This may be something I'll have to live with, but I'm going to need your help explaining it to my PMs.
I see when I place my named boundaries, I have the option to define the "envelope" around my section - min. distance above and below the actual section linework. This does indeed give me a buffer of (say) 5' above the highest elevation in the section. But it's literally 5' above the highest elevation, whatever that may be.
The bottom elevation of the grid appears to be set to an even 5' increment, like 735. But the top of the grid is not at an even 5' increment it's not even at an even 1' increment. I have two consecutive sections, one of which has grid to 752.07, and another to 751.70. Why...???
Like, no, I get the logic of what is happening. But it looks bad (to me) and my engineers are VERY used to seeing grids to even 5' increments. Preferably the same size when possible. This "whatever" elevation is likely to cause consternation and complaints. So I'd like to find some way around it if I can! If a cross section can fit between 735 and 752.47, it can certainly fit on a grid from 735 to 755. This is what we are all used to seeing, and this is what I would like to create.
Is there any known way to create a rounded ceiling instead of a hard envelope for generating cross section boundaries/drawings? Is there any way to edit the height of the named boundaries after placement, to force them to an "even height"?
Easiest way I've found is to create a TM with 2 breaklines at the elevations that you want your grid band elevation. So for your example, a min. breakline at constant elevation 735 and a max. breakline at constant elevation 755. Create a TM of those 2 elements and use a FD that places it on a construction level. I usually have these breaklines located at a constant offset (offset geometry = offset I am showing in my XS grid) relative to the baseline I am placing named boundaries about. Set your clearances to be 0 for top and bottom. This method works pretty well when you don't have a lot of elevation change across your project. If you do, make multiple TMs through the ranges/elevation bands you want to see. Create a named boundary group for the first range, then append to that group to get the rest.
HTH,
Justin
Justin Guiliano, PE
Answer Verified By: MaryB
That's exactly what I was thinking about. I'm in "flyover country" - some projects have notable elevation changes, but a lot of them don't.
No different than what I used to do in Geopak to get my sections spaced properly on my sheets - I would create a construction shape to cover the desired elevation range.
MaryB
Power GeoPak 08.11.09.918Power InRoads 08.11.09.918OpenRoads Designer 2021 R2
Just to confirm - is there no way to programmatically get the sections to round up to the nearest even elevation?
From everything I've been told, that's a no go. We used to have grids in our cross-section sheets. Now we have to let the program draw the grids since you can't control the spacing like was possible in V8i.
Charles (Chuck) Rheault CADD Manager
MDOT State Highway Administration
Yeah, and now the grids run up to some "random" elevation...It's not wrong but it's not the way people want to see things 'round here.