TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: CADaver on April 18, 2005, 03:42:18 PM
-
Just throwing this out to get the juices flowing.
What is that ONE, THE ONE most important standard. Now I'm talking about a standard like you'd print in a user manual for new hires. And flesh it out like'd you'd do in that manual.
Cime on, what is it?
-
Number One: Follow All Standards!
I dunno...Here, snap is pretty important, but more importantly, you have to make sure that the drawing isn't signed out to someone else before making changes.
I'm sure I could come up with THE standard if I watch our other CAD guy for a while...:roll:
-
(1) Adherence to company standards is a condition of employment; repeated failure to comply with said standards will be considered a failure to meet those terms and conditions, and justifiable means for termination.
:twisted:
-
If i'm understanding your question correctly, i'd go with layers.
-
If i'm understanding your question correctly, i'd go with layers.
Flesh it out remember. Layers what? I got layers, layer 1, 2, 3, 4, Betty, Jughead and Booty-tunes.
-
(1) Adherence to company standards is a condition of employment; repeated failure to comply with said standards will be considered a failure to meet those terms and conditions, and justifiable means for termination.
:twisted:
That one I like. In fact we have one worded very close to that.
-
i encourage others to use the custom commands that i provide in autocad to ensure that whatever they are creating it would go on the right layers and keeps the drawing enviroment standard.
-
... Booty-tunes.
Now there's one I gotta add to OUR standards :shock:
-
whoops sorry Mark.
credit> CADaver
-
(2) Our CADD Standards Manual is a living document that each of us is responsible for making sure is as up to date as practical. To witt, any standard which, in your opinion fails to ensure our CADD deliverables fully meet the requirements of our clients*, or has become antiquated by changes or improvements to AutoCAD shall be immediately brought to the attention of CADD Management so the document may be ammended appropriately.
* Client may be in-house or third party.
-
(3) If the procedure(s) associated with a standard can be automated such that adherence to the standard is assured or made more seemless please contact CADD Management so that said automation may be investigated.
-
Our CAD standards are pretty well there (for now, but that may change dramatically). We have 5 users and we work well on things like layering and layout standards. All the primary stuff is set up in a template so it's quite a no-brainer. For CAD, it'd be "USE THE TEMPLATE".
The real tough one is CONSTRUCTION standards. Being a very custom millwork shop, we'll do what ever is requested, or required to give the customer what they want. We do have published construction standards.... but they are really only a starting point. Every job we do departs from them sooner or later.
The other toughie (working on this one) is the PROCESS. I tell guys that when they get a set of archie drawing to spend a few hours studying them and planning their strategy first, before they even boot autocad. This has definately saved me huge amounts of time when a deadline is looming. Kinda like: study the map and plan a route, instead of just jumping in the wally wagon and taking off... getting lost... and missing a deadline.
Most of the guys here are very good at compliance with cad standards. But occasionally I need to SMACK 'em when they do something stupid like override a dimension, or explode a hatch. Didn't used (?) to be that way. Over time they've seen the benefit of WHY things are done the way they are. They appreciate how much easier things are from the previous "management". (Got a long way to go though!)
We're trying to find a method to get us to 3D that will work well for us. Evaluating several 3rd party apps, but some of them are lacking what we need.
-
Uhh...we have standard titleblocks and revision triangles. That's about as far as our CAD Standards go anymore. :(
-
i encourage others to use the custom commands that i provide in autocad to ensure that whatever they are creating it would go on the right layers and keeps the drawing enviroment standard.
Good one, and one we have to stess for every new hire.
-
... Booty-tunes.
Now there's one I gotta add to OUR standards :shock:
Remeber the hip plugs :wink:
-
Uhh...we have standard titleblocks and revision triangles. That's about as far as our CAD Standards go anymore. :(
But if you were the CAD-GAWD and could make just one mandate, it would be......?
-
(2) Our CADD Standards Manual is a living document that each of us is responsible for making sure is as up to date as practical. To witt, any standard which, in your opinion fails to ensure our CADD deliverables fully meet the requirements of our clients*, or has become antiquated by changes or improvements to AutoCAD shall be immediately brought to the attention of CADD Management so the document may be ammended appropriately.
* Client may be in-house or third party.
(3) If the procedure(s) associated with a standard can be automated such that adherence to the standard is assured or made more seemless please contact CADD Management so that said automation may be investigated.
