I use floors for roads and pavements but if you got some sloping in your topo tou need to use massing and site.

Good tutorial.

I use Roofs, and Roof Fascias. When there is intense sloping, i use Dynamo to "push" the slope of a topography control element to the Roofs.

+1 for roads & fascias.

+2 for roofs and fascias

"roads"...? LOL. Typo.

Be prepared for people to lose their minds when you use a roof to do a road. And then use the roofs anyway because it works

It's our own damn fault for hammering on not crossing categories back in the days before filters... now it's practically a moot point.

Funny how a Revit Project has the Category "Roads" but you can't create a family from a template, or convert a Generic/Adaptive family into one either. I've used both Floors with Slab Edges as curbs, & Roofs with Fascia.

Was recently looking at using Adaptive Components that has Parameters for the typical road profiles for the road cross-section, & also for (2/3/4-way) Intersections. Has anyone played with using A.C. as roads before?

This came up in another thread here recently, where someone basically made the unilateral statement that misusing Categories automatically means you are building a *lesser than* model, which is hilarious. If Revit Categories were all treated as equals (visibility options wise, cuttability wise, and modeling technique wise) i would say sure: Lets all be huge advocates of treating categories as the original developers intended.

But they arent, and they dont. And Revit Categories (as far as im concerned) are mostly useless, because of it. And everyones interpretation of what what goes on wat category, is different as well. And thats where it gets interesting: I dont consider a sidewalk or a parking lot ANYTHING like a Floor. Why is it more like a Foor than a Roof, when both are horizontal planar-like elements? In fact, more often than not Roofs accommodate low slope and drainage situations, which are features more like Landscaping, than Floors, which are typically flat, and made of interior materials (except slabs).

THEN you get in to all the modeling inequivalencies, and THEN you get in to all the workflow inequivalencies.

And before that, you get in to: What about all the stuff that DOESNT have a clearly defined Category? Most people thing Specialty Equipment is the "catch all" for all things that are deemed "Equipment" by either Master Format or Uniformat, but that turns SE in to one large uesless bag of everything. Which is whatr happens to Generic Models if you put them all in Generic Models.

But the REAL reason people are so *anti* Generic Models, is because 15 years ago, when Categories were still fairly sacred, someone whos content was ALL Generic Models, was generally doing so because they didnt know any better. So it became an unsaid Rule, and now "BIM-jockeys" like to repeat that rule, to act like they know something. What they forget is back then (mid 2000's) you didnt have a supported method for customizing your own Classifications file, and there were no Filters at all. So using Categories as intended was the ONLY real way. Of course, you were also Workset Borrowing, instead of Element Borrowing, back then as well.

The advent of Filters and the ability to Classify things with your own organization tables, means Categories are only as important as you need them to be. For me, the answer to that is not very.

If you REALLY want people to lose their minds: My Floor finishes are modeled as Roofs too. And they ARE "floors" in real life. And i dont lose ONE minute of sleep over it. Neither do all the clients that are now using that method.