DRC violations / Clearance violation on Bridged Links to filled planes

My latest PCB uses several Bridged links, streight from the Library, specifically :-
< Jumper:SolderJumper-2_P1.3mm_Bridged_RoundedPad1.0x1.5mm >
I tried also tried a few others from the default library and they all seem to give the same error.
I even did a fresh download of these footprints from GITLAB today incase something had changed in the Library. These links do contain the < net tie > magic words, so I thnk shey should work OK?.

I use the latest Kicad 7.0.7 upgraded today because the prior version was giving this error but the error is still present, I don’t recall this error in prior versions but perhaps i didn’t do a DRC then? I tried excluding these violations as it doesn’t seem to affect the PCB output so far as I can tell, but the errors come back one or two at a time over a number of checks.

Example of the errors I am getting.

Clearance violation

Found 1 DRC violations
[clearance]: Clearance violation (netclass ‘Default’ clearance 0.2000 mm; actual 0.0000 mm)
Rule: netclass ‘Default’; Severity: error
@(0.2500 mm, 0.3000 mm): Polygon on B.Cu
@(75.1250 mm, 75.1000 mm): Zone [GND] on F.Cu and 2 more

The funny thing is I use a number of these bridged links but only those that connect to the top or bottom filled planes (both GND) give this error.

I even made a simple circuit with just one leg of the link connected to the a pcb Plain on the top surface and nothing else, it also gives this error.

Any clues? Does anyone else get this error under simular circumstances.?
I think my board is OK but it would be comforting to get the opinion of fellow users.

I can confirm the behavior with v7.99, it seems to be some kind of bug. A small one because it doesn’t prevent zone filling or routing, but a bug nonetheless. The DRC shouldn’t take this as a violation because the filling and routing algorithms don’t do that, either.

Isn’t it all to do with the polygon that links the 2 pads ? it’s not a SMD pad so it’s not got an associated net. I tested by replacing it with a SMD pad of the same size (and set to pad 1) and the violations went away.

KiCad official nettie footprints are implemented with non-pad copper polygons, so they should work.

At least in 7.99 the error is only about the already filled zone. If I modify the footprint, a track doesn’t trigger a violation for the same polygon, but the zone does.

KiCad’s internals have been aware on graphical items on copper layers for a while (Maybe since V6.0?) so if it’s not consistent in this, it smells like a bug.

Thanks for your input, everyone.
It is a comfort that I am not doing anything wrong and I am fairly sure that if I ignore the error my board will be fine.
eelik Mentioned:- “KiCad official nettie footprints are implemented with non-pad copper polygons, so they should work.”
I am not familiar with these “Nettie” footprints but the ones I used are direct from the offical ones on GITLAB download, so i am guessing they are not the same?

Should I report this to someone / somehow?
I am not sure how I would go about doing that, hints anyone?

You mentioned it in your first post, nettie == net tie


The footprint you used, bridge which is connected with copper by default, is technically a net tie, i.e. it ties more than one nets together electrically. The difference is in some (here) insignificant details.

Opps, sorry, I didn’t read that as “NET TIE” which I do know about, and do give this error.
I actually thought that was a reference to another way of doing it, like “nettie” was a specific user or group or something. :face_with_open_eyes_and_hand_over_mouth:

1 Like

I confirm the same behavior than lab.ges in v7.0.8
Please could anyone clarify if this is a bug (to ignore the error) or not?
In previous v6 there was no DRC error using the same footprint (2 pads linked by a polygon)

I have treated it as a bug, after the comments made above and those boards are now in production. The gerbers look ok so hopefully it is just a checking error.
Weard thing about these errors though is even though I mark them ignore" the errors keep coming back, so it may be error free today, but tomorrow will give more errors, very odd.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.