I just got a mark up full of red pen on it and I felt like they were excessively annotated. I mean, why do I need to repeat the exact same point in 3 different drawings when it's expressed on the floor plan and section. I don't feel need to add "columns need to be removed" on the roof plan too. I think there needs to be a conversation between the builder and architect.
I feel the reason we're wanting to add SOO many notes to a drawings is in case the contractor doesn't find it in the other set of drawings, but I think what really happens is the drawings itself becomes over populated with information that it become too much infomation and gives the builder a reason to not look at other drawings within the set. Is there ever too much annotation?
Duplication of notes is an invitation for error and if a drawing has too much annotations, then it's a sign you need to add different scales and create hierarchy within the set to spread the information effectively. I know of some in my office who will write long 5 sentence notes on a 1:25 section explaining conditions that would be solved by a few words in a 1:5 detail.
Actually redundant annotation is usually avoided. Your manager might consider that it is more likely to make a mistake in the notes the more notes you make.
Duplication of notes is an invitation for error and if a drawing has too much annotations, then it's a sign you need to add different scales and create hierarchy within the set to spread the information effectively. I know of some in my office who will write long 5 sentence notes on a 1:25 section explaining conditions that would be solved by a few words in a 1:5 detail.
If they're linked to a database and the leaders are correct, then congratulations, you've spent effort to make a contractor's profit margins increase. If they are manually added, congratulations, you've increased the likelihood of an error.
Yes, there can be too much annotation. Sounds like whoever is giving you the red lines had a past experience that is driving this, or they're still learning how to properly compose a CD set. Like Everyday said: "Say it once in the right place."
If you go with this approach, expect a lot of RFIs in construction. How long have you worked at this place? Is it just this one individual who gives these kinds of red lines? Or is it a standard across the office? It really sounds like the CD philosophy is a little unclear within the office.
Apr 10, 20 6:25 pm ·
·
The grad
Hi Sean,
Apr 14, 20 10:57 am ·
·
The grad
I've been working at this place for almost 3 years now. The person who did the mark up has a couple more years of experience than I have. To add some further context, he also just got a promotion as the Team Leader and I do feel like he is trying to prove himself in his new role. I actually had the work reviewed by him previously at which I did all the requested mark ups. I really just gave him the work to approve it before I gave it to the client. So when I got it back it was really overwhelming and I did question aspects of it. I started going through other projects to get some perspective and they were no way annotated to the amount of criticism I got. I have yet to confront the person, thanks to the working from home situation. Still wondering how I should give the talk as I do feel like I'm considered as someone at a lower level of experience.
Apr 14, 20 11:10 am ·
·
joseffischer
sounds like you already have some good advice, but I'd also take your own words to heart. Remember, it's his first time in his new role and it's his set. Redlines aren't criticism of your work. We all do things differently and ultimately he or another person will be responsible for explaining the drawings while on site. Unless you think one of his items would result in a change order, pick up the redlines and let the new PM learn.
As other have commented; say it once in the right place. Also DO NOT RELY ON 'TYP' OR 'SIM' NOTES TOO OFTEN. I've seen architects use TYP and or SIM in conditions where a new detail way too often. TYP and or SIM are for when the condition is EXACTLY like another condition only a different orientation.
Apr 14, 20 11:40 am ·
·
joseffischer
Hey, when you run out of time, at least a SIM will evoke an RFI when it's not SIM as long as it doesn't result in added scope you should be fine.
SIM is not for orientation, OH is. SIM is for when you have a material that's a finish that changes, like gypsum to wood panel on the interior or whatever.
Apr 14, 20 1:51 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I had a moment a few weeks ago where I used MIR D#000 on a door frame schedule note (actually, don't remember if it was me or the junior who did the first pass at the details... Let's assume it was me). The intent was likely to indicate that this one door frame was a mirror copy of another. The GC interpreted this as mirrored glass sidelite... The correct term would have been REV for reverse. The proper thing would have been to draw it correctly in the schedule tho. Small example but lesson learned.
Apr 14, 20 2:18 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
Sneaky Pete - you're correct, I should have wrote SIM OPP or just OPP.
Apr 14, 20 2:22 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
The nomenclature for doors and hardware is infuriating. It's an entire little universe unto itself, and woe to the architect who fucks it up.
