This video shows how to use the Vertical Design tool to elevate two separate lines at their intersection point using either the Connector Instruction or using two separate Elevation Instructions placed close to the intersection point of the two lines.
I mocked up your example and took a run at it with the Current and Upcoming release - in the current release you would have to adopt the processes that I mentioned earlier in the post. In the next release I opened the same model and it is immediately fixed where a lone closes back on itself and matches the elevations appropriately.
See the video
or should I change the order of place on the rules
Yes The first rule is a free slope command, and second elevations,
may be the problem.
I have solved it in another way.@Alan Sharp
Here are the videos
Well it seems like that's the procedure I was attempting to explain in my OP and still got the error. I selected the "source" line for the elev rule in it's properties, then used the connect rule with that sourced line as the master (selecting it first). Perhaps I did something wrong. I'm sure your videos will clear it up for me, either way I know understand the work around. Thanks a million Alan!
The issue is currently with the tool - when you place an elevation control
at a location the search function looks for the nearest line to attach to
and finds 2 or more alternatives - currently that is unsupported so it
flags the issue as it does with a warning.
You can then use the properties of the rule and select the line it should
be attached to and that clears the warning
You can then use the connect to connect the second line to the line you
referenced in the rule properties using the ref line as the elevation -
that also works today
Ideally however we should allow a single elevation rule to attach to
multiple lines if they are all at the exact same placement point to save
having to do the above - one rule covers all the needs.
I created 2 more videos on this earlier today and will post them tomorrow am
Alan, I have had a little trouble with in the past also. What I don't understand is if you put your 102.3 elev directly at the intersection of the 2 lines then apply a connect rule why doesn't that work? It seems like since 102.3 elev is applied to a source line (source was the 100' line when I recreated your example), then a connect rule is applied with that source as the "master" for the connect rule, it should just connect that 102.3 to the slave line (95' line) in the same way it connects the interpolated elev in your example. It seems like the only difference is connecting a set elev to the slave line and connecting an interpolated elev to the slave line? Is this just a result of the way the tool functions or am I missing the possible conflicting data that creates the error? Thank you as always.