On the nature and use of CAD Standards

big-al · 2015-02-04T22:33:00Z

For years, I've used an old color based CAD standard in our office. I'm very familiar with it. We rather simply came up with our own layer names, more or less in plain English. All objects are typically drawn on the color "ByLayer", and the printed color and thickness of the lines are determined by the color, at our choice, via a plot style table (pen assignments), that I'm sure most of you will generally be familiar with.So, for example, I know that a line that I see on my screen in model space as red will plot as black at a thickness of 0.030" on the printed page. For in-house production of a drawing, this system seems to work fine.Now, when one of our files is transferred to an outside party, the system seems to break down. Usually, we don't, nor are we asked to, provide to the receiving party the pen assignment (CTB) file. And, even if we did, there arises a fundamental problem in collaborating with others, namely, that the system that we have created for ourselves will undoubtedly be different than the system that the receiving party has created for their use. And so, I suspect it is typical that a receiving party employing a similar system does not even bother to ask for CTB files, definitions of the layering system, etc., but rather takes the information provided in the DWG file, and modifies the properties of objects within that DWG file to fit their own needs. Then, if it comes back to our office, again without a CTB file, things aren't usually the same way they were given. And so on and so on, round and round we go....So the idea of having a National CAD Standard (NCS) seems appealing, for it would seem on the surface to promote the facilitation of building and site data using a common language. However, as I begin to consider implementing the NCS, there appears one immediate problem with its implementation, namely that a user of the standard must purchase it from the publisher, and the cost is $405 last time I looked. This gets you the latest version, but when a new version comes out, one must pay again. I suspect the use of the standard is therefore not widespread. For a larger firm, perhaps the cost of acquiring the standard would be a drop in the bucket. But, for smaller firms, the cost becomes more of a concern. Parenthetically, I wonder whether NSPS would consider negotiating with NIBS on behalf of the NSPS membership, to acquire for its members the right to access the NCS without charge.....However, even if the NCS were free, there remain additional problems with its implementation, similar to the problems described above with our own current system. For (correct me if I'm wrong) the NCS appears to provide a template that is designed to be adapted by the user to fit its own needs. Surveyors might generally agree to put all their drawing objects on a layer beginning V- (discipline designator for surveying and mapping), but whether to put bearing and distance labels on V-ANNO-BRNG or V-CTRL-BRNG or V-PROP-BRNG or V-PROP-TEXT or some other combination appears to be up to the end user to decide. Now, in its defense, the NCS does appear to encourage some level of consistency to layer naming, and provides a framework for same. But, as far as I know, the NCS allows you to more or less freely choose a layer name, using the prescribed codes, as long as it is reasonable and follows the general format DD-MAJR-MNR1-MNR2-STAT, where DD is the discipline designator, MAJR is the Major Group Layer Name, MNR1 is the 1st (optional) Minor Group Layer Name, MNR2 is the 2nd (optional) Minor Group Layer Name, and STAT is the Status. Additional MINR group modifiers may be inserted between MINR and STAT.Significantly, the NCS does not appear to govern the color used for a layer, the linetype used for a layer, the thickness of a line, the color printed on the page, etc. So, implementation of the NCS still leaves much choice in the hands of the end user. And this freedom of choice will invariably produce variety, and variety will produce some of the same symptoms that I now experience with the current system.Of course, a contract arrangement will allow the super to specify the standard that must be followed by the sub, and this will tend to promote harmony between super and sub. But the contracted standard only works within projects that follow it. And, since the contracted standard is arbitrary (even if it meets NCS requirements), it will not readily transfer to another party that hasn't been following the same standard. Am I right?Sorry for the long-winded post, but what do you all think about the NCS? Is it worth the effort to implement this?Best,Al

Summarize Topic

Page 2 / 2 Prev

Strictly Surveying

Last Post by blitzkriegbob 5 years ago

22 Posts

12 Users

0 Reactions

3,106 Views

RSS

mike-marks

(@mike-marks)

Posts: 1124

Member

Translate ▼

?ÿ

Ooh, been down the road of layering to keep things sorted out internally (record vs search coords vs found coords) etc., and have been down the road of some agency that has 128 layers for myriad reasons, architect, engineering & agency planning lines, ad nausea. I deliver my data stripped of my internal system an only provide the 5 basic layers?ÿ boundary stuff sans linestyles etc. for them to integrate.?ÿ OTOH if it's a topo situation I'll grudgingly translate my data to their layer scheme and charge accordingly, but that's not what I'll record.

The killer is 15 years down the road your simple map cannot be plotted because of software upgrades, bloat, missing pen tables, linestyles which are no longer valid and CFG files which blow up, producing a useless plot which doesn't reflect your intentions.?ÿ I'm a fan of whatever you record or file at the County courthouse on Mylar is your definitive deliverable, layering, computers etc. be damned.

Posted : February 17, 2021 6:05 pm

blitzkriegbob

(@blitzkriegbob)

Posts: 410

Member

Translate ▼

@field-dog

That tends to happen when six year old threads get resurrected!

Posted : February 18, 2021 7:21 pm

Page 2 / 2 Prev

Forum Jump:

Previous Topic

Next Topic

Currently viewing this topic 1 guest.

26 Forums
54.5 K Topics
592.1 K Posts
310 Online
16.9 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

On the nature and use of CAD Standards

Please support our supporters!

Our Policies

Quick Links

Support