Have you been reading our standards? Wait a minute, you're not working for me under some alias or something are you?
-
(1) Adherence to company standards is a condition of employment; repeated failure to comply with said standards will be considered a failure to meet those terms and conditions, and justifiable means for termination.
Thats the one I wish we'd have in our Manual. Ah well maybe one day :?
-
I work in a shop that has only two or sometimes three production drafters / technicians. Each of us are more under pressure from the engineer to get his deadline met without giving a rat's behind about any standards. The "prime directive" boils down to "do it as fast as you can and make it look like Steve did it" (me).
So what do I tell them? I am not really into controlling exactly how a person performs every task and prefer to focus on the finished product. I tell them to make their notes clear enough for a moron to understand what is required and give them a print that shows a sample of about everything we will ever draw along with lettering styles and the methodolgy for their adjustment to any scale, a set of layers to start out with and my own directive - EVERYTHING MUST BE DRAWN ACCURATELY AND TO SCALE. There is no grey area here, it is either drawn correctly or it is wrong. If it is correct all is well and any changes go smoothly. If not, it will fall upon me to fix their mess and NO ONE wants to travel that road more than once.
-
Have you been reading our standards? Wait a minute, you're not working for me under some alias or something are you?
Nope, those were off the top of me nuggin'.
The way I figures it -- it is vital the document be put into perspective right up front, lest all the effort to detail "how it ought-a-be", well, be for naught.
:cheesy:
-
The only "STANDARD" I know of here is, "DO IT RIGHT".
-
The only "STANDARD" I know of here is, "DO IT RIGHT".
Good thing everyone agrees on what "Do it right" means.
:lol:
-
Yah! Right! :lol:
-
STANDARD
What's a standard?
-
They are all important here. Most I've standardized so the users don't even know they are following standards. A big one I would same is file naming conventions.
Ron
-
How about these for Bidders Standards:
EXTRA NOTICE TO ALL BIDDERS
1. The work we want did is clearly showed on the attached plans and specifications. Our Engineers, who has had plenty of college, spent one hell of a lot of time when they drawed these here plans and specifications, but nobody can think of everything.
Once your bid is in, that's it, Brother. From then on, anything wanted by our engineers, or any of their friends or anybody else (except the bidder) shall be considered as showed, specified or implied and shall be provided by the bidder without no expense to nobody but himself (meaning the bidder).
2. If the work is did without no extra expense to the bidder, then the work will be took down and did again until the extra expense to the contractor is satisfactory to our engineers,
3. Our engineers plan is right as drawed. If something is drawed wrong, it shall be discovered by the bidder, corrected and did right with no expense to us. It won't cut no ice with us or our engineer if you point out any mistakes our engineer has drawed. If you do, it will be one hell of a long time before you do any more work for us or him (meaning the engineer).
Any attempt, by the bidder, to discredit our engineers highstanding reputations by sneaky means like showing a cheaper way to do something or showin why we don't need it no way is likely to result in bad things happen to him (meaning the bidder).
4. The bidder is not supposed to make fun of our engineers, his plans or the kind of work we're having did. If he do, its just too bad for him (meaning the bidder).
5. Any bidder walking around the job with a smile on his face is subject to a review of his bid.
6. If the bidder don't find all our engineer's mistakes before he bids the job, or if the bidder ain't got enough sense to know that our engineers is going to think up a bunch of new stuff that's going to have to be did before the job is completed, then its just too bad for him (meaning the bidder).
7. The bidder got to use all good stuff on this job - none of this crap from Japan.
8. Any bidder who watches (or ever watched) 60 Minutes or knows the name "Mike Wallace" won't be getting any contracts soon.
:lol:
-
Use Polar. And osnaps. There are no excuses for a 1/256" gap or a 0.01%%d rotation.
-
How about these for Bidders Standards:
You forgot:
All pipe this project shall have the hole on the inside of the pipe. Pipe with the hole on the outside shall be reffered to as rebar.[/list:u]
-
have you ever heard of the saying in autocad
"if you draw it more than once, well then you must be doing it wrong?
agree..?
-
That applies to computer based information systems (which CADD is one) in general, "If you're entering it more than once you're / we're doing it wrong".
-
(1) Adherence to company standards is a condition of employment; repeated failure to comply with said standards will be considered a failure to meet those terms and conditions, and justifiable means for termination.
