introduction of Windows over 20 years ago, the common practice hangs on as a habit. For example, I recently received a batch of civil drawings for staking with names like 14021TP1_EM.dwg and FFA005base.dwg. As it occurs, the former is a topo survey and the latter is a civil design base map. BTW, in this package there is also FFA005surv.dwg, which appears to be the topo survey with an alternate laying setup.
I'm guessing that the "14021" is the surveyors project number and FFA005 is the civil's. Which is fine. But why not 14021 Topography.dwg instead of the cryptic TP1_EM? What's the gain here? Just an old habit, IMO. Time to rethink this, isn't it?
BTW, this is typical. I get files from several sources and they universally have cryptic file names, some more so than others. Can someone give me a good reason, post-Windows95, to not use full and descriptive words as file names?
Those file names may be compliant with the National CAD Standard which includes complex standards for file naming. The Department of Defense (DOD) standards are compliant with the National CAD Standard and the DOD A/E/C CAD Standard Release 4.0 manual (the current standard is release 6) includes the following example.
[INDENT=1]Example. The model file name for a project at the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC), Building 8000, 1st floor,
Architectural Floor Plan could be:[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]
ERDC8000A-FPF1XX.dgn/dwg[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]
where ERDC8000 is the Project Code, A- is the Discipline Designator, FP
is the Model File Type (Floor Plan), and F1 is a user-definable set of characters
for Floor 1. Since not all of the user-definable characters were used,
the characters XX were used as placeholders.[/INDENT]
Yes this continues the cryptic naming you reference and adds another layer of complexity. The naming conventions and codes to be used require six (6) pages of the standards manual. Then the drawing sheet naming conventions require an additional five (5) pages and there is one page of guidance on "Coordination Between Sheet File Name and Sheet Identifier" to add to the confusion.
Mark Mayer, post: 375970, member: 424 wrote: ...14021TP1_EM.dwg and FFA005base.dwg. As it occurs, the former is a topo survey and the latter is a civil design base map. BTW, in this package there is also FFA005surv.dwg, which appears to be the topo survey with an alternate laying setup.
I'm guessing that the "14021" is the surveyors project number and FFA005 is the civil's. Which is fine. But why not 14021 Topography.dwg instead of the cryptic TP1_EM? What's the gain here? Just an old habit, IMO. Time to rethink this, isn't it?
BTW, this is typical. I get files from several sources and they universally have cryptic file names, some more so than others. Can someone give me a good reason, post-Windows95, to not use full and descriptive words as file names?
Since the 5 digit job number matches out system I had to look it up. We have a 14021TP1.dwg. LOL
For Us TP1 is the first Topo we have done on a site.
####AB1.dwg would be asbuilts
####CA1.dwg would be a calc sheet
####BD1.dwg would be a boundary drawing or
####ROS1.dwg would be a record of survey.
####SS1.dwg is for survey sketch that would accompany a legal description.
Our reasons not to change probably fall on no-one wanting to rewrite our cad standards and workflow guidelines that have been in place for years.
With that said though..
Now that more characters are allowed the file naming convention has got a bit more verbose and not as rigid.
Jered McGrath PLS, post: 376012, member: 794 wrote: .... We have a 14021TP1.dwg. LOL ...
This particular one Is not one of yours. It came from that very old company out of Lake Oswego. It may suggest some common thread between the two organizations.
Dallas Morlan, post: 376011, member: 6020 wrote: Those file names may be compliant with the National CAD Standard .....
I'm aware that the US National is perpetuating this. I would naturally expect the government standard to be a follower, not the leader.
