The key statement is “…a few ERC checks”. If the ERC cannot be cleared, I cannot get my pcb manufactured. I know how to get it cleared now.
All of the other stuff is an attempt to clarify. And I agree with what you say - “something is off here”. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to get KiCad to handle what I want it to do and am feeling quite a bit of frustration with it.
I started out using Robot Room’s Copper Connection which is now ExpressPCBPlus. It was very forgiving and worked well because I was using it for my own pcb not one for manufacture. And it didn’t have ERC-like features so KiCad ERC saves a lot of time, but I simply have a hard time to understand why I cannot get it to work consistently. A certain feature will fail to work, so I look up similar problems and sometimes it begins to work very well for awhile and then stops altogether - won’t do it at all - snap to pin is one of those.
For example, I have produced one pcb and had it manufactured. It seems to be ok. But now I am doing another, I have had trouble with footprints being loaded from the schematic editor to PCB editor that change a LED footprint into a DIP package on two out of eleven of the LEDs! The wiring is all screwed up - the schematic does not show it the way it transferred. And if the wires aren’t designated on the net list, the wiring cannot be connected to that pin. It all worked fine the first pcb, but on the second pcb - not so well. It won’t let me delete the wire nests either. What this means is that I end up researching problem areas and not getting much production. Now it is not snapping to the grid when I position a part footprint. I told it to use the values from the first pcb, but it is not positioning them the same.
Don’t worry, I am pretty sure that I can overcome these and will look up or submit another question if needs be. But my point is that the learning curve is very high on this product. I have yet to be able to follow the step by step to get a new symbol or a modification to one. So what I do is use something that is similar and make the changes on the schematic.
And on and on. I am not saying that KiCad is causing this, it just has a higher learning curve than I expected and that is probably due to the many features it has. I am quite sure that someone who is a novice will be driven away from sheer anxiety over these difficulties. And please don’t even suggest that is not so because I read through a lot of the questions submitted and it is clear that the frustration is there. I am not certain about how to ‘fix’ it though. Part of it is like the response to me earlier where I used the term ‘final net’ in my description and you responded that there is not concept of ‘final net’ when that was what I was telling you to describe the problem I was having. Based on what was done for power and ground, this is what should be allowed and I am fairly certain that I identified my statement as clarifying info for what I see as very useful tool to achieve what I was looking for. With regards to the net-tie your statement is in all probability 100% correct, though nearly nonsensical as a response to my ‘final net’ which is merely a descriptive word to distinguish it from the other two and it would be the name of the net from the join point onward. That was descriptive of the idea - nothing about net-tie. Net-tie is clearly a means of bypassing the issue.
There seemed to be a few comments where the commenter could not understand why I would think the net could be something different than simply all connected pins. So I answered. Simply stated: the concept of multiple nets within a net is used for power flags. My suggestion was to make a similar construct for other nets so that I could produce the effects of the net-tie of which I was unaware. Thus making nets all alike and giving the user the ability to describe and name the nets and where one stops and another begins.
Sorry, I am satisfied with my understanding of how KiCad is.