Support #6173
Problems creating shapefiles (Polygon type) for detailed areas.
100%
Description
For areas such as Amphitheater in Matrimandir, there is a lot of detailed linework which creates no issues in civil 3D but is very complex to create shapefiles. I spent a lot of time on trying to work it out but cannot manage complex details like a lot of steps in the Amphitheater, etc. Easy way out-like Giulio suggested- Put all the complex detailed linework in a different layer (Call it for example- V-BLDG-DETL------E) for each major group giving it a "line" type for shapefile. This is just for the sake of providing correct information while keeping things simple. Another aspect to it is that we should avoid creating code for this layer so that we do not reconcile the points and keep it where it belongs. Do we agree?
.png)
.png){kind=link}
Related issues
Associated revisions
Refs #6173: tables for layers with secondary minor groups
History
#1 Updated by Philippe May almost 6 years ago
- Assignee changed from Philippe May to Pavneet Kaur
Creating a new category is straightforward through the admin interface. Gisaf then creates a table for it, then allowing to import these shapefiles.
We (I and Pavneet) have created the category B999/BLDG-DTLS------E as lines, and it just worked as expected.
That said, i think we should make better use of categories and be more specific:
- have lines and polygon details (such as LDTL for lines, PDTL for polygons)
- use the minor group 2, so we could differentiate the different details
- being able to display the details for some category only
- keeping the possibility to set different styles on the map (eg. details for roofs would be displayed differently than details for a platform).
So, this would be: V-BLDG-OTLN-LDTL-E, V-BLDG-ROOF-PDTL-E, etc.
I don't fully understand: "Another aspect to it is that we should avoid creating code for this layer so that we do not reconcile the points and keep it where it belongs".
If we don't reconcile the points used in these new layers to their new categories, then we potentially would lose track of which survey point these shapes have been generated from. However, i understand that maintaining a list of points to reconcile would be quite difficult in practice.
So, i think it makes a good case for using the secondary minor groups: keeping it easy for people creating the shapes, while being able to trace, using the primary minor group, the survey points points.
Eg: the points in RAW-V-BLDG-OTLN------E, which is a category used by surveyors on the ground, are used to generate all the shapes in V-BLDG-OTLN-<anything>-E.
I would even go a bit further: instead of a generic shapefile for "details", we could have, in this case, "V-BLDG-OTLN-STEP-E" for steps, "V-BLDG-OTLN-RAMP-E" for ramps, etc.
If you agree with his line, i can improve Gisaf with the management of secondary minor groups, starting with the "tree" of categories which would have a third level.
#2 Updated by Philippe May almost 6 years ago
- Assignee changed from Pavneet Kaur to Philippe May
Just discussed with Pavneet: let's use secondary minor groups. The designer of the layer then chooses these accordingly: use the generic 'LDTL' and 'PDTL', or have specific ones like 'STEP'.
Ticket back to me: as of today, Gisaf doesn't create tables for these secondary minor groups.
#3 Updated by Philippe May almost 6 years ago
- Related to Feature #6177: Add a third level for secondary minor groups in the tree added
#4 Updated by Philippe May almost 6 years ago
- Status changed from New to Closed
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
#5 Updated by Philippe May over 5 years ago
I think we took a much more simple/practical approach: use a layer simply called 'line details', and tags (which are now in place, see #6582) can be used for adding information to each of these features.