Oh, dear God, how I wish this were the case at my office!
-
(http://www.theswamp.org/screens/mp/hammerdown.png)
-
MAMA!
-
:lol:
-
Uhh...we have standard titleblocks and revision triangles. That's about as far as our CAD Standards go anymore. :(
But if you were the CAD-GAWD and could make just one mandate, it would be......?
I am the CAD God at my company. :)
I know some people go crazy over layer standards, linetype standards, etc. but not I. We have very minimal standards; ctb files, dim styles, borders and revision blocks. Anything other than that is the responibility of the Project Manager. They get paid big bucks and thier name goes on the transmittal so if someone draws a hidden line in blue (0.256 width in the ctb) then that's thier problem.
I have no official power over anyone in the engineering department yet I can completely control. I am the only one in the company who knows how to program so I am in charge of our document management system and creating almost all custom programs[1]. Since I created most of the programs I basically have control on how things are done. My approach is to make it harder for people to not do it the right way. It's been working so far.
[1]The only custom program we use in engineering that wasn't developed by me is our batch plot program. It read's information from a list in a excel file, finds the drawings in our document management system and prints them with the information gathered from the excel file. I am seriously thinking about re-writing this in python for multiple reasons. One being that even though we have the source we can not modify it and recompile as it's in VB6. Another (the main) reason is a good chunk of the program is compiled to a dll, which I can not modify. If I re-write it then we will have complete control of the source code and can modify it as we see fit.
-
*bump*
Just getting input that I think we can all use. Hope to compile a list when I get my hands back.
-
Since I was hired I've been trying to create a standard for our company. Though it wasn't easy at first, they're plot files didn't make sense, dimensioning was standard, yuck!! The majority of everything was drawn on very few layers and they never plotted to a scale??????
So now I'm the remaing drafter, although I do have someone that helps out when I'm swamped, and he is getting better at using the so called "standards" here.
The easiest for me was to set up my templates the way I wanted and for the other drafter to make sure he started with that. At least it looked sort of right, I can't ensure the layers are correct but at least it's a start. :wink:
-
The easiest for me was to set up my templates the way I wanted and for the other drafter to make sure he started with that. At least it looked sort of right, I can't ensure the layers are correct but at least it's a start. :wink:
Well then let's expand that thought a bit. What's the ONE thing that would be REQUIRED in the template.
-
Besides the template set to a certain scale (hopefully that's a given)
1) text style and height, simple enough I know but that can really change the appearance of your plans.
2) plot file
3) layers
4) dimstyle
some big items I think (also very basic)
-
There is an international standard for the interchange and structuring of CAD data files.
Layer names shoudl consist of 3 mandatory parts.
1 - The agent responsible, (2 characters maximum)i.e A = Architects, B = Building Surveyors, E = electrical engineers, G = geographical system engineers/land surveyors etc etc
2 - The Element, (6 characters maximum) This should be taken from a recognised code of classification. uniclass - K36_ = External Walls. C1/SfB - 621_ - Electrical small power. etc etc.
and 3 - The presentation (2 characters maximum), D = dimensions, G = grid, H = Hatching, M = Model graphics, P = page/plot graphics, T = Text.
The user can also add optional fields which include such things as sector, i.e. basement, first floor etc, Status - new work, existing work etc, scale - A=1:1, B=1:5, C=1:10 etc. and finaly a user defined section which is an undefined unlimited string length.
As this is an international standard, ISO 13567, surely we all should be using this?
-
As this is an international standard, ISO 13567, surely we all should be using this?
Thanks, but no thanks.
-
One thing I dont about like about that standard is that I'd first be looking for the Electrical small power ,than C1/SfB - 621_ - Electrical small power,which wouldnt stand out too easy with the other info in front.Also reminds me of Architects layers, like for instance AHI48K-FDU7N8-FJ5DOORS,complex layer conventions that just confuse users.
-
As this is an international standard, ISO 13567, surely we all should be using this?
Thanks, but no thanks.
im with you on that 'no thanks'.
-
I'll third that.... No way Jose...
-
Add another makes four.
-
I have enough trouble getting the engineers to put their curbs on the layer named "curb" to send them off looking through dozens of criptic layer names for the correct one under that format. They would most certainly just place them on the first layer they found that was the correct color and let ME sort it out later.
