text and piping?

[Wanderer]

how do you do this? you've got some piping right... let's say some heating hot water or some oxygen, whatever... do you put the text on the same layer as the pipes?

it's my humble opinion that they should be on the same layer, but, in nearly ever drawing coming into my office, the pipes are on individual layers, but, the labels for the pipes are all on a single text layer?

how do you do it? and, if you do it with text on a single, separate layer, why?

thanks.

[Augi Doggie]

how do you do this? you've got some piping right... let's say some heating hot water or some oxygen, whatever... do you put the text on the same layer as the pipes?

it's my humble opinion that they should be on the same layer, but, in nearly ever drawing coming into my office, the pipes are on individual layers, but, the labels for the pipes are all on a single text layer?

how do you do it? and, if you do it with text on a single, separate layer, why?

thanks.
IMHO, I like to make a separate layer for entities like pipes and one for the labels. This is handy if you want the label information turned off but the pipes on in the background when referencing it into another drawing.

A lot of the more popular CAD standards do it this way (National CAD Standards, AEC/Tri-services, AIA).

[jaberwok]

Lines is lines and text is text so I'd have them on separate layers BUT, when you use different layers to represent different services, why not use different layers for the labels that refer to different services?

£0.02

[Brian Myers]

As others have mentioned, they should be drawn on separate layers. (*sigh* yes, I used to do this work in another life....*) Ideally the layering standards will make it easy to identify this text in order to simply turn it off or isolate it with the correct layer.

[eckdahlrd]

We put all of our linework into master xref files according to discipline. Then, the sheet files have the text in it. This works great when other disciplines have to reference work. You don't have to go through and freeze a bunch of layers that are irrelevant to what the sheet is supposed to show. I know a lot of other companies do this too.

[david_ellis]

We also put the line work in a base file and xref then to sheet files is just text and notations for the individual sheet only. We do keep all the annotation on two layers for that sheet file. That layer is called G-ANNO for proposed and GE-ANNO for existing annotation. This helps keep from having to make a lot of layer for pipes center lines annotation and the like for just one item.

Hope it helps

[Wanderer]

We also put the line work in a base file and xref then to sheet files is just text and notations for the individual sheet only. We do keep all the annotation on two layers for that sheet file. That layer is called G-ANNO for proposed and GE-ANNO for existing annotation. This helps keep from having to make a lot of layer for pipes center lines annotation and the like for just one item.

Hope it helpswell, it doesn't make me happy, but, it does help me understand.
ok, so this practice is typical, and it's for the convenience of other contractors working on the project.

~sigh~ well... it's a pain for our uses here. We have a need to turn on/off certain types of piping and I like to know what the piping is without leaving all of the labels for the other pipes visible... IMHO, this practice also leads to some inconsistencies, as I'll be following a pair or more of pipes, and all of a sudden the labels will switch and I'll have to go field-verify which one is which...

hmm, something to think about... thanks for your feedback guys.

[stelthorst]

I like to create a separate text layer for each system. This gives me the best of both worlds (ie. I can show only piping or I can show piping plus the associated text.). It may seem like a pain at first but the first time someone asks you to give them a drawing showing only the power conduits (I'm an electrical guy) and not the telephone or fire alarm conduits you'll be happy you separated the text.

Just my 2c

[Wanderer]

I like to create a separate text layer for each system. This gives me the best of both worlds (ie. I can show only piping or I can show piping plus the associated text.). It may seem like a pain at first but the first time someone asks you to give them a drawing showing only the power conduits (I'm an electrical guy) and not the telephone or fire alarm conduits you'll be happy you separated the text.

Just my 2c~gives a cookie~ right on, man. :)

[kimlance]

Hi:

I agree with Scott. I am also in the electrical engineering field I separate my different utilities on different layers as well as separate text layers . Just makes everything easier to control. That's why we have layers.

[Quantum 2012]

When attatching text to pipe and/or fittings and/or valves, etc., we have created attributes that can be turned on or off with layers. This applies to some of our valves, where we have to know of a valve #, Ansi rating, MAOP, etc. Certain tags can be brought up using filters and layers, quickly and easily. Each major component can be identified in a drawing without cluttering up the page.
D.L.Warren @ KGS

[clffcooper]

The easy fix is to use two layers, i.e. pipe & pipe text

[tlewald]

different layers, different linestyles and different thicknesses too.

attributes & automatic labeling are even sexier.

[reed.stephens]

I am curious about what type of labeling you are asking about. I work with site plans that include a number of different utilities that are plotted only in black on white. These utilities appear on some sheets in a project while not in others. The density of these utilities at the given scale dictates only a single thin line. There are a limited number of linetypes that are sufficiently different in appearance to use that method to make them unique. That leaves the addition of a piece of text attached to the line as our preferred method of identification. In our case, the lines will never appear without the text and the text would serve no purpose whiteout the line. It is, in fact, part of the linetype. In this case, which sounds as if it might be similar to your situation, I have no problem with and I actually find it desirable to have the text with its associated linework on the same layer with one layer for each utility. I will further break convention and color this text by entity because when using a xref for a plan that needs to highlight this utility with a bold line the text would be rendered unreadable. There is the option to make a separate layer for text with each utility, but I see this as a potential layer management problem for a convention that is of no benefit to my plans.

[thomas.stright]

The easy fix is to use two layers, i.e. pipe & pipe textThats just what we do...
we have a lisp that when you use the elevation command for the piping package, you select the pipe and then the text you just placed. It then places the leader and text on a separate pipe-txt layer...


ie. CWS and CWS-TXT

(Now of I can just get the routine updated to work with my new piping package)

[revacservice]

Personally I use one layer for pipe work and one for text as my clients do not have a requirement for separating services and I like to keep the number of layers to a minimum.

The answer lies in what is the required result for example in heavily services projects such as hospitals it may an advantage to include all pipework in one file for coordination purposes but the installing contractors may be different for individual services thus requiring a separate drawing, there for separate layer and an associated text layer may be warranted for each type of service.

Alternatively to keep the number of layers to a minimum it may be an advantage to group services installed by individual contractors on their own layer, such as medical gasses, domestic water services, soil and waste lines, refrigeration, chilled and heating water.

The more complex a standard the longer it takes to apply and administer, conversely to simple and the desired output may not be achieved.

As with so many things in CAD there is no one answer, what suits one project may be too complex or too simple for a second. Each requirements of each project must be evaluated and the standard adapted to suite, sacrificing the flexibility of a multitude layers for the efficiency of a simpler protocol.