Stacho

My initial thought is that steps resolution should depend on the scale perhaps.

20cm in plan or elevation will be a bit pointless at 1:500 or 1:1:1000 – would look like a fuzzy line.

Standard symbolized rise:tread of 2mm:3mm (or whatever) might be better.

Similar might apply to handrail elevations.

The idea that some symbolizations might be different in plan/elevation/none projections is intriguing.  I don’t think we have that yet (?), but it seems like a good idea for some types of symbol.

Edges, Borders

Personally I’d just go for a general line edge and drop the rock edge.   Or, given the current symbol set, stick with ‘line rock edge’.  Having said that I find I often want variants of general edges, lines or borders for all sorts of thing.  Maybe a line edge –scale [xs s m l xl] is a possibility and use the scale to scale line weight and symbolization size?  Same would be good for line border.  I like the current invisible, visible, presumed, temporary subtypes but I do find I use them for situations other than what their name suggests.

On a related topic…

Attached are some text changes I was just proposing to our local group for the ‘english translation’ of legend text.  Some are slightly clumsy in the phrasing and one spelling mistake.  They won’t necessarily all be appropriate for the global English audience, but I expect at least some are.

Also as in this picture below,

there is some untidiness and discrepancy in the symbol text size in the legend.  It could however be a function of changes I have made at this end.

Bruce