-
C1/SfB - 621_ - Electrical small power
C1/SfB is the name of the standard, one which practically all UK bases construction companies use, (those that don't aren't very big).
So a standard layer is as follows E_63_M, which is lighting graphics, or E_62_T, small power text.
This is a descriptive content which is split over the services making each one easy to pick out.
Why does the US just ignore international standards they helped to draw up?
-
Why does the US just ignore international standards they helped to draw up?
Because "WE" didn't. A few (completely un-cad types) decided to provide a standard for us, much like the AIA, and in the process chose to ignore the several hundred thousand of us already using standards of our own. Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are less than intelligent for the vast majority of users out there.
-
Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are less than intelligent for the vast majority of users out there.
I agree with that. We have just been told we have to use the AIA standard and it stinks. The majority of the engineers here only dabble in cad so have difficulty finding out the correct layer names. The next few months are going to be fun (NOT!) trying to train the engineers in the new layer names. :evil:
-
several hundred thousand of us already using standards of our own.
You hit the nail on the head there, it's your standards, not mine or anyone elses, but if we all keep doing our own things, the system will never improve.
It's the same with the dinosaur engineers in here, "We fear change". Change can sometimes be for the better.
-
There are standards. We all learned them in school. Then some go out into the work place and "express their artistic talents". OR, as stated before, uneducated goons decide to create new standards. Prime example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They had the most complete set of standards ands symbology that existed. Had it down to a gnats butt. Then the computer types decided to redo the world with their cad standards. Did you know that there was not ONE trained designer on that committee? Thus, the mapping symbols that had been used for MANY years have been abandoned. Funny thing is that the manuals gave EVERY detail of each symbol so conversion to a CADD block was a no-brainer. Problem was, NO ONE on the committee knew the manuals.
-
You hit the nail on the head there, it's your standards, not mine or anyone elses, but if we all keep doing our own things, the system will never improve.
Point being, "they" took it upon "themselves" to determine that my standards required improving. Mine worked just fine for me, still do. In fact work MUCH MUCH better for me than ANYTHING that "they" have come up with since 1996. If "they" had just asked the thousands of us who have been doing this a very long time, it may have been different. But as it stands right now, I'm NOT going to go to a considerably less productive standard than I have in place for no other reason than to be "standard". If it does not improve the productivity of the end users, it will have a real hard time catching on.
It's the same with the dinosaur engineers in here, "We fear change". Change can sometimes be for the better.
It's not change we fear, it's change for the sake of change, or worse, change to something that bloody doesn't work. Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are NOT "better", just cryptic.
-
It's the same with the dinosaur engineers in here, "We fear change". Change can sometimes be for the better.
It's not change we fear, it's change for the sake of change, or worse, change to something that bloody doesn't work. Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are NOT "better", just cryptic.
For the record, the dinosaurs thing wasn't directed at you or anyone else here, it was directed at the engineers in my office who are "in charge" of the CAD operation but can't open a drawing, and won't let me change it for the better.
As for cryptic, 99.99% of building construction companies in the UK know these numbers, and they know them because they are a standard series.
I've been doing this job for over 17 years and In all that time no company I've worked for has ever used anythng except the CIBSE matrix codes.
What this requires most of all is for people to adopt the standards, because if they don't then we all remain doing our own thing, and electronic cad drawing file excahnges remain cryptic to anyone who doesn't know your system.
At the moment i'm tryiong to get a copy of the Architects matrix codes, (different standard), to try to decypher their drawings. But if they used the ISO standard I wouldn't need to because it would use the same codes for every job, and eventually I'd klnow what they were.
and that's my point, if we all use the ISO then everyone is in on it, and everyone would be able to understand the layouts.
Architects could use the steelwork drawings, and building services could use both with practically no changes being required.
I dream of the day where we all use the same standards to draw with, you could cut my workload by half just by doing this.
-
I have the solution!! Create layer names that even you don't understand. Then do like that Colorado bunch I had to deal with and name your blocks "A", "B"....etc. After "Z", the next name is "AA" on to "ZZ". Then draw EVERYTHING on layer ZERO and chane each line's color to suit the mood of the moment. Then be sure to move the center of your drawing to 0,0. An Architects Dream come true!!
-
"The one MOST important standard..."? "Mark all topics read."
