How to Create Cross-Section Drawings with Cross-Section Navi? 5 Setup Tips to Avoid Failure

Table of Contents

Basics to Understand Before Creating Cross-Section Drawings with Cross-Section Navigator

Setting Point 1 to Avoid Failure When Creating Cross-Section Drawings: Choose a Section Line Appropriate to the Purpose

Section Drawing Settings That Don't Fail — Tip 2: Clarify the Approach to Vertical and Horizontal Scale and Emphasis

Setting Point 3 to Avoid Failure in Creating Cross-Section Drawings: Check the Accuracy and Range of the Source Data

Setting Tip 4 for Successful Cross-Section Creation: Determine the Priority of Display Items and Annotations

5 configuration points to ensure success when creating cross-sectional drawings: align output settings with the delivery destination

How to Use Section View Navi Effectively in Practice

Summary

Basics to Understand Before Creating Cross-Section Drawings with Section Drawing Navi

Many people who search for the term "section drawing navigator" are not only looking for how to read section drawings but also want to know how to actually create them in a form usable for work. There are many situations where section drawings are needed — site checks, preliminary design reviews, construction planning, understanding as-built conditions, and checking elevation differences of land and structures — and the knowledge required to read them differs somewhat in nature from the knowledge needed to produce them. If you only need to read them, it is enough to interpret the displayed drawing, but when you take on the role of the creator you must decide where to cut, to what degree of precision to represent things, and what to leave on the drawing.

The reason practitioners stumble when creating cross-section drawings is less the operation of the drafting software itself than proceeding while the assumptions behind the settings remain ambiguous. For example, if the position of the section line does not match the intended purpose, no matter how visually appealing the drawing is, it cannot be used for decision-making. If the approach to vertical and horizontal scales is not clarified, elevation differences can be either overly exaggerated or, conversely, unreadable. If drawings are produced without verifying the accuracy of the source data, problems can arise later when they do not match the actual conditions. In other words, cross-section drawings should be regarded not as mere drafting work but as a design task for extracting and conveying information.

In search intents like those for cross-section drawing navigation, people who want to learn how to use it and people who want procedures they can reproduce directly in practice are mixed together. Therefore, surface-level operational explanations are not enough. What’s important is understanding why a particular setting is necessary, what will happen if the setting is incorrect, and how far you should decide things in advance to reduce rework. A cross-section drawing may appear to be a static deliverable at first glance, but in reality it is a dynamic deliverable that involves understanding the target object, organizing measurement data, and the drawing’s communicative power.

Section drawings also serve to supplement information that is easy to overlook on plan views. Objects that appear to occupy the same position on a plan can be clarified in a section by differences in elevation, changes in slope, burial conditions, and overlapping structures. Conversely, section drawings tend to contain a lot of information, so if they are carelessly configured the necessary information can become obscured. How a section should be presented varies greatly depending on its purpose—whether for explanation, verification, design review, or consensus building.

The important thing here is not to treat a sectional drawing as a finished product from the outset. In practice, the initial section is often a working draft to test a hypothesis, and you improve its accuracy by fine-tuning the section position, adjusting the display range, and adding annotations. Nevertheless, if the necessary items aren’t organized in the initial settings, you tend to end up redoing the entire job each time you make revisions. What you need in sectional-drawing navigation is not to produce a perfect diagram in one go, but to have decision criteria that let you efficiently move closer to a usable drawing.

This article organizes five settings that practitioners who create cross sections are especially likely to get wrong, and provides a detailed explanation of the thinking behind each and practical points to watch for. The five settings—how to determine the section line, how to consider scale, how to handle source data, how to organize display items, and how to align output conditions—are fundamental factors that determine whether a cross section is usable in professional work, rather than mere cosmetic adjustments. The content is compiled to be useful not only for people who will be making cross sections going forward, but also for those who already make them and are struggling with poor communication or rework.

Setting Point 1 for Successful Section Drawing Creation: Choose a Section Line Appropriate to the Purpose

What most strongly determines the quality of a section drawing is the placement of the section line—where you cut. If the cutting position is off, no matter how carefully you carry out the subsequent work, you will not be able to extract the intended information sufficiently. Nevertheless, in practice people often proceed by running the section line roughly through the center, mechanically aligning it with existing drawings, or choosing a spot on the plan that simply looks easy to read. This is the typical beginning of failure in producing section drawings.

