I can signify an intentional intersection of wires by using the ‘junction’ button. Can I in turn ‘jump over’ a wire that I don’t want to connect to? This would eliminate erroneous warnings and also make the schematic more clear to myself.
actually, it should just work - you can cross wires to your heart’s content. I suspect what you have seen is if you run a wire close (next grid location) to a pin.
yeah, you can cross them and re-reading my post, I realize that I was unclear. I’m looking for the ‘semi-circle’ arch you see in some schematic software that signifies one wire crossing another, without making a connection.
ok, I don’t think eagle does that. A dot means it’s joined and no dot means it isn’t - I got used to it pretty quick. Most modern schematics do it that way,
cool, I’m sure it will grow on me. The appearance is a very minor issue. I would however like to be able to tell it that I indeed want to jump the trace and have it ignore the rule it assumes that I’m violating (which causes the warning). I’m a ‘warning is an error’ guy, when withing reason.
You can use the ‘arc’ tool to get the ‘jump’ look to your schematic. You have to do it manually, though, and it serves no purpose other than looks.
You could also use wire labels instead of crossing wires. This reduces the amount of wires needed and simplifies the schematic without losing readability.
Supposedly the “jump” indicating no connection went out of fashion some decades ago. I like it, myself; when looking at a hastily-drawn or low-resolution schematic I don’t like having to guess whether there’s a dot at an intersection or not.
bleepbloop:
You could also use wire labels instead of crossing wires. This reduces the amount of wires needed and simplifies the schematic without losing readability.
Good point. I use this a lot. There really is no need to draw lines. In fact, I find it much easier to understand a schematic that uses labels rather than drawing lines - lines are pretty hard to trace through a ratsnest…
I don’t know when the jumps went out of favor but they do look very “20th century”. As long as a connection dot is clear, it’s not at all confusing.
I’m using a lot of labels. maybe not quite enough. Thanks for the advice.
I’m a label guy myself. After routing some really complex designs with wires, I came to the conclusion there had to be a better way. That is when I discovered Nets and I never looked back 
If you’re doing any kind of complex design, labels and busses are your new best friend 
even for a not so complex one. for a simple PIC or AVR design, I can be at the layout stage in literally 10 minutes. drop the parts. attach short wires to each pin, name the pins and go to the board. of course, you might want to take a bit more time to be sure its right…
This almost got me today! I noticed the error while doing the artwork. Two signals were tied together without a ‘junction’ in place. I’m not sure how I laid out the connection to cause this to happen, or if it was a bug. I may have mistakingly clicked ‘yes’ in the ‘connect nets’ dialog box. But I believe that would have required me explicitly dragging one wire to terminate at another, which I’m fairly certain that I did not do.
Oh well, I found that it is wise to use the ‘show’ feature and go around your schematic checking to see whether or not the nets are grouped as you intended.
This design uses an ARM7, a small GPS, EEPROM, and has 5 inputs and two outputs broken out, filtered, etc. It also has three power supplies. So it’s getting pretty busy.