-
But if they used the ISO standard I wouldn't need to because it would use the same codes for every job, and eventually I'd klnow what they were.
and in the mean time, I watch my profits slide away as I wait for the 250 guys here to "eventually" remember this cryptic nonsense.
and that's my point, if we all use the ISO then everyone is in on it,
Had they started with the industry that was already in place, doing the work with standards that were already working they may have had a better shot at getting it off the ground. But instead they chose to DICTATE to us how we were going to do CAD. Guess what? Here it is 10 years later and the so-called International standard is NOT so standard
and everyone would be able to understand the layouts.
Architects could use the steelwork drawings, and building services could use both with practically no changes being required.
Come on, you know better than that. The Architects that have their own standards don't use 'em. If there is no productive reason for their use, they will not be used. As long as any organization has a functioning standard that makes them productive, that is the standard they will use.
I dream of the day where we all use the same standards to draw with, you could cut my workload by half just by doing this.
We do it every day. Every one of our contractors and suppliers comply with our standards, without exception. Why? because we make it profitable for them to do so, and expensive if they don't. The current ISO standard just makes it expensive either way.
-
I do understand and agree with everything, well practically everything, you say. But the fact remains while everyone uses their own system people will find fault with it.
I agree that you can't have a standard which suits everyone, that is an impossibility. But if you can cater to 99% of the market then that standard will improve.
It's only by using a system that you can make it better. Standards are a continually evolving beast. I don't kow of any company (except mine :( ) that doesn't continually improve on their Quality control documents.
But as the saying goes, "If we all liked the same things the world would be a boring place".
-
the purpose of a standard for me is to bring out what the city or client likes. and furthremore the readablility of the drawings 20 years from now. i realize that as long as a house is built the plans will remain as well....
-
But if you can cater to 99% of the market then that standard will improve.
when they can cater to 20% of the market, i'll buy into it, and they won't get half that until they lose the cryptic alpha-numeric junk.
-
Just out of curiosity CADaver, can you show me a typical example of some of your layers.
Mine use the aplha numeric junk.
i.e.
_63_LTG
_63_LTG_TXT
_63_LTG_DETAIL
_63_LTG_SWITCH
etc etc
-
As for cryptic, 99.99% of building construction companies in the UK know these numbers, and they know them because they are a standard series.
I've been doing this job for over 17 years and In all that time no company I've worked for has ever used anythng except the CIBSE matrix codes.
I hate to rain on your parade, but I have been drafting in the UK for over 20 years and on CAD for 15 years and I have yet to work for a company that uses those standards. I have worked for large companies and small companies, using AutoCAD, Microstation and a small cad system (PAFEC DOGS). We dont even do architecture but now we have been told to use AIA standards, not any ISO standards. I wish that everyone (reading a multinational CAD user group) could agree a standard, but its not going to happen. Something simple, yet logical would be nice. Until this happens companies will go their own way
-
We dont even do architecture but now we have been told to use AIA standards,
I work for an architectural firm who has someone who thinks we should be using the AIA standards, but I know from experience that those standards where not developed by autodesk or people who new autocad inside and out. I use to work with a architect who had some influence and input into the development of the AIA layers standards and he was not an expert or even a general user of cad. His skill in my opinion sucked, but he had input into AIA standards.
This knowledge plus the experience of using the AIA standards for 2 year has lead me to believe even the AIA standards are out of date and need improving. Also the AIA standards do not cover all discipline. I personally believed every company should develop there own standards for their own needs and when working with consultants they pass along their standards to the consultant.
My last place of employment had a standard which was documented in a pdf file. We did a lot of work with other companies. When we sent our drawings out to the consultants a link was provided to our standards pdf file on our companies homepage. Anyone could download the file and see how our drawings where put together. The pdf was about a half a meg in size.
Unfortunately my former place of employment was bought out and the link to the standards has disappeared. I do have a copy of the companies 'office policies and procedures' that has the autocad standards in it. I am currently still use most of the former companies standards in my new place of employment. My new place of employment does not have a company standards and frankly I don’t think they ever will. No oen can agree on anything. :oops:
-
We had a guy that used to work for us and his standard was only about 2 layers - 1 for text and 1 for linework - and to change the color per item based on the weight you wanted. He was also practically blind so he drew everything much bigger than the rest of the office.
Notice I said he used to work here...