The first thing to consider when deciding a section line is what you want to check with that section drawing. If the purpose is to understand elevation differences, you need to choose the direction in which changes in relief are most clearly shown. If the purpose is to check for structural interference, the line should pass where the positional relationships between the objects appear most clearly. For examining drainage or slopes, you should prioritize directions that make it easy to trace water flow and changes in gradient. In other words, a section line should be determined not by how it looks on the plan but by the location where the phenomenon you want to confirm is most apparent.

What you need to be careful about here is not trying to judge based only on a representative cross-section. Because sites and structures are not uniform, it is often impossible for a single section to explain the whole. You must capture all points of change—places where the width varies, where slope geometry changes, where obstacles are concentrated, where ground conditions switch, and so on. I understand the desire to summarize everything in a single cross-section drawing, but a section that omits necessary points of change becomes an incomplete document rather than an organized one. When multiple cross-sections are required, organizing them using the concept of a primary cross-section and auxiliary cross-sections makes handling them easier in practice.

Also, when setting section lines, the correspondence with the plan view is important. If someone looking only at the section drawing cannot visualize where that section passes through, the drawing’s value is greatly reduced. Section lines should be placed on the plan in positions that are easy to trace, and the orientation of the start and end points should be standardized. For example, by aligning rules within the company or project—such as left to right or bottom to top—you make it easier to prevent misreading in work involving multiple people. If the section direction varies each time, it can cause different interpretations even when viewing the same subject.

Furthermore, a section line does not necessarily have to pass through the center of the object. Problems can be invisible on the centerline. On site, important information often lies off-center—such as step differences at the edges, settlement on only one side, partial obstructions, or local gradient defects. If what you want to show is not in the center, there is no need to insist that the section line be centered. Rather, you should discard the fixed idea of the centerline and be flexible in shifting the section toward positions where problems are likely to occur.

At the stage of deciding section lines, keeping the actual end users in mind after output can help prevent mistakes. The required section location changes depending on whether the design staff will view it, the construction staff will view it, or it will be used to explain things to the client. Designers emphasize dimensions and changes in shape, construction staff emphasize work-related interference and construction allowances, and for explanatory purposes ease of understanding is prioritized. In other words, even for the same object the optimal section line varies by purpose. If you are considering creating sections with Section Drawing Navi, it is important to first organize who the section lines are being drawn for before focusing on the operations.

As a practical approach to setting section lines, rather than finalizing the production section immediately, it is effective to generate and compare multiple candidate lines. Create provisional sections and compare which line best represents the issues; this allows you to set lines with minimal rework. At this stage, check whether the cut range is too narrow, whether surrounding information is sufficient, and whether the necessary elements are included in the section—doing so will make subsequent scale adjustments and note organization easier. Because section lines, once set, broadly affect downstream processes, they are an item worth spending time on at the outset.

Setting Point 2 to Avoid Mistakes When Creating Cross-Section Drawings: Organizing How to Think About Vertical and Horizontal Scale and Emphasis

A very common reason section drawings become hard to read is that the vertical and horizontal scale settings do not match their intended purpose. Unlike plan views, section drawings require reading changes in the vertical direction, so treating the horizontal and vertical scales the same way can make crucial elevation differences and slopes difficult to discern. Conversely, overemphasizing the vertical scale can make slight undulations look like extreme steps, leading to misunderstandings. Scale settings in section drawings should be regarded not as a visual effect to improve readability but as adjustments for accurate understanding.

In practice, when setting the scale for a cross-section drawing, the basic approach is to start from what the viewer will first judge. If you want to grasp the overall flow or trend, it is acceptable to keep vertical exaggeration modest. However, if you want to see slight elevation differences, subtle gradients, or localized deflection or settlement, you need to emphasize the vertical scale to some extent for those differences to be discernible. The issue is not the exaggeration itself but whether the degree of exaggeration is consistent within the drawing and across the project. If a given elevation difference looks small in one drawing and the same magnitude looks large in another, comparisons and judgments become impossible.

A common mistake when setting the scale is choosing the magnification based solely on appearance. If you adjust it because it’s easier to see on a screen, fits neatly on a page, or the margins look tidy, important information for users can be conveyed in a distorted way. For example, if a gentle slope is made to look steep, it may lead to incorrect prioritization of countermeasures. Conversely, if there is actually a problematic step but the setting makes it look flat, it can lead to overlooked risks. Because cross-sections are highly explanatory, they are correspondingly more affected by the choice of scale.

