This sort of relates to the post I made concerning the Aerials file a while ago. I am working on a large project currently. I am going to have multiple TEXTRD, MTPLRD, and other types of files. In order to keep track of which file is which, I wondering if it was acceptable to add small descriptions to the end of the file names.
For example: TEXTRD01_SR1, TEXTRD02_SR2, TEXTRD03_IntDet, TEXTRD04_Utils
In this example, I have plan sheets along two roadways that intersect. I will also probably have intersection details of some sort as well as the Utility adjustment sheets.
First off, is this allowed and will it pass for our Digital Delivery Submittals. Second, how creative are we allowed to get with the descriptions following the compliant file name. I am aware that the first six letters of the file name triggers which rule file it will follow and everything after that is just extra. I don't want to go nuts with the descriptions, just something to set them apart. Chances are, I will remember what the file is, but if someone else is working on the project, they may have no idea what all these TEXTRD files are without digging into each one of them.
I think you would be at the mercy of the reviewer using an approach like that. It may pass the QC check in CADD but a case could be made that it does not follow the CPCH. The reasons you state for changing the file names are the reason to be using a journal. That said, depending on the District the intensity of the review may be reduced since the days of Electronic Delivery. It is best to get advice from your District contacts.
I have recommended that method before but you should probably run it by your Project Manager. It was not the intent for anything in the CPCH to limit this but you never know how someone might interpret it.
If you do this, I would just say, no spaces or special characters in the file names and keep them as short as possible.
You can divide the project in segments and name the files accordingly i.e. TEXTRD101 for segment 1, TEXTRD201 for segment 2...... .We did that for a large project and it worked great for us. I agree with Mike and Jimmie that you should run the project layout or structure you are planning by your project manager first.