It is custom for our office to use a hybrid system of key tags with arrows to identify elements in our elevation drawings. We use them to point out types of marble, plaster, metal, wood species, etc.
Now, our projects often have paneling, and built-ins, and get veneered in all kinds of exotic woods. We typically use key tags with a prefix that indicate it is wood (WD) and a number (01) which is really just part of a sequence in our specs . The specs will indicate it is either a hardwood solid, or a veneer on paint-grade material, the species of wood, and finish applied, etc.
Using this set-up, it would seem to me that any millwork which is to be painted (i.e. field painted, or shop painted) would be identified using the same pre-fix - WD. My colleague is adamant that the tag should indicate "P" for paint, since, he argues we are tagging finishes, not materials.
I disagree, but he is SO fixed on this notion due to some problem from the past, that I am now questioning what is best practice. Hence, I am here to solicit opinions on the matter....all thoughts welcome.
P would go on a lot of materials other than just wood.
consider who you are making the documents for. try to make it easy for the cabinet people to know what their job is, the painters to know what their job is, the framers to know what their job is, etc.
also try to make it clear enough to your client that they know what they're going to get before it's finished.
I concur. My colleague argues the "Finish Specifications" clearly indicate that ea. P is applied to certain building materials. In this case, to millwork, which seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. Also, logically extended, I would need tags for POlished, HOned, etc.
Our keynotes (WD-01) pertain to a legend found on ea. elevation sheet in our drawing set. The legend, for all intents and purposes, is where we are defining finish material specifications. The internal debate is over whether or not we are specifying materials, or finishes. You are confirming my own thoughts on this, as it relates to "Paint".
For better or worse we use keynotes as described, and (ironically) schedules for specific types of finishes (i.e. paint, stone & tile), but not a true Finish Schedule.
Ah. I interjected the way I do it, sorry. I use a key system for wall type but that's it. It sounds like the purpose of your system is to define the final surface layer, regardless of what material is underneath it. I can see where that could be useful on complicated projects, and I would agree with your colleague. It would be overkill for the small-ish residential projects I do, where a finish schedule covers all the bases.
Hmm, a twist. No problem regarding schedules, I like them too.
these are residential projects; single-family, size is relative. in an Architectural sense, they are small, though sometimes complicated. Oh, and, my colleague did the opposite (that which I favor) on the last project. Go figure....still interested in all opinions about the matter.
Apr 12, 16 5:37 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Interior Architecture - key tagging elevations
...having an internal debate about Paint.
It is custom for our office to use a hybrid system of key tags with arrows to identify elements in our elevation drawings. We use them to point out types of marble, plaster, metal, wood species, etc.
Now, our projects often have paneling, and built-ins, and get veneered in all kinds of exotic woods. We typically use key tags with a prefix that indicate it is wood (WD) and a number (01) which is really just part of a sequence in our specs . The specs will indicate it is either a hardwood solid, or a veneer on paint-grade material, the species of wood, and finish applied, etc.
Using this set-up, it would seem to me that any millwork which is to be painted (i.e. field painted, or shop painted) would be identified using the same pre-fix - WD. My colleague is adamant that the tag should indicate "P" for paint, since, he argues we are tagging finishes, not materials.
I disagree, but he is SO fixed on this notion due to some problem from the past, that I am now questioning what is best practice. Hence, I am here to solicit opinions on the matter....all thoughts welcome.
P would go on a lot of materials other than just wood.
consider who you are making the documents for. try to make it easy for the cabinet people to know what their job is, the painters to know what their job is, the framers to know what their job is, etc.
also try to make it clear enough to your client that they know what they're going to get before it's finished.
curtkram,
I concur. My colleague argues the "Finish Specifications" clearly indicate that ea. P is applied to certain building materials. In this case, to millwork, which seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. Also, logically extended, I would need tags for POlished, HOned, etc.
It seems that your prefixes are just confusing things, as different people need different things from the finish schedule.
A finish schedule, to me at least, should explain a few things:
With these items listed on a schedule, each of the contractors can easily parse the information that they need.
Who said anything about a Finish Schedule? ;-)
Our keynotes (WD-01) pertain to a legend found on ea. elevation sheet in our drawing set. The legend, for all intents and purposes, is where we are defining finish material specifications. The internal debate is over whether or not we are specifying materials, or finishes. You are confirming my own thoughts on this, as it relates to "Paint".
For better or worse we use keynotes as described, and (ironically) schedules for specific types of finishes (i.e. paint, stone & tile), but not a true Finish Schedule.
Ah. I interjected the way I do it, sorry. I use a key system for wall type but that's it. It sounds like the purpose of your system is to define the final surface layer, regardless of what material is underneath it. I can see where that could be useful on complicated projects, and I would agree with your colleague. It would be overkill for the small-ish residential projects I do, where a finish schedule covers all the bases.
Hmm, a twist. No problem regarding schedules, I like them too.
these are residential projects; single-family, size is relative. in an Architectural sense, they are small, though sometimes complicated. Oh, and, my colleague did the opposite (that which I favor) on the last project. Go figure....still interested in all opinions about the matter.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.