Correct method for flagging with drawing notes that are indented

[mackra]

NOTES:

1. STATEMENT ONE.
2. STATEMENT TWO.
3. STATEMENT THREE.

1. SUB-STATEMENT THREE.ONE.
2. SUB-STATEMENT THREE.TWO.
3. SUB-STATEMENT THREE.THREE.​

4. STATEMENT FOUR

1. SUB-STATEMENT FOUR.ONE.
2. SUB-STATEMENT FOUR.TWO.
3. SUB-STATEMENT FOUR.THREE.​

I’ve searched through the Y14 policies and a general web search, but haven’t really found anything that addresses this. I’m wanting to formalize this process where I work, which tends to be a wild west on things because something isn’t documented. What’s the standard or acceptable practice/method for using indented notes, and flagging them? In the past I’ve just avoided using indented notes, but that can result in a lot of repeated text/instruction. The only thing that I can think of is to use different flag symbols, which might be limiting, depending on how many symbols are used.

Referring to the example above that not all sub-statements need flagged just the ones that are BOLD, and that each line is applicable to different areas of a part, assembly or installation. Should the flag symbol be placed at the top level note statement, (3 or 4) or at the indented level sub-statement (1, 2, or 3)?

And then when placing the flag on the respective drawing view, what text to enter in the flag symbol, (3.1, 3.2, etc)?

In Solidworks, either way will require manual entry and result in breaking the parametric function, which is one thing that I’m trying to avoid doing.

 

[ctopher]

I use Word to create a separate document for processes.
Usually the tab key will indent them.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home

 

[mackra]

Chris,
I'm not using the flag notes for creating a process, I'm wanting to create a process for the correct usage of flag notes and the formatting of such.

 

[3DDave]

I would use the full label on each line, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, for example as that will also be unambiguous for any other communication. This is how the paragraphs in the standard are identified.

 

[mackra]

3DD,
That makes sense, but I don't think that Solidworks(our CAD package) can format that way. I'll check tomorrow.

 

[jassco]

Hi, mackra:

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. Can you give an example?

Can't you use something like this?

1. Statement #1;
2. Statement #2;
3. Statement #3;

​

A. Statement #3.1;

​

B. Statement #3.2;

​

C. Statement #3.3;

​

​

a. Statement #3.3.1;

​

​

b. Statement #3.3.2;

​

​

c. Statement #3.3.3;

​

​

i. Statement #3.3.3.3.1;

​

​

ii, Statement #3.3.3.3.2;