-
AHH!! It's finally been said!! "No one can agree on anything". There it is. What's to agree? Is everyone's management structure as weak as ours. Each firm should have ONE Cad Manager. He/she creates the standards and company policy should be that you do as you department head says. PERIOD. CAD Managers are not doing their job, either because the company fails to back their decisions or they want to be nice and "put it to a vote." It's not a voting item. Standards should be set and management should inforce those standards.
The boss has failed to manage corporate operations. He/she hired the head CAD guy because of their abilities. The idea was to put this person in charge of those operations. If they do not take charge, they should be fired. PERIOD. :evil:
-
gee, dent's been taking cadaver lessons.
unfortunately, most cad managers are not "real" managers, but rather they are just the employee that supposed to fix it when it breaks. they have no real authority to enforce a standard.
then there's guys like me, cad managers with "real" authority and "real" responsibility. we set standards, demand compliance, punish non-compliance, and take the heat when it blows up. sometimes some of my users think i'm just being an arse... well sometimes i am, but i do it to make the point that i really am in charge of this stuff.
-
Here, there are no CAD Managers per se, but a roll they like to call the "Drawing Office Coordinator" (law-dee-freakin'-daw! :roll:)
I think that each person who's been in this roll has changed the standard in some way, shape or form. There hasn't been a 'True' "Standard" since the days of manual board drafting.
I agree with Randy on this one...unfortunately, most cad managers are not "real" managers, but rather they are just the employee that supposed to fix it when it breaks. they have no real authority to enforce a standard.
-
That avatar is fraeikng me out man!
-
That avatar is fraeikng me out man!
What?! You don't like Trailer Park Boys? Bubbles rocks!
-
Bubbles rocks!
Sounds like an excerpt from the Michael Jackson trial.
-
*shudder*
Funny you mention MJ. Michael Jackson actually plays the role of Trevor on TPB! (Different quy whose parents have a sick sense of humour)
-
Haven't seen the series; that sounds twisted.
-
"DO NOT" Explode Dimensions or Hatch EVER.....Argh!
-
"DO NOT" Explode Dimensions or Hatch EVER.....Argh!
got a file from a supplier this week that was very interesting. everything exploded, i mean everything. everything on layer 0 with a fixed color and linetype. file was 128MB, 2d architectural floor plan, one drawing. what appeared as a solid wall hatch was actually dot hatch very very very close together and exploded.
it, of course, was out of compliance with contractual standards, and returned to the supplier with a nasty-gram.
-
got a file from a supplier this week that was very interesting. everything exploded, i mean everything. everything on layer 0 with a fixed color and linetype. file was 128MB, 2d architectural floor plan, one drawing. what appeared as a solid wall hatch was actually dot hatch very very very close together and exploded.
Ouch!!
-
Precisely what the supplier said when he read RC's (deserved) snot-gram.
/guess
-
How long have they been getting away with sending crap like that out? :shock: Not every company receiving a crap drawing to work on, would send it back.
-
How long have they been getting away with sending crap like that out? :shock: Not every company receiving a crap drawing to work on, would send it back.
i sure have wanted to :evil:
-
Precisely what the supplier said when he read RC's (deserved) snot-gram.
/guess
my guess is that it was considerably "bluer" that that. he lost a 15% early bonus, and if the acceptable files aren't on my desk by tomorrow morning he'll starting paying a 5% per week penalty for late.
-
How long have they been getting away with sending crap like that out? :shock: Not every company receiving a crap drawing to work on, would send it back.
this is the first time we've gotten something like this from these guys, and we've been working with them for a couple of years. i think he's got a new hot-shot cad guru that has a program to do this so that no one will steal their work. methinks they are re-thinking their procedures.
-
Turn on your computer :-D
-
If the standard is so unintuitive that you have to memorize it or look it up in a chart, you need a new standard.
How is 63-ltg-whatever intuitive? How do i know what 63 is? We have an architect that has all numbered layers 20 series is ceilings 30 is power etc. Their layer names are short, but other than that they are not very good. I have to have a sheet that tells me what layer is for what.
E-PWR-TXT electrical power text
E-PWR-EQP electrical power equipment.
EX-PWR-EQP electrical existing power equipment
ED-PWR-EQP electrical demolish power equipment
All the E's are in order and all the existing and demo electrical are in order. No chart to look up, just look at the layer names and you know what it is. The layer names are not that long either
No need for a manual that explains the standard, the standard explains itself. Also, all of our routines put things in on the correct layers to begin with. And it would be twice as much work to draft without the routines, so everyone uses them.