Help with alignment import error

View Only

Scott Cavendish posted 12-12-2024 06:36

The EOR for our project sent us some alignment files created in OpenRoads Designer. They all work except for this one file. Alignments B & D will not import. The error message is:

C:\Worksets\FDOT\43018535201-I-4\3DDeliverables\AMG-430185-3_partial\AMG-ALGN03.xml

Date created: 11/21/2024 3:37:30 PM
Date imported: 12/12/2024 8:26:10 AM

Errors: 2
1.	Alignment 'CONST. RAMP B' was not imported because its data is incorrect.
2.	Alignment 'CONST. RAMP D' was not imported because its data is incorrect.

Messages: 3
1.	No COGO point was imported.
2.	Alignment 'CONST. RAMP A' was imported.
3.	Alignment 'CONST. RAMP C' was imported.

I've compared the alignments in the xml and cannot see what's causing the issue. Anyone got any ideas? The EOR doesn't know what the problem is either.

Attachment View in library

AMG-ALGN03.xml 16 KB

Ronny Schneider posted 12-12-2024 08:22

The alignment data is incorrect.

For ramp B the 4th arc doesn't start where the 3rd ends.

And for ramp D the last arc doesn't start where the previous ends.

Erik Petersen posted 12-12-2024 08:24

I just washed in through civil. Should work now

You can see what Ronny is saying above on Ramp D.

Double check with the plans

Attachment View in library

AMG-ALGN03 CIVIL.xml 17 KB

Andrew Klingenberg posted 12-12-2024 08:48

We frequently have issues like this with ORD alignments. ORD supports gaps (and overlaps) in alignments, so situations like this are not seen as problems through the eyes of ORD.

A quick way to find this in ORD is to run the Horizontal Report on the alignment, and in the Report Browser choose the "HorizontalAlignmentCheckIntegrity" report. Look at the "Northing Difference (End to Next)" and the "Easting Difference (End to Next)" columns, if any numbers are not zero there's the gap/overlap.

Ideally this should be fixed in ORD, as removing the gap/overlap will change the stationing of the alignment (and objects referenced from the alignment) as seen in ORD. Changing it outside of ORD will result in discrepancies between e.g. TBC and ORD. If it's truly desired to maintain a gap in the alignment, it will need to be broken into separate alignments to maintain correct stationing.

Scott Cavendish posted 12-12-2024 11:32

It appears that the break/shift in the alignment is correct. Looking at the PDF of the plans:

I think the correct way to fix this is to break the alignment into 2 separate alignments to keep the stationing correct as per Andrew.

Thanks for figuring this out for me!!