Drafting with non-standard scales?

Anything is fine so long as it is accurate.  220,440, 660

Wouldn't recommend 17 or any other prime number.

I was the same as you, if it couldn't be scaled with an engineers scale, then it wasn't acceptable. But I have also noticed maps in 'non-standard' scales, and lately have embraced it. So infrequently now does someone ever have a hardcopy of a map, much less put a a physical scale on it. I'd rather just draw the best map I can, one that comfortably fits the page and leaves plenty of room for annotations and detail, on top of just dimensioning anything I think might be useful.

Anyone who might need to scale something is likely using a PDF reader with that functionality built in. My scale could be 1 Nautical Mile = 22 Hands and it wouldn't matter.

I have always used traditional drafting scales with my drawings: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 100, 200, 300.  I am starting to see more and more plats with non-standard scales.  Today I saw a recorded plat at 1” = 150’.

I get it.  I could use my engineering scale at 50 and multiple by 3.  But just because you can, does that mean we should? 

How about you?  Should I modernize my way of thinking?

Yes, even saving a single piece of paper contributes in a small way to the prevention of the looming environments disaster. Think one sheet instead of two.

The State and Municipalities only want your D-size drawing on a size they can print at thier desk.  So if you draw at 1”=33.33’, they get 1”=100’.

Anybody ever draw a map with metric measurements?  With a scale of 1:300?

I'm an advocate for 1"=80' 

Somebody should dig up the thread where Kent showed off his drawings with one scalar going Northy Southy and another for Easty Westy. 

I would love a 1"=15' Scale.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with 1"=150'.  As said, you can use a standard engineer's scale to figure it

It is sort of a shame that the scales on the standard six-sided engineer's scale were not chosen to be closer to a geometric progression to more evenly spread out the differences between scales.  For instance, the factor of 2 in going from 10 to 20 (therefore the desire to use 1 inch = 150 feet) and the factor of 1.67 in going from 60 to 100 (which creates a demand for 1 inch = 80 feet).

By strict geometric progression, the one-sixth root of 10 is a bit less than 1.47 and the scales would be 10, 14.68, 21.54, 31.62, 46.42, and 68.13.

More practically, how about 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, and 70?  That way the largest increase is 1.56 between 45 and 70.

It will never happen.

GB

Typically I use the standard scales.

That being said, I remember putting together an exhibit for a local university presentation and to show everything on the 18x24 poster board, to include the university's border, I ended up using a scale of 1"=150'. At the time, I wasn't concerned with scale, I just needed to get everything on that specific size of paper. My PM at the time gave me a hard time about it but like others have said, it's at scale so in the end it didn't matter.

Since then, I pay more attention to scale and try to stick with the standards.

want your D-size drawing on a size they can print at thier desk

Do any reproductions (other than contact printed bluelines) actually preserve a known ratio?

I always want a standard drawn scale so that an engineer's scale can be used.  But I come from a day when people actually used scales and hard copy (and I still do).  So maybe a standard scale isn't as important since people aren't using print and scales like they used to (electronic, PDF, computer image, etc.). 

I suppose the question as I see it is: Would I rather have a standard scale that may be more difficult to read when printed -OR- a non standard scale that "fills the page" and, therefore, is easier to read?

Greatest scale ever!!!!

1"=1320'