If it's on the PCB then you have to physically route the track between the two pads. If it is in a PCB Footprint then you can have both pads the same number and then connect them together using a track on which you then do: **Right-click > Convert to Pad** and then make that pad the same number too. Note however that adding copper into PCB Footprints like that may restrict routability when placed onto a PCB. See: [https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/How-to-avoid-DRC-errors-when-connecting-to-PCB-Footprints-a-k-a-PCB-Libs-90bf944fe3644b21a7d27a9e9d8df8d6](https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/How-to-avoid-DRC-errors-when-connecting-to-PCB-Footprints-a-k-a-PCB-Libs-90bf944fe3644b21a7d27a9e9d8df8d6)

You also need to make sure that the Pin numbering of the Schematic Symbol to which this PCB Footprint is assigned matches the Pad numbering. See also: [https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/Understanding-Ratlines-371bdbf646c54b23a57451eb05b2026d](https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/Understanding-Ratlines-371bdbf646c54b23a57451eb05b2026d)

More in (2.3) in (2) in: [https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/How-to-ask-for-help-and-get-an-answer-71b17a40d15442349eaecbfae083e46a](https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/How-to-ask-for-help-and-get-an-answer-71b17a40d15442349eaecbfae083e46a)

@example Thanks for your answer. Actually I don't want to route a track on PCB, neither on PCB footprint : A connection exists internally in the chip itself between this 2 pads, so I don't need any routing. I just want to connect to one or the other. And as you said this will restrict routability even more. The thing is, if it is not possible to remove this useless ratline, then I will make a separate connection in the schematic lib for each connection. But when I will route the PCB, I will probably have to change the schematic wiring to move the connection to the nearest one. For example, in an arduino uno, you have GND pin on left side and GND pin on right side too. Assume we make a shield for this UNO. So If you have a component placed on right side of uno but the connection on schematic is wired on left side pin, then I will have to change the schematic to move this connection to the GND pin near the component... That's not very convenient... Hope I've been clear! Maybe a future request? PS: I'm make some PCB with Fritizing which has this functionnality. See below what I mean : 

It's not good practice to assume, just because a Footprint has an internal connection between two or more pads, that it is ok to omit any of the external connections to those pads. The duplicate pad connections may be there for Signal or Power Integrity or for EMC and sometimes thermal reasons. Missing connections to them may compromise the functionality of your board.

@andyfierman I understand your point of view. I think however for Uno as example, internal connections are made properly and available pins for GND are already routed on board, so I don't think we need to connect them externally. But I totally agree with you for chips. Thanks for your feedback!

It's not about how well the connections are made internally to things like the Arduino modules, the concern with leaving additional ground and power pins unconnected it is about the increase in the length and therefore inductance of the return paths for signal and power transient on tracks from ports near them that such missed connections create.

``` It is not a good practice to duplicate an external connection to a component that already has an internal connection. This creates a harmful current loop with respect to radio frequencies as much as in the design of an instrumentation board where we recommend star networks. ```

@michelfrance, Can you give an example to support your assertion? Thanks.

@andyfierman ``` I don't understand the question. It is the rules of the Art that we learn in any school of electronic engineer. The most often redundant pin is the GND pin as Arnaud says. It's not good to do ground loops. ```

@michelfrance, In the interests of clarity and for the information of other people here on the forum, I am asking you to give one or more examples of a device or a module where the assertion that you have made would be applicable.

I might have an example, I am creating a PCB component that is basically just 8 holes so that i can either mount a small or large button. In this case I do not think it is necessary to have all 4 pins connected, but without the function as described above, I too end up with the unnecesary connection lines. If i do connect these pins, that means I can no longer route anything under the buttons. (The 4 left holes are one end of the normal open button, the 4 right most holes the other end. ****

@GoMartin300, Not quite the situation I was discussing but I see the issue. Can you post a link to datasheets for the two switches?

I'm not sure how my case differs, but I'll take your word for it :) Unfortunately I can't provide a datasheet as the larger button is bought from Ebay and the smaller ones were given to me by a friend. What I can say is that: \- both switches are Normal\-Open\. \- All pins on the left side are connected\. \- All pins on the right side are connected\. Just to re-iterate, the issue is that unless I connect the top-left holes to the bottom-left holes, I am stuck with the thin blue line indicating a missing connection. This while the top-left pins are connected to the bottom-left pins internally. (The same goes for the top-right and bottom-right pins). I can't connect the pads on the PCB because this would mean I can no longer route under my buttons as shown in this image:  Apologies for the late response, Finals got in the way.

Can post  the url of the Footprint or a screenshot shot of it in a list from the Search Libraries tool?

Is this it? [https://easyeda.com/components/BUTTONS-COMBINED_7698dd12d8c84aa8906725fca0d4842b](https://easyeda.com/components/BUTTONS-COMBINED_7698dd12d8c84aa8906725fca0d4842b)

For a footprint like this: [https://easyeda.com/components/BUTTONS-COMBINED_7698dd12d8c84aa8906725fca0d4842b](https://easyeda.com/components/BUTTONS-COMBINED_7698dd12d8c84aa8906725fca0d4842b) there will always be ratlines between pads of the same number that are left unconnected by copper. This is not a problem as long as you are aware of why the ratlines appear, you can ignore the DRC warnings that they generate.

@GoMartin300, Your post has prompted me to raise a Feature Request: [https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/Not-Connected-feature-for-unconnected-pads-in-Footprints-with-multuple-same-numbered-pads-on-PCB-03f61e1a8ed342b7a5be79e0dab765e5](https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/Not-Connected-feature-for-unconnected-pads-in-Footprints-with-multuple-same-numbered-pads-on-PCB-03f61e1a8ed342b7a5be79e0dab765e5)

The footprint you linked looks exactly like what I am dealing with, thanks for opening a feature request :)

@GoMartin300, That's because I used your footprint as the example.

I desperately miss the same feature Actually there are tons of devices with internally connected pads: \- TO\-220 \(middle pad and tab\) \- SMT mosfets with SOIC8\-case \(1 pad for G\, 3 pads for S\, 4 pads for D\) \- Tactile switch \(mentioned above\) \- voltage regulator AMS1117 \(middle pad and tab\) It would be really nice, if these componends can be connected in the schematic with the (minimum) functional pins and in the pcb-layout, I'd like to be able to freely choose 1 or more from the internally connected pins. Yes, EasyEDA allows to do my desired layout, but the DRC complains about errors or unrouted nets. Actually this also causes that there are "ugly" schematic symbols needed. A funny component with 8 pins, but schematically it would be much simpler to read, if it only had 3 pins: 

The last section of my tutorial topic here: [https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/How-to-avoid-DRC-errors-when-connecting-to-PCB-Footprints-a-k-a-PCB-Libs-90bf944fe3644b21a7d27a9e9d8df8d6](https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/How-to-avoid-DRC-errors-when-connecting-to-PCB-Footprints-a-k-a-PCB-Libs-90bf944fe3644b21a7d27a9e9d8df8d6) demonstrates a solution to the multipinned symbol such as you describe. See from: "Also, search for BSC042N03LS and then analyse and compare the three symbols and footprints:" Note that since that tutorial was written, one of the BSC042N03LS symbols show is now listed in the Spice Symbol library.