Therefore, when creating cross-sectional drawings, it is important not to decide the aspect ratio haphazardly for each project, but to standardize it for figures that will be compared. When multiple cross sections are placed side by side for comparison, matching the aspect ratio makes it easier to compare the magnitude of change. If there is a reason to emphasize the vertical direction in a specific cross section, treating that cross section as a separate figure will help avoid misunderstandings. If magnifications are mixed within a series of cross-sectional drawings, the reader cannot immediately determine whether differences are due to the drawings themselves or to differences in scale. Even when efficiently creating sections with a cross-section navigator, this perspective of comparability is essential.

Also, scale settings need to be considered in relation to notes and dimensions. Emphasizing the vertical direction can make shapes easier to see, but numbers and text tend to become crowded, which can result in cross sections that are hard to read. In drawings that deal with small elevation differences in particular, dimension lines, elevation labels, datum lines, and auxiliary lines tend to become concentrated, so display priority must also be reviewed. If you change only the scale while keeping the same amount of information, the purpose of the drawing can become blurred.

Another important consideration regarding aspect ratio is what preconceptions the reader brings. With cross-sectional diagrams, those seeing them for the first time are more likely to be swayed by their visual appearance. A diagram that strongly exaggerates the vertical scale makes viewers perceive a steep, large change even without looking at the numbers. Conversely, a diagram that lacks sufficient emphasis makes the problem seem minor. That is why those who produce cross-sectional diagrams must verify that the information they want to convey matches the impression the reader will receive. Scale settings exist not for the convenience of the drafter, but for the reader’s understanding.

To reduce mistakes in practical work, it is effective to put the scale policy into words from the outset. Decide in advance how much emphasis to allow depending on whether the section is intended for overall understanding, for checking fine differences, for explanation, or for review. With this policy in place, it becomes easier to maintain consistency in drawings even when the person in charge changes. The readability of section drawings may seem like a matter of intuition, but in reality it rests on multiple conditions: purpose, comparability, the reader’s impression, and the balance with the amount of annotation. Not treating scale settings as merely cosmetic adjustments is a major turning point in producing section drawings that avoid failures.

Setting Point 3: Check the Accuracy and Coverage of the Source Data to Avoid Failures in Cross-Section Drawing Creation

Section drawings are often seen as the final deliverable, but their quality is largely determined by the condition of the underlying data. No matter how carefully you draw section lines, adjust the scale, and arrange the layout for readability, if the source data lacks sufficient accuracy you cannot guarantee the reliability of the section drawing itself. In practice, because a well-presented drawing tends to look correct, awareness of the source data can easily become lax; creating section drawings while leaving this unclear may lead to discrepancies with actual conditions or design errors surfacing in later stages.

The first thing to check when reviewing source data is how the information was acquired. Whether it comes from on-site measurements, existing drawings, photogrammetry, point clouds, or elevation data, the expected accuracy and points of caution differ. For example, some data may be suitable for broad-scale understanding but limited in representing fine detail, while others may have high local accuracy but weak overall continuity. In cross-sections, ignoring these characteristics of the source data and treating everything uniformly can lead to failure. What is necessary is not to trust all data equally, but to determine whether they are sufficient for the intended purpose.

Next, the extent of the data is important. It is often assumed that capturing only the information along the line where the cross-section will be drawn is sufficient, but in practice information around the cross-section is frequently required. For example, the positions of the slope shoulder and slope toe, nearby structures, the continuity of the terrain, and the presence of interfering objects can all provide judgment material even if they lie slightly outside the cross-section line. If the data cover only the minimum necessary range, you may be able to produce the cross-section itself, but you will not be able to carry out adequate assessments using the drawing. When creating cross sections, it is important not only to have data on the cross-section line but also to ensure you have sufficient margin of information before, after, and to the sides.

Furthermore, the source data may contain missing portions or noise. Depending on onsite conditions, some parts may not be visible, and shapes that should be continuous can be partially interrupted. If this is rendered directly as a cross-section, it will appear as unnatural steps, breaks, or missing features. Conversely, automatically interpolating missing data can produce a smooth shape that does not actually exist. Because neither issue is easy to detect from the appearance of the cross-section alone, checking the original data is indispensable. A cross-section that looks clear is not necessarily a correct one.