Apr 14, 20 3:42 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.
When is too much annotation on drawings?
I just got a mark up full of red pen on it and I felt like they were excessively annotated. I mean, why do I need to repeat the exact same point in 3 different drawings when it's expressed on the floor plan and section. I don't feel need to add "columns need to be removed" on the roof plan too. I think there needs to be a conversation between the builder and architect.
I feel the reason we're wanting to add SOO many notes to a drawings is in case the contractor doesn't find it in the other set of drawings, but I think what really happens is the drawings itself becomes over populated with information that it become too much infomation and gives the builder a reason to not look at other drawings within the set. Is there ever too much annotation?
1 Featured Comment
Duplication of notes is an invitation for error and if a drawing has too much annotations, then it's a sign you need to add different scales and create hierarchy within the set to spread the information effectively. I know of some in my office who will write long 5 sentence notes on a 1:25 section explaining conditions that would be solved by a few words in a 1:5 detail.
All 8 Comments
Actually redundant annotation is usually avoided. Your manager might consider that it is more likely to make a mistake in the notes the more notes you make.
Duplication of notes is an invitation for error and if a drawing has too much annotations, then it's a sign you need to add different scales and create hierarchy within the set to spread the information effectively. I know of some in my office who will write long 5 sentence notes on a 1:25 section explaining conditions that would be solved by a few words in a 1:5 detail.
use numbers.
use graphic symbols in a legend with a brief notation. ditch the keynotes.
If they're linked to a database and the leaders are correct, then congratulations, you've spent effort to make a contractor's profit margins increase. If they are manually added, congratulations, you've increased the likelihood of an error.
It's mostly been said already, but duplication leads to errors most of the time.
Say it once in the right place
Yes, there can be too much annotation. Sounds like whoever is giving you the red lines had a past experience that is driving this, or they're still learning how to properly compose a CD set. Like Everyday said: "Say it once in the right place."
If you go with this approach, expect a lot of RFIs in construction. How long have you worked at this place? Is it just this one individual who gives these kinds of red lines? Or is it a standard across the office? It really sounds like the CD philosophy is a little unclear within the office.
Hi Sean,
I've been working at this place for almost 3 years now. The person who did the mark up has a couple more years of experience than I have. To add some further context, he also just got a promotion as the Team Leader and I do feel like he is trying to prove himself in his new role. I actually had the work reviewed by him previously at which I did all the requested mark ups. I really just gave him the work to approve it before I gave it to the client. So when I got it back it was really overwhelming and I did question aspects of it. I started going through other projects to get some perspective and they were no way annotated to the amount of criticism I got. I have yet to confront the person, thanks to the working from home situation. Still wondering how I should give the talk as I do feel like I'm considered as someone at a lower level of experience.
sounds like you already have some good advice, but I'd also take your own words to heart. Remember, it's his first time in his new role and it's his set. Redlines aren't criticism of your work. We all do things differently and ultimately he or another person will be responsible for explaining the drawings while on site. Unless you think one of his items would result in a change order, pick up the redlines and let the new PM learn.
As other have commented; say it once in the right place. Also DO NOT RELY ON 'TYP' OR 'SIM' NOTES TOO OFTEN. I've seen architects use TYP and or SIM in conditions where a new detail way too often. TYP and or SIM are for when the condition is EXACTLY like another condition only a different orientation.
Hey, when you run out of time, at least a SIM will evoke an RFI when it's not SIM as long as it doesn't result in added scope you should be fine.
.
SIM is not for orientation, OH is. SIM is for when you have a material that's a finish that changes, like gypsum to wood panel on the interior or whatever.
I had a moment a few weeks ago where I used MIR D#000 on a door frame schedule note (actually, don't remember if it was me or the junior who did the first pass at the details... Let's assume it was me). The intent was likely to indicate that this one door frame was a mirror copy of another. The GC interpreted this as mirrored glass sidelite... The correct term would have been REV for reverse. The proper thing would have been to draw it correctly in the schedule tho. Small example but lesson learned.
Sneaky Pete - you're correct, I should have wrote SIM OPP or just OPP.
The nomenclature for doors and hardware is infuriating. It's an entire little universe unto itself, and woe to the architect who fucks it up.
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.