I once received a scale at a convention or seminar. One side has a 25 scale.
I like it. It works with an enlarged 50 plan and the metric equivalent is pretty even, 1cm = 3m.
Any thoughts of working outside of the bounds of the standard 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60?
I personally don't do it, but it's handy to keep the odd ones in the drawer. I have yards, metric, various architectural and the odd standard on hand. Odd standard being 15, 80 and such. I haven't seen the 80 in a bit. I am sure it's buried there somewhere. ..
> I once received a scale at a convention or seminar. One side has a 25 scale.
>
> I like it. It works with an enlarged 50 plan and the metric equivalent is pretty even, 1cm = 3m.
>
> Any thoughts of working outside of the bounds of the standard 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60?
I've used it a few times, but not very often. I've gone as low as 4 and 5. But, above the ones you've named I've used an 80 once and a 150 once. You want to stay away from numbers not easily divisible by 2 that's not on a typical scale. I'd never use 70, 90, 110, 130, 140. The 150 was a special case that I just couldn't fit at 120, and was too small for 200. After 150, I'd maybe consider a 160, but then I'd jump to 200. After that it is all kinda moot.
Carl
No problem at all. It's all relative. Doesn't really matter.
I'd like to see a scale that had lcd in it, so that it could be stretched, or shrunk, to fit anything.
Yes, it'd need batteries.
N
It matters, Cow.
Easy for you to talk about relatives.
Don
> It matters, Cow.
Only relativity matters...
If it's relative; it matters...
It really doesn't. A scale of 17 is just as useful as one of 50. In some myopic backwater locales there may be an ordinance or similar document demanding a specific list of options to be used. Otherwise, any semi-convenient integer will do quite nicely. For sectionalized land, a scale of 528 would work out quite nicely.
I have a client, landscape architect, that wants all of her surveys on 1/8"=1' which works out pretty good for her stuff.
It took me a few minutes of head scratching before I realized it was 1"=8' in our "language".
There have been numerous times when an odd scale would have worked, but I have always avoided it for some reason.
I have seen it required. I sought out and bought such a scale many years go. Also required was an oversized border area. The intent was to be able to put a 24"x36" drawing, reduced to 1" = 50' on 11"x17" paper so that a drawing set could easily be carried round the project. Reasonable idea that did not catch on.
Paul in PA
Around here things that have to be filed are required to be on a standard scale. I usually just stick with one of the standards. Sometimes it makes drafting a pain, but I would rather just make two sheets or use match lines or broken lines or something than throw a weird scale on the plan...just my preference.
I use it, but do mostly boundary surveys. I wouldn't use it for topos where future design is likely.
I try to use the typical scales.
A few times the 1"=25' or 1"=75' was best to show the detail required and stay within paper size in the office.
18"x24" and larger goes out to the print shop. I've used 1=100 and 1=200 and 1=300 and so on (with no inch or feet symbols) and always a bar scale because the print shop does not attempt to plot to scale most of the time.
They make nearly half the prints for construction contracts around town and why they don't worry about printing to scale is beyond me. Maybe because the prints are for construction companies and engineers.
I do attempt to make my pdf that are printed to fit the paper to be as close as possible to scale. The margin default on their printer is whatever inhouse job was done last.
:-O
> I use it, but do mostly boundary surveys. I wouldn't use it for topos where future design is likely.
For the most part scale is irrelevant when preparing topos our design clients in the age of electronics. I do ask if they have an idea what scale they will be working on but sometimes they don't know when I give them the final product. Thanks to associative text only thing it affects is the scale of my symbols and that could be changed if I took the time to rebuild my symbol library. I have not sent a design client hard copy drawings, ALTA's, in years. They only want the base map information so they don't normally even get a title block. If required by state law, I will send a signed and sealed copy on what ever scale lets the whole project fit on an 11x17 page. Sometimes this is a couple of miles of survey data that you can not make out but it does meet the requirement of a signed document.
Recording is another matter, most jurisdiction have standard scales and page sizes.
We prepared a city atlas drawing once with a scale of 1" = 440' at the request of the client (!?). On one of the preliminary submittals I showed the scale as 1" = .08333 mi. :snarky:
One of their remarks was to "properly annotate the scale". :pinch:
We get 1/2 size reductions on most projects these days. The others are PDF only...
I drew an exhibit for a murder trial at 1" = 1'. Other than that, we use the standard ones.
1" = ? Thread Hijack!!
Back in the days before CAD I had a discussion with an architect about the preferred scale for a site plan. He wanted to specify 1" = 50' and said his firm would have it photographically reproduced and rescaled to an architectural scale.
I informed him that my company could draft it in a scale usable for both engineering and architecture. I gave him two options and stated both were compatible with either an architectural or survey/engineering scale. Proved the point and was told the architectural firms drafting standards committee would be adopting those at five offices in three states. He estimated that it would save them thousands in photographic reproduction costs every month.
My question to the board. Which two engineering scales directly match architectural scales? Any of my former students could likely give you the answer. It was a question in my basic surveying and CAD classes for many years. The same scales work just as well in the CAD world and simplify working with landscape architects, architects and engineers. Just an example of think things through as you are planning a project.
In St. Paul MN they have a great many sewer-service drawings at a scale of 1" = 25'. These are for services in sand-rock tunnels, for which accurate records are important. These drawings mostly date from the 1920s, so it was evidently a popular scale at that time.
