InRoads SS4 - Modify Feature Line without Modifying Corridor Template

First, I agree that the necessary workflow feels a little clunky, but mostly it is a result of the rules based system used by OpenRoads.  Since rules drive pretty much everything then it is pretty easy to define a circuitous set of rules and the software tries to protect us from such.

The solution you want is a point control.  The part of the workflow that feels a little "clunky", perhaps counter intuitive is a better word, is that you need to create some new geometry.  Here's the workflow:

1. Create new Horizontal geometry so that you have an element on which you can design profiles for the wall height.  This geometry may well be right on top of the original geometry created by the corridor.  To avoid confusion and make it easier to pick later, you could offset it a little, provided that the geometry will never be used for horizontal position and only for vertical.
2. Design the profile on this geometry which will drive the wall height.
3. Add a point control of vertical type. which drives the top of wall to achieve the desired heights.

Mary mentions that you could also use a parametric constraint.  To use this approach, edit the template  that is in the DGN, not the library. Editing the one in the DGN is the safest way to avoid loosing the other edits you have made.  Add a parametric constraint, if there is not one already, on the segment which defines wall height.  Then you can add parametric contrasts to adjust wall height.

Which method is best?  Up to you.  Some people like parametric constraints because it is quicker.  Personally, I like point controls for things which are innately geometric in nature, because it is more intuitive and because it is easier (I think) to trace the history a year from now.  IN my travels I have noticed that historical InRoads users tend towards parametric constraints while historical GEOPAK users tend towards point controls.

First, I agree that the necessary workflow feels a little clunky, but mostly it is a result of the rules based system used by OpenRoads.  Since rules drive pretty much everything then it is pretty easy to define a circuitous set of rules and the software tries to protect us from such.

The solution you want is a point control.  The part of the workflow that feels a little "clunky", perhaps counter intuitive is a better word, is that you need to create some new geometry.  Here's the workflow:

1. Create new Horizontal geometry so that you have an element on which you can design profiles for the wall height.  This geometry may well be right on top of the original geometry created by the corridor.  To avoid confusion and make it easier to pick later, you could offset it a little, provided that the geometry will never be used for horizontal position and only for vertical.
2. Design the profile on this geometry which will drive the wall height.
3. Add a point control of vertical type. which drives the top of wall to achieve the desired heights.

Mary mentions that you could also use a parametric constraint.  To use this approach, edit the template  that is in the DGN, not the library. Editing the one in the DGN is the safest way to avoid loosing the other edits you have made.  Add a parametric constraint, if there is not one already, on the segment which defines wall height.  Then you can add parametric contrasts to adjust wall height.

Which method is best?  Up to you.  Some people like parametric constraints because it is quicker.  Personally, I like point controls for things which are innately geometric in nature, because it is more intuitive and because it is easier (I think) to trace the history a year from now.  IN my travels I have noticed that historical InRoads users tend towards parametric constraints while historical GEOPAK users tend towards point controls.