swiss
isisuser.com > ideas lab > node naming conventions that make sense?

View Idea

You need to login before you can vote.

If you are not registered on the site, register here.

-3
Node naming conventions that make sense?
Published on 29/09/2011 at 19:07 by PeterC
How about allowing names for nodes/units that are independent of the nodes/units they are attached to or that are attached to them. In the network chart the first column is "Label1", but it really allows no freedom for real labeling that is meaningful.
For instance, I might like to have a river section called "XS4", which goes to a culvert called "HwyCulvert". In the entry for "XS4", I would tell it to attach to "HwyCulvert", & in "HwyCulvert" I would tell it to attach to "XS4". At present the culvert takes the name of the river section in order to link to it, so is labelled "XS4", which is extremely unintuitive, especially when trying to keep track of more than a few nodes. Other node types would be treated in the same way.

1 comment

» Comment by fcebron on 04/10/2011 at 12:11

You have to add a junction between your section and your culvert if you want that they have different names.

In fact, in ISIS, we enter names of nodes and not names of units.... And the node upstream of your culvert is the section.. that's why they have the same name...

If the developpers of ISIS change this, they will change all the philosophy of ISIS :(

Add comments on this idea

You need to login before you can post.
If you are not registered on the site, register here.

Active users: 0 | Guests: 13

No registered users are logged in

We would like to welcome our newest member: SmartApps

fake rolex watches for sale
Replica Rolex Watches