What practitioners should pay particular attention to is mixing data from different points in time. Because topography and structures change over time, combining data sets with different update dates can introduce temporal discrepancies into cross-sections. Even if these are hard to notice in plan view, they can become obvious in cross-section as differences in elevation or positional misalignment. A drawing may appear as a single cross-section on the map, but it is not uncommon for it to actually force together conditions from different times. Before creating cross-sections, you need to clearly decide which point in time to use as the reference.

Furthermore, unifying standards is also important. If the height reference, coordinate reference, drawing origin, unit system, and so on are not aligned, the consistency of cross-sectional drawings will be compromised. What may be considered common sense among personnel can have different assumptions when the project changes. When data collected under different standards are overlaid, even if the shapes themselves are similar, problems such as positional shifts, unnatural elevation differences, and mismatched dimensions can occur. The more you want to create cross-sections efficiently with Section Drawing Navi, the more likely you are to skip confirming these standards, but skipping this step will result in major rework later.

To prevent failures, it is effective to have a checklist for verifying the source data before creating cross-sectional drawings. Which method was used to acquire the data, whether it meets the required accuracy, whether the coverage is sufficient, whether there are any gaps, whether the timestamps are aligned, and whether the reference standards are consistent. If these checks are completed, not only will uncertainty during the drafting stage be reduced, but it will also be easier to explain the reliability of the drawings. Cross sections may appear to be the final step of the visualization process, but in reality the quality is determined by the ability to evaluate the source data. Before rushing to produce a visually neat cross section, doubting, verifying, and organizing the source data is the most important preparatory work in practice.

Configuration Tip 4 to Avoid Failure in Section Drawing Creation: Decide the Priority of Display Items and Annotations

One major cause of unclear section drawings is trying to cram too much information into them. Since a section drawing can consolidate height, position, shape, dimensions, notes, reference lines, and many other pieces of information onto a single sheet, there's a tendency to put everything you can on it. However, having a large amount of information and having that information be understood are not the same thing. Narrowing down the necessary information and arranging it so the reader can understand it step by step is what leads to section drawings that are usable in practice.

What you should first clarify is what information you most want to convey with that cross-section drawing. For example, if the primary objective is grasping the existing shape, the legibility of profile lines and reference elevations is the top priority. If the purpose is to explain differences from the design, how the existing and planned profiles are overlaid, how differences are shown, and annotations of change points become important. If it is for construction explanations, dimensions that affect construction, clearances, and explicit identification of interference points take precedence. When the objective differs, the elements that should be retained in the same cross-section drawing change. However, if you draft while the purpose remains ambiguous, you tend to display everything with equal weight, and as a result the drawing ends up conveying nothing.

The display items in a section drawing are easier to organize if you think of them in three layers: primary, auxiliary, and reference. The primary layer is the information you most want to show in that drawing. The auxiliary layer contains the information necessary to help understand the primary. The reference layer is information that only needs to be checkable as required. If you display elements without being conscious of these three layers, the reader won’t know where to look. For example, if auxiliary lines and fine annotations appear with the same visual weight as the main outline lines, the viewer’s gaze will scatter and the crucial cross-sectional shape won’t register. The legibility of a section drawing is determined not by the amount of information but by the design of visual guidance.

The same applies to notes. Notes can sometimes look more thorough the more there are, but in practice excessive notes often impede understanding. What tends to cause problems in particular is explaining in text information that would be clear without reading. Repeating in words what can be shown in a figure not only makes the page or screen cramped, it also buries important notes. What is needed is to briefly and clearly indicate the points that are easily misunderstood from the figure alone, the conditions necessary for judgment, and the areas where special attention should be drawn. Thinking of section-view notes not as explanatory text but as supporting information to aid decision-making makes them easier to organize.

Moreover, the granularity of dimension and height annotations must also be consistent. If some areas are detailed while others are coarse, it will lead to inconsistencies in how the drawing is interpreted. For drawings that require detailed verification, the granularity should be fine, but even then it is not necessary to annotate every area at the same density. It is effective to clearly define the key areas, leave only the minimum necessary information for reading the whole, and provide detailed information only for the important parts. A uniform level of detail without priorities actually increases the reader’s burden.

