So the Object Manager is not the same feature—though it is definitely related. Thanks for starting that thread. I support it. What I am asking for with Classes/Tags is simpler: a native second categorization layer alongside Layers that drives attributes (line weight, color, linetype and print style) and visibility (“By Class”), without relying on plug-ins. (In some tools this maps to “classes” — Vectorworks — and “pen sets” — Archicad.) SmartTags is clever, but in real projects it complicates handoff (partners without the plug-in, version drift, scripts to maintain). A built-in option keeps files portable and predictable.
Why Classes/Tags as well as Layers? In renovation work we follow conventions for what elements are (load-bearing vs non-load-bearing, furniture, MEP, etc.), while Layers usually sort by where/when/why (existing, demolition, new; floors, zones, plan types). On a typical single-family renovation I end up with about 250 layers because I duplicate layer trees just to get different line weights/colors for the same element types across phases and drawings—creating significant redundancy and turning the drawing process into a sorting exercise. Classes/Tags would describe the technical type of an element, while Layers continue to handle purpose/time/organization—dramatically reducing layer bloat and making visibility and styling consistent across the whole model.
So: +1 to a stronger Object Manager for hierarchy and selection—and in parallel a simple, native Classes/Tags system for global attribute control and filtering. They address different pain points, and together they would make complex AEC/renovation workflows much cleaner.