[IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

Question

We have two DGNLIB's setup for our Feature Definitions - one for Design and one for Survey. This was necessary due to the requirement that an XIN file must be linked twice, even though InRoads has supported features that could be Geometry, Surface and Survey. 
 In the Feature Definition DGNLIB, we have reorganized the Feature Definitions into categories, but have left the Survey Feature Definitions flat. Is there any known reasons why we cannot also reorganize the Survey Features into Categories as well? I don't want to start down this path and later find out that this will create an issue.

Robert Garrett · Accepted Answer

Hey Chuck: I have done such reorganizing in the past without issue. 
 In regards to your original challenge (the need to link twice), There is a potential solution if you do not wish to have two libraries. It is possible, after the XIN is linked for geometry, to go back thru the created feature definitions and edit the "Is Survey" switch to true. Significant amount of work of course. 
 I have made such manual changes in some of my client's libraries except in reverse. I needed to be able to use a Survey FD for geometry also. So, I added in the element templates and other switches needed for geometry. But, I did not do the entire library, just a select few. Perhaps 10%

[IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

Top Replies