#362 Vagueness in layer relations in layout_rules.pdf Issue created by MilosMitrovic411 I have a few questions on how you define relations between shapes and layers. • unrelated - two regions which do not touch each other & • abut - two edges of two different layers touching each other What does "touch" mean? Since you defined abut as you did, does "touching" represent any two point of a two different shapes interacting. If so, then "unrelated" shapes would be the ones who do not "interact" at all with one another, right? • nBuLay - (((NWell ≥ 3.0 µm) sized by 1.0 µm/side) OR nBuLay:drawing) AND NOT nBuLay:block Does "sized by 1.0 µm/side" represent "sized down" or "sized up"? • inside & not inside What is your definition of those? In the picture bellow, N+Activ and ThickGateOxide are "overlapping", would you say that N+Activ is "inside" or "not inside" of ThickGateOxide, are they "touching"? For an example, should rule NW.d or NW.d1 be applied to this N+Activ, or should rule NW.d apply to (N+Activ AND NOT ThickGateOxide), and rule NW.d1 apply to (N+Activ AND ThickGateOxide)? Image IHP-GmbH/IHP-Open-PDK