existing layer names

[modulor]

Is there any good reason for creating "EXST" layers if existing info is in a completely different file and xrefed in?
I mean, isn't it just redundant to see layers like: "A-FP-EXST|A-WALL-EXST"?

[stelthorst]

Is there any good reason for creating "EXST" layers if existing info is in a completely different file and xrefed in?
I mean, isn't it just redundant to see layers like: "A-FP-EXST|A-WALL-EXST"?

It seems redundant to me and also it seems repetitive. :)

[cadtag]

Redundant yes, but can be advantageous. Presuming your convention is to use -EXST as the the final 5 characters to designate existing materials, then you can use wildcards to grab all existing layers in a single pass, *-EXST would grab all layers that end with -EXST regardless of whether they are in the reference file or not.

[tedg]

Is there any good reason for creating "EXST" layers if existing info is in a completely different file and xrefed in?
I mean, isn't it just redundant to see layers like: "A-FP-EXST|A-WALL-EXST"?
It's only redundant if ALWAYS are going to have the file structure set up with xrefs as stated.

HOWEVER, what if your client demands the cadd files as part of the deliverables, and they want the xrefs bound using the "insert" option. If you didn't separate the layer names, both will take on the same properties.

A-FP-EXST|A-WALL versus A-FP-NEWW|A-WALL

After Bind / Insert, all the layers A-WALL will be on the same layer.

We use NCS 3.1 for layer naming for this reason: A-WALL-N vs. A-WALL-E

[modulor]

All good points, thanks!
Also, as discussed in our office: it may be easier to apply specific color/ltype properties to layers in their base files than to manipulate them later in their host files.