One thing you must not forget when organizing display items is the difference in output destination. The amount of information that is easy to read differs between assuming it will be viewed on a large screen and assuming it will be distributed on paper. For cross-sections that will be printed on-site for use, small text and densely packed annotations become hard to read. For cross-sections that will be projected as meeting materials, a layout that makes the main points understandable from a distance is required. Even for the same cross-section, the optimal amount of information changes depending on the use case. When creating cross-sections with the Cross-Section Navigator, it is important to select information while imagining where and how the final product will be used.

In practice, it is efficient to first create a full-information section drawing for internal use, and then produce versions with filtered displays according to purpose. Rather than aiming for a perfect single sheet from the start, dividing roles into review, explanation, and delivery versions reduces rework. The information included in a section drawing should be chosen not for the creator’s reassurance but for the user’s understanding. Reducing information is not cutting corners; it is a design choice to improve clarity for decision-making. If you struggle with the readability of section drawings, it is effective to revisit the prioritization of what to keep and what to remove, rather than the operating methods.

5 Setup Points to Avoid Failure When Creating Cross-Section Drawings — Configure Output Conditions to Match the Delivery Destination

When creating cross-section drawings, it often happens that something that looked fine on screen becomes difficult to use once outputted. Troubles such as text being too small, lines becoming clogged, margins appearing awkward, necessary information being cut off, or inconsistencies with other drawings arise not from the drafting itself but from insufficiently specified output conditions. The purpose of a cross-section is not merely to produce it, but to deliver it in a state that the recipient can use. Therefore, you must consider cross-section creation complete only when the final output conditions have been determined.

What you should first be aware of regarding output conditions is that the way a figure appears changes depending on the file format and paper size. Even if it looks fine in an environment where you can zoom in and out on-screen, it may be unreadable when printed at a fixed size. Conversely, a figure adjusted to look just right on paper can appear overly spacious with excessive margins on-screen. In other words, you cannot judge the completeness of a section drawing solely by its appearance in the drawing workspace. It is essential to perform at least one output check in an environment that closely matches the actual usage.

Also, the standards required vary depending on the delivery destination. For internal checks you can adjust them flexibly, but when submitting to the client, sharing with partner companies, or attaching to construction documents, consistency in notation rules and presentation becomes important. For example, small differences — unifying symbols with other drawings, how section symbols are shown, the format of elevation notation, how margins are handled, and the treatment of drawing numbers — may be pointed out later. If you are not aware of these at the drafting stage, the drawing may become subject to revision even if its content itself has no problems. Output conditions are not about fine-tuning appearance but about conformity to operational requirements.

A common mistake when creating cross-section drawings is that notes and dimensions become excessive relative to the drawing's density, making them hard to read when output. Because you work zoomed in on screen, it can be hard to notice, but at the final size it suddenly becomes difficult to read. To prevent this problem, it is effective to check with a sense of the actual size at output. Especially for materials that field personnel bring to the site, it is important that the necessary information can be picked up in a short time. Prioritize being able to read without hesitation over visual beauty.

Line types and line weight also have a major impact on output conditions. Even if they can be distinguished by color or tone on the screen, those differences can disappear in monochrome output or simple printing. As a result, it can become difficult to tell main shape lines from auxiliary lines and to read cross sections. If you create sectional drawings with output in mind, you should not rely too heavily on color and must make sure that differences in line thickness and type also convey meaning. Legibility is not a matter of screen design alone but of information design that includes the final output.

Additionally, considering secondary use after delivery is useful in practice. Section drawings are not materials for a single occasion; they may later be reprinted into other documents, incorporated into explanatory materials, or reused as comparative materials. In those cases, drawings with insufficient margins, unstable placement of titles or section symbols, or scale information that is hard to find become difficult to work with. Anticipating future use, it is important to give drawings independence as standalone documents. If you create section drawings with Danmenzu Navi, take a step beyond the mindset that they only need to be viewable on the spot and aim for a format that remains easy to use afterward.

A practical tip for preparing output conditions is not to try to make all adjustments at the end. By anticipating the final output’s size and intended use from the stage of section-line settings, scale, and displayed items, you will reduce the amount of rework later. Conversely, trying to fix things at the end will force you to comprehensively rethink annotation placement, text sizes, and the composition of the drawings, which wastes time. The quality of a section drawing is not determined by the final touch but by whether it was designed from the outset with the output conditions in mind.

