Is it an acceptable practice to have two DGNLIB files for Open Roads - one for the Linked XIN Features and one for the Survey Feature Definitions?
I just set that up and while the only error messages I am now getting is for a JNC code and an older Alpha Code no longer in the XIN.
I am getting line work and points and they all report the proper feature in all the interface areas where you can query that information. But there are no cells being displayed and the line work and points are all on level Default.
Additional information: The linear features show Their Name and Feature Definitions as coded - so TOE2 has its name and feature definition as TOE2 but Style Name was TOE. I fond if I edited the Feature Definition name - even if it was adding a space after the name, would regenerate the figure and it would take on the style. But the points were still plain points on Default.
However, I discovered the Deactivate/Reactivate Survey Processing Rules and that fixed it all.
So using the two DGNLIBS seems to work and allows me to avoid the issues I was having with having to link my XIN twice - once for non-survey and again for survey, which created a lot of duplicated Feature Definitions with the survey version renamed to add a 1 to its name.
It would be nice if there was a simple regenerate graphics tool. It took me a long time to find this solution.
Can I get some sort of confirmation that this dual linked DGNLIB approach will not result in any problems?