Drawing Numbering System Iso
Similar but different: 001 cover 002, 003, etc. Standard details 101 plans 102, 103, etc.
I know should know this, but I dont. Is there a standard drawing sheet numbering system??? I am finally putting together some 'office standards' and want to be.
Roof plans, reflected ceiling plans, enlarged plans, plan details, etc. 201 elevations 202, 203, etc. Enlarged elevs, partial elevs, elev dtls, etc. 301 building sections 302, 303, etc. Sectional stuff 401>interior elevations, interior stuff 501>wall sections, sectional details also generally number each drawing on the page from bottom right, moving toward the left/staples, and then progress up the page right to left.
At our office we arrange our sheets based on the drawings then the numbering comes afterwards, we avoid ax.x.x. Where To Wicked Wicked Games. for example we follow this sequence. Good point, renovations & new construction often lend themselves to different drawing arrangements, mainly w/ regard to CAD layering. However, I think most of the numbering systems mentioned here provide a good layout.
Just don't get too bogged down in it, remember, it's the content & showing a rational sequence of construction dwgs that counts. I'm curious, have an of you Revit & ADT-heads done more CDs that are oriented to 3D, or axonometrics? I'd like to see how ya'll have crossed that bridge. 'if we have to wear uniforms, man, let's all wear somethin different' in this forum, there is constant carping about the difficulty of making enough money. Economic performance is a result primarily of efficiency. Efficiency comes, in part, from having a standard way of performing simple, repetitive tasks. You may not like the phrase 'reinventing the wheel' but you may want to consider the possibility that our profession spends way too much time tailoring the inconsequential (because we're bored?) and not enough time seeking innovation in things that really matter.
Like project design and service delivery methodologies (because we don't know how?) over the years i've witnessed -- time and time again -- huge numbers of hours being wasted on silly arguments over what's the best north hour to use. Seems to me we all went into architecture for a somewhat more serious purpose. 'if a professional. Is creating a better product (not just more efficiently producing a product). By inventing his/her own CAD standards then more power to them' this discussion's getting a little 'out there' for my tastes! Drawing numbering systems are simply a way of organizing information so the contractor and the other people who use our drawings can easily find and use the information they need to do their job.
I fail to see what that has to do with 'creating a better product' in more than a cursory manner. I worked with a guy once who felt like he had to invent a new font so his drawings would be distinctive. There's already a zillion fonts available and he needed his own. I thought his time would have been much better spent innovating for his client. His employer thought so too and fired him. The employer thought simple, efficient communication might just be a meaningful part of being an architect.
Efficiency only matters if you feel like you want to earn a good living. If you don't care how much you earn, by all means, keep on spending endless hours solving problems that have been effectively solved numerous times already for myself, i want to focus on meaningful, innovative work that actually helps my clients achieve their goals. Then again, i am getting a little bored. Maybe i'll go out and invent a new operating system so i won't be dependent on either microsoft or apple. There's a difference between putting the RCPs in a different part of the set b/c it helps communicate your project better and inventing a font.that's a bit of a false comparison.