How to Use Cross-Section Diagram Navigation in Practical Work

So far we have covered five configuration points, but what really matters in practice is treating these not as isolated pieces of knowledge but as a continuous workflow. In cross-section drafting, the section line, scale, source data, display items, and output conditions do not exist independently. Changing the section line changes the required display range, and when the display range changes, the scale and the amount of annotation also change. If the source data lacks sufficient accuracy, no matter how carefully you refine the drawing it becomes weak as a basis for decision-making. In other words, a cross-section drawing is both the accumulation of individual settings and the result of adjustments that mutually influence one another.

Therefore, to master the cross-section navigator in practical work, it is more important to stabilize the order of operations than to focus on the operation procedures. If you establish a flow—first clarifying the objective, then selecting candidate sections, verifying the validity of the source data, deciding the scale policy, narrowing down the display items, and finally setting the output conditions—you will find it easier to handle different projects. Conversely, if you proceed in the order things occur to you, discrepancies in assumptions are likely to be discovered halfway through, causing rework. For practitioners, what matters is making the order of decision-making reproducible each time, rather than having a high-spec environment.

Also, it's important not to treat cross-section drawings as a single-person task. Site supervisors, designers, contractors, and others require different information from the same cross-section drawing depending on their standpoint. If you compile the drawing only from the creator's viewpoint, it can become a document that's difficult for users to read. In practice, when creating cross-section drawings, aligning once who wants to see what will reduce subsequent revisions. What is needed in cross-section drawing navigation is not only the skill to draw diagrams but also the perspective to communicate through them.

Furthermore, to stabilize the quality of cross-section drawings, it is also effective to record project-specific decisions as notes or rules. If you keep even a brief record of which section line was adopted for what purpose, how the aspect ratio was set, and which display items were prioritized, future decisions will be faster. When the person in charge changes, it will also be easier to explain why those settings were chosen. Cross-section drawings are both deliverables and a record of decision-making.

Recently, there has been growing demand to align the prerequisites for creating cross-sectional drawings while handling positioning information and on-site measurement data with higher precision. In particular, because the reliability of the positions and elevations obtained on site directly affects the quality of cross-sectional drawings, it is highly meaningful to incorporate high-accuracy mechanisms from the measurement stage. Rather than treating cross-sectional drafting merely as a downstream drawing task, the perspective of considering measurement, recording, and visualization as a continuous process of information organization will become increasingly important.

In that sense, for practitioners who want to easily obtain high-precision on-site positions, a system like LRTK is worth considering. As an iPhone-mounted GNSS high-precision positioning device, LRTK makes it easier to streamline location logging and the collection of georeferenced information in the field, and it is particularly effective at improving the accuracy of the site-condition surveys that form the basis for creating cross-section drawings. Among people using Cross-Section Navi to look up how to create cross-sections, many feel that the issue lies not with the drawing itself but with how to collect the original field information. In such cases, reviewing not only the drawing settings but also the information quality during the measurement stage will tend to increase the overall reliability of the cross-sections.

Summary

To avoid failure when creating cross-section drawings with 断面図ナビ, it is essential not just to follow the operation steps but to understand the meaning of the settings and organize them in sequence. Particularly important are deciding on a section line that matches the purpose, aligning the approach to vertical and horizontal scales and emphasis, checking the accuracy and range of the source data, determining the priority of display items and annotations, and preparing output conditions to match the delivery destination. These five are not sufficient if only one is handled carefully; only when they are connected as a whole will the cross-section drawings be usable in practice.

Section drawings are not diagrams for depicting shapes, but diagrams for accurately conveying existing conditions and plans and supporting decision-making. Therefore, more important than tidying their appearance is clarifying what to show and under what conditions to show it. If you find section drawings hard to understand, frequently require revisions, or are difficult to use on-site, the cause may not be insufficient operation but rather ambiguous premises in the settings. Simply reviewing the five perspectives introduced here can greatly change how section drawings are communicated and the efficiency of work.

And to produce cross-section drawings that are more robust for practical use, it is important to pay attention not only to the drafting stage but also to the accuracy of measurements and positioning data. When on-site information is of high quality, the reliability of cross-section drawings increases and it becomes easier to reduce confusion and rework in later stages. If you want to streamline high-precision positioning and records with coordinates in the field, using an iPhone-mounted GNSS high-precision positioning device such as LRTK can help establish the prerequisites for creating cross-section drawings. Practitioners who want to improve the accuracy of cross-section drawing production using Cross-Section Diagram Navi should broaden their perspective to include methods for acquiring field data as well as drawing settings.