Combination of alignment and existing surface in Profile

Question

I have an alignment whereby I need to use the existing surface at the start and the end of the alignment, but modify the middle section. Now, I have created a complex vertical element which is fine, however you then have to assign a feature definition to label the section that has been modified. This leads to all sorts of problems with the points on the existing surface being treated as VPI's and labelled. 
 Also, has anyone got a quicker way than slicing and dicing the existing surface to create a profile? It used to be that you could drape the whole alignment on the existing surface, and then apply vertical geometry which would override the existing surface from CH xx to CH yy. Now, its a case of trimming which not always works well. 
 The attachment shows the problem at the end whereby the section that is draped on existing is being labelled with VPI labels.

Shawn Cooke · Answer

Aaron van der Heyden said: I need to use the existing surface at the start and the end of the alignment 
 Can you clarify this need? (e.g. corridor use, terrain, etc...) 
 For example, if a corridor template is set to have a floating vertical origin that will be controlled by two vertical point controls, those point controls can be given a range and priority, removing the need for a combined graphic. Existing profile can be given a priority of 2, the middle section can be given priority of 1 causing the modified portion to be used when available in range. As you realized, Feature Definitions dictate how a profile is annotated, making profile distinction required... not so much slicing and dicing, but merely keeping the existing as is. Many clients require a different annotation for existing elevation (strip grades), so you'll likely only want the modified portion as a "proposed" Feature Definition to achieve VPIs, etc.