Oliver Schinagl wrote:
Somehow I managed to mirror one of my labels on a component. So the part was on the top side, while the label looked like it was on the bottom side. Long story short, i just deleted the part, and copied it from the neighboring part. Due to all the renaming though, I get all strange connects when using the automated rats nest, but I guess that's the price to pay.
I prefer to drive my layout with gschem. That is, all parts in the layout are also mentiond in the schematic - no manual insertion of footprints in pcb. For a multiple instances like in your layout can be achieved with a hierarchical schematic.
So the big question is; shall I send this to seeed for fabrication
The outline lines should look more simple. The gerbers expicitely call for a milled edge at the middle of each line. So ther should be a single line where you expect the fab to cut the board.
The fabs I know, would object against such a multiple part layout and charge extra for their increased handling effort. They prefer layouts in one piece.
Copper lines look a bit on the skinny side. If they are more beefy the manufactured board can be tweaked more easily. Depending on the currents, ground and supply may benefit from increased line thickness. If S1 and S2 are SMD supposed to be jumpers, then it may be hard to close them with a solder iron. The pads should be much wider than the gab to make the solder bridge more likely.