3rd June 2005, 01:13 PM
I always wrote the (single) context number of the feature in the top right-hand corner, as this also acted as the plan number (as Achingknees says). The completed sheets should always be filed by grid square rather than context number, so there's no need for the extra a's & b's to mark the feature going over grid squares - it's only a single plan - just on 2 or 3 sheets. When it comes to post-ex, this means that you can divvy out 5m squares to people to work on the plans & matrices, and then just coordinate the results and tie them together when they are finished. Teaching people about sub-grouping, matrices and post-ex good practice is a lot easier when only a single grid square is involved.
Everything should be planned at the same scale - most likely 1:20 on an urban stratified site - or else the overlays don't work properly. Sections & elevations as appropriate, and these require a register to keep track of them - all cross-referenced onto the context sheets. And the supervisor MUST check the records as work goes along - if someone's mucking their square(s) up or not properly working in tandem with the diggers in adjacent squares it can all go pear shaped! Very rarely any need to plan fills, but annotated sketches on sheets to bung levels on are most important...
Everything should be planned at the same scale - most likely 1:20 on an urban stratified site - or else the overlays don't work properly. Sections & elevations as appropriate, and these require a register to keep track of them - all cross-referenced onto the context sheets. And the supervisor MUST check the records as work goes along - if someone's mucking their square(s) up or not properly working in tandem with the diggers in adjacent squares it can all go pear shaped! Very rarely any need to plan fills, but annotated sketches on sheets to bung levels on are most important...