National CAD Standards for Civil

[civil3Dguide]

I started using NCS layer names, just after I started using Civil 3D. I have taught and even convinced many of people on why to use NCS, at least for layer names if nothing else.
I like these layer names for 2 main reasons. Civil 3D templates come using them, and it makes it easier for people to work with other peoples drawings.

now it does set people back, because of whatever layer names they are used to in their office. Myself having worked so many places as an employee and a consultant, i found that every firm I went to had their own names. This can make working with them harder, and for new employees it takes time to learn the new names.

Here is one of the things I tell everyone; there is a far greater chance that a new hire will know the NCS layer names, than there is that they will know yours. You also are easier to work with when you have a common layering naming system, and what other choice is there other than NCS. Take into account that I'm a Civil 3D trainer, so back to my earlier statement, Autodesk helped to influence me to change years ago.

One thing that can sometimes be helpful is adding descriptions to your layers.

I have also used the NCS sheet names, but not that often. The blocks that or used are pretty common, but at the same time they are outdated and basic.

[cadtag]

I..., and it makes it easier for people to work with other peoples drawings.... The blocks that or used are pretty common, but at the same time they are outdated and basic.

I'm glad to hear your in favor of using NCS for Civil. The next question is, what can the NCS committee do to improve uptake of NCS in the civil world? Better documentation? or at least not docs that look as thought they are by architects for architects? Is there a "good" source of standard symbology that could be included?

as an fyi -- one organization is naming their corporate c3d styles using NCS layer naming conventions -- does that make sense, or do you see any problems with that?

[civil3Dguide]

what can the NCS committee do to improve uptake of NCS in the civil world? Better documentation? or at least not docs that look as thought they are by architects for architects? Is there a "good" source of standard symbology that could be included?

as an fyi -- one organization is naming their corporate c3d styles using NCS layer naming conventions -- does that make sense, or do you see any problems with that?

This is going to be a long response!

One thing that would help, and there may be no way to do this. Make the NCS an open source document. I have worked directly with hundreds(600-800?) of Civil, Survey and other related fields CAD users, designers, Engineers, Surveyors, etc... and have only known of 1 Civil Engineer out of all of these people that had the NCS documentation. He had a copy of his own, it was not bought by his employer. Now I know a few hundred dollars is not much for these documents, but if so few people have access to them, than there is not much chance of anyone using these standards. I myself only had access to these documents while I worked with that 1 Engineer. If most people don't know how to create new layers with NCS names, than it makes it hard for them to use them. I do not recall there being a problem with how the docs are written, but I also have only read one version, so my knowledge is limited, to version 3 or 4. I'm not sure which one it was, but I'm thinking it was 3.

Autodesk and the pre-installed Civil 3D templates have had the biggest influence on the Civil adoption of the layer names. However, C3D does not come with a NCS based ctb file to be used with these templates. At the same time C3D influences this adoption, the massive amount of layers in C3D also make it hard for people to learn the NCS layers. When they see that there are 200+/- new layer names to learn they start to question moving to NCS, even though this large amount has everything to do with C3D, not NCS.

Civil and Survey firms tend to have their own layer standard names, and they don't like to change. Surveyors hate the fact that they do not get "S" at the beginning of their layers. Civil and Survey have mostly used "P" or "Prop", for new items and "E" or "Ex" for existing items. The NCS is not set up in that style, which separates proposed(Civil) and existing(Survey) information and objects. They have an issue with this. We know there are Layer filters and other methods to work around this, but very few people are really good at CAD tools and tricks, most don't even know what a layer filter is. I tell people it can be as simple as viewing almost any layer that starts with "C" is proposed and any that start with "V" is Survey, but that is not 100% correct all the time.

The blocks are pretty much the standard in my fields, but more and more firms are trying to make their drawings look better, or different from other firms. This is ok for plotted sheets where there is a table of the symbols, but if that is missing or if they are sharing models, than there could be some issues knowing what a symbol represents. I do not know of a better selection of blocks that would make everyone happy. What is in NCS is possible the best options already. I am trying to work off of my memory however, and it fails me quite often. My personal opinion is that at least some of them could be updated as to not be so basic, but this could just be my personal preference and based off of some of the blocks I've worked with over the years.

Style names being based on NCS layer names leaves me puzzled! Most styles use multiple layers, could be 12 used in one style. So I'm having trouble picturing how they could use them as names. I would be interested in seeing them, so maybe I could get an understanding of this method. I can not even figure out why that would be a method of naming styles. I however never think I know everything there is to know about anything.

The very best way I can think of to get firms using National CAD Standards is to require it on projects. Almost everyone thinks their way is better, faster or at least easier.

If Autodesk added the feature of creating layer names by picking what it is for, like in Arch. Desktop, that would be very helpful.

Civil Engineers and especially Surveyors fell like the NCS was just based off of AIA standards and there is that us against them mentality that gets in the way with some people. Some public relations or more background information in the documents about who all determines the standards may help. This may be in the documentation or on the website already, I can't remember.

My last thought; education is the answer to this issue as with most all CAD issues! So how can we educate users on how to not only use NCS, but why it is a good idea?

[sinc]

as an fyi -- one organization is naming their corporate c3d styles using NCS layer naming conventions -- does that make sense, or do you see any problems with that?

I'm with Christian... This leaves me puzzled. I can't particularly figure out how such a system would work, and am also puzzled about why someone would want Styles named in such a way. We find it far more useful to have Style names that indicate the usage or appearance of the Style, and can't see how a NCS-style layer name would be useful in any way as a Style name.

[cadtag]

I'm not familiar enough with the scheme to defend it (yet), as we're in the midst of a c3d 2011 training session that's introducing that as the corporate standard. It's different enough from what the isolated shops have done in the past that it can be positioned as the corporate 'thing to do', which avoids the political infighting of whose styles will become SOP.

I can see the discipline level being an advantage name, since V-SPOT as a style separates survey's representation of the info from civil's preferences in C-SPOT-E. As or for the rest of it, ask me in a year after I've used it in real life long enough to feel comfortable (uncomfortable) with it.

[cadtag]

This is going to be a long response!

great, that's what I'm looking for!

The blocks are pretty much the standard in my fields, but more and more firms are trying to make their drawings look better, or different from other firms. This is ok for plotted sheets where there is a table of the symbols, but if that is missing or if they are sharing models, than there could be some issues knowing what a symbol represents. I do not know of a better selection of blocks that would make everyone happy. What is in NCS is possible the best options already. I am trying to work off of my memory however, and it fails me quite often. My personal opinion is that at least some of them could be updated as to not be so basic, but this could just be my personal preference and based off of some of the blocks I've worked with over the years.

There's actually next-to-nothing in NCS 4 (and I think 5, although that just came out and I've not examined it in depth) for Civil, Survey, Mapping, Geotech, or Transportation as far as symbols or block/cells. There is a fair bit for Electrical and Instrumentation, but not much at all for any kind of site or civil work. The E&I people had ANSI standards already, and the NCS symbols came from there. As far as I know, there is no equivalent for Civil, so our typical symbology just evolved. Most of us are pretty similar, so it ought to be possible to pull together some typicals and get them defined as NCS standards. Submittals requested and welcomed!

Thanks for the feedback!