Not sure if this is possible...
I am working on a shared use path, and I've been asked to design a single vertical alignment with "gaps" in it (to signify roadway crossings and other elements where we do not need a profile). Whether this is accomplished by an actual gap, or by outlandish elevations (used to do this with Geopak) - I don't know how best to go about this. I'd prefer something where I do not have to go through and delete unwanted sections of my profile every single time I need to visualize it.
And in similar vein, is there any way to make a gap in between template drops? Like: template, template, no template, template, template? That would be a whole lot easier than making (and keeping track of) a dozen separate corridors, and easier even that coming up with a "nothing" template (in case the transitions refuse to behave).
Thank you.MaryBPower InRoads 08.11.07.615
Mary, I don't know why you can't Drop templates Sta to Sta. With no transitions it should leaves the gaps you want,
Idaho Red
InRoads will not allow a section with no template. It will always connect features and triangulate between templates. Transitions, whether or not they are present, won't change that.
I've always found it easier to create a "nothing" template, with two features, to span the breaks then come back and delete the triangles in those locations. Don't rely on transitions to model these sections. Instead drop the normal template just before the gap, then drop the "nothing" template 0.01 or 0.001 after. The spacing for the "nothing" template drop should be greater than the length of the gap. Then do the reverse at the other end of the gap. When I've completed my design work I'll create interior boundaries at each of those gaps; it's more work than simply deleting the triangles but it's usually a heck of a lot less work than cleaning up the exterior boundary.
I've never tried modeling with gaps in the primary vertical alignment but I suspect that any template drops that fall in those gaps will be placed at elevation 0.
If it's important that the ends of the gaps look correct when visualizing the model, you will have to do some extra work. This is true whether you use transitions, "nothing" templates or multiple corridors. It's also true whether you create your visualization with surfaces or components. This is because exterior boundaries go from the end of one template to the end of the next. When you have abrupt changes in templates - such as these gaps or the start or end of a sidewalk or the end of a corridor - the exterior boundary will not include the intermediate points that have been dropped and you will end up with a bunch of very thin triangles that you will need to delete.
For most quick visualizations - for verifying modeling and reviewing project impacts - no extra work is needed beyond the inclusion of the "nothing" templates. Beyond that, the level of work required will depend on the level of refinement you're looking for in your visualization.
Answer Verified By: MaryB
Will InRoads let me create a "nothing" template with just "Do Not Construct" points, or do I need to actually create a dummy component?
I'll probably have a question or two about how to exclude those areas from my earthwork as well. In theory it will be negligible, but I don't know if whoever will be doing the quantities will be informed enough to remember to remove them altogether. If we aren't doing any construction, there is no earthwork, no matter what InRoads does and doesn't allow.
MaryB
Power GeoPak 08.11.09.918Power InRoads 08.11.09.918OpenRoads Designer 2021 R2
Try making a new corridor. Using InRoads, I have modeled several urban and interchange projects were I would have multiple corridor runs on the same alignment. A new corridor gives you a clean break between features. Works great for sidewalk and path projects were the walkway will end at the roadway edge.
But now there would be a dozen corridors to keep track of, to update if the geometry changes or the templates change. I understand that the modeling will be cleaner, but I'm not sure that we can pay the cost of the added complexity. The more moving parts we have, the greater chance that something will get overlooked.