Layering standards for topographical plans
Alasdair Craig
DennisN
> Are there any layering standards in general use for surveyor's
> topographical plans?
Does the highway department in your neck of the woods have CADD
standards? That might be a nice place to start. Does your
client have CADD standards? AIA, the American Institute of
Arkeetecks has its own standards, and there is a US National Cad
Standard in the works. Of course, all these are different. :-0
Typically, I find that surveyors like to use a million layers
for topo. This can be a pain to the end user, if he is also
using CADD, particularly if he also uses a million layers. Now
uST doesn't have this problem as it is layer limited, but the
AutoCad files get pretty cumbersome.
I have taken to supplying our layering standards, which are
based on AIA, to our surveyors and requesting that they comply
with those. It's worth it for me, even if they jack up the
price to account for the extra work and PITA of using someone
else's standards.
-Dennis Novak
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Diego Berge
[ are not active, AFAIK. Followups restricted to s.e.s ]
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:17:34 -0700, DennisN
<civilsuppo...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
>Alasdair Craig wrote:
>
>> Are there any layering standards in general use for surveyor's
>> topographical plans?
>
>Does the highway department in your neck of the woods have CADD
>standards? That might be a nice place to start. Does your
>client have CADD standards? AIA, the American Institute of
>Arkeetecks has its own standards, and there is a US National Cad
>Standard in the works. Of course, all these are different. :-0
Would you happen to have a URL for that AIA standard?
>Typically, I find that surveyors like to use a million layers
>for topo. This can be a pain to the end user, if he is also
>using CADD, particularly if he also uses a million layers. Now
>uST doesn't have this problem as it is layer limited, but the
>AutoCad files get pretty cumbersome.
[....]
Well, I do use quite a few layers (around 20 for a typical survey),
and I concede that those can be somewhat cumbersome to go through when
meddling with the layer settings, but I find that
1) It's a great way to convey information about the feature in
question. Labels can get moved or lost, but the layer and the objects
in it tend not to get dissociated so easily -- for example, I put
roads in a layer named "roads", walls in a layer named "walls",
entrances in a layer named "entrances", etc...
2) It enables the end user to keep only the stuff he's interested in,
throw away what he doesn't like, and even produce different plans from
a same source by turning on and off different layers.
3) If the getting in the way still outweights these advantages, it's
trivial to merge some or all layers into one -- the opposite does not
seem equally true.
Regards,
Diego Berge.
Gregory J. Murphy
Your Clients, espescially if they happen to be large corporations or
Governments (Local or State, I am thinking of in particular.) will have
layering standards. Most of them are, or should be, thinking of
digital submissions of plans, data, etc. To have any success there, a
layering scheme is most neccesary.
Try the City of Calgary, Legal Survey & Control Page
("http://ascm.gov.calgary.ab.ca/")
goto "Digital Aerial Survey (DAS) Mapping Subsets" The first thing you
can read obout is our Level Chart (Microstation is our main CAD, for al
kinds of very good reasons!, it is the same thing as AutoCAD's layers!)
Cheers,
Greg.
Alasdair Craig wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Are there any layering standards in general use for surveyor's
> topographical plans?
>
> Alasdair
> PLS South Africa
--
----------------------------------
Gregory J. Murphy, P.Eng.
E-Mail: gjm...@telusplanet.net
----------------------------------