This is what I call one of the "sins" of computer drafting the title block was most likely copied from a different job, but...
1) the drafter failed to change the location in the title block
2) the reviewer either assumed it was changed and didn't bother looking, or just totally missed it.?ÿ
I worked in one office (pre-computer) where everything was checked and rechecked by staff, then the LS checked it all himself, resulting in a minimum of errors getting further than there. Another office I worked in after all of the checking from the staff, the business manager would check ALL spelling and grammar. A few other places I've worked, there seemed to be almost no checking at all, look at it for a couple seconds, stamp, sign and get it out the door.
Previous employer had our entire Sheet sets as a template
Each project when going to plot was in the sheets paper space and updated by each party or group. And then checked.
Then QCd
No sure why templates aren't used more often to keep the efficient effort to only update the new data, but no need to recreate the wheel every single time.
Granted I worked for a municipality, but they were all from the private sector first and brought all of their good and bad attributes with them.?ÿ Mostly good.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I have found the best way to check a map is to print 15 copies first
This is where setting up custom properties for templates can really save your bacon.
Back when I could control the template I used, I would have custom DWGPROP fields for things like the project number, client name, MTRS, PLS number, etc. They were set up as fields in whatever text entities were standard across the drawing. As soon as I started a new drawing file I opened up the custom properties, added the info, and never had to do it again. If I did, I changed it in a single place.
I really, really, really hate having to manually edit the same information a dozen times across a multisheet document. If it's not absolutely required, have it in a single place; if it is required, automate the process.
Also another reason why dynamic labelling, properly set up, is head and shoulders above manual labelling.
@rover83?ÿ
I agree totally with automating the process, regardless of the automation, or lack thereof, I was trained over the years to check every word of whatever I am reviewing.?ÿ
The point I was trying to make however is that with some or none automation it appears that there are less and less checks of the information being correct before being entered into the public record.?ÿ
Don't get me started.?ÿ The list of things that have been caught at the reviewer level, instead of at the in-house level, is never ending.?ÿ Wrong county, wrong city, wrong subdivision, wrong block, wrong lot, wrong alley width, wrong lot size, wrong street width and/or name, wrong section, wrong quarter of the section, saying something like southeast quarter when you really mean southeast corner or vice versa, bearing reads north and west when its going south and west, wrong signing date (future date), etc.
@james-vianna?ÿ ??? ??? ??? ??? ......and here I thought it was just me....
@james-vianna?ÿ ??? ??? ??? ??? ......and here I thought it was just me....
I'm in that group for sure! dammit
The point I was trying to make however is that with some or none automation it appears that there are less and less checks of the information being correct before being entered into the public record.
Not going to disagree with that! Sorry I didn't mean to hijack the thread.
I miss the days when I could just walk down the hall and toss a stack of descriptions and maps onto my buddy's desk for checking, and vice versa. We had an informal competition going to see who could find the most mistakes in a document, backed up by six-packs, and it worked pretty well.
If I drafted something myself, I can review it until my eyes bleed and still think it's fine. Maybe I'm weird...
@rover83?ÿ
No apology necessary, after using CAD for almost 30 years, I still see people (my newest employ also) not using simple things like xref & paperspace, they'd rather copy whole drawings and edit from there, but don't seem to mind that they have to make the same edits in several drawings. I try to teach the (right?) way to do things, but some just don't want to learn.
In my long career I've learned that I need to adapt until I can prove what might be a better, easier, quicker way to do things.
If you want to find an easier way to do something give it to a lazy person to do.
My CAD education came by watching over the shoulder of the guy I was paying to do it for me.?ÿ That stopped about 18 years ago and I haven't learned much since then.?ÿ So, I definitely qualify as one of those goofballs who eschews the complicated process and hangs on tight to the bare bones approach.?ÿ But, like the dinosaurs, my point of extinction will arrive eventually.