Editing Engineering drawing (section)

=== Scale ===
{{Main|Architect's scale|Engineer's scale|Metric scale}}
Plans are usually "scale drawings", meaning that the plans are drawn at specific [[ratio]] relative to the actual size of the place or object. Various scales may be used for different drawings in a set. For example, a floor plan may be drawn at 1:50 (1:48 or {{frac|4}}″ = 1′ 0″) whereas a detailed view may be drawn at 1:25 (1:24 or {{frac|2}}″ = 1′ 0″). Site plans are often drawn at 1:200 or 1:100.

Scale is a nuanced subject in the use of engineering drawings. On one hand, it is a general principle of engineering drawings that they are projected using standardized, mathematically certain projection methods and rules. Thus, great effort is put into having an engineering drawing accurately depict size, shape, form, [[aspect ratio]]s between features, and so on. And yet, on the other hand, there is another general principle of engineering drawing that nearly diametrically opposes all this effort and intent—that is, the principle that ''users are not to scale the drawing to infer a dimension not labeled.'' This stern admonition is often repeated on drawings, via a boilerplate note in the title block telling the user, "DO NOT SCALE DRAWING."

The explanation for why these two nearly opposite principles can coexist is as follows. The first principle—that drawings will be made so carefully and accurately—serves the prime goal of why engineering drawing even exists, which is successfully communicating part definition and acceptance criteria—including "what the part should look like if you've made it correctly." The service of this goal is what creates a drawing that one even ''could'' scale and get an accurate dimension thereby. And thus the great temptation to do so, when a dimension is wanted but was not labeled. The second principle—that even though scaling the drawing ''will'' usually work, one should nevertheless ''never'' do it—serves several goals, such as enforcing total clarity regarding who has authority to discern design intent, and preventing erroneous scaling of a drawing that was never drawn to scale to begin with (which is typically labeled "drawing not to scale" or "scale: NTS"). When a user is forbidden from scaling the drawing, they must turn instead to the engineer (for the answers that the scaling would seek), and they will never erroneously scale something that is inherently unable to be accurately scaled.

But in some ways, the advent of the [[computer-aided design|CAD]] and [[model-based definition|MBD]] era challenges these assumptions that were formed many decades ago. When part definition is defined mathematically via a solid model, the assertion that one cannot interrogate the model—the direct analog of "scaling the drawing"—becomes ridiculous; because when part definition is defined this way, it is not ''possible'' for a drawing or model to be "not to scale". A 2D pencil drawing can be inaccurately foreshortened and skewed (and thus not to scale), yet still be a completely valid part definition as long as the labeled dimensions are the only dimensions used, and no scaling of the drawing by the user occurs. This is because what the drawing and labels convey is in reality a ''symbol'' of what is wanted, rather than a true ''replica'' of it. (For example, a sketch of a hole that is clearly not round still accurately defines the part as having a true round hole, as long as the label says "10mm DIA", because the "DIA" implicitly but objectively tells the user that the skewed drawn circle is a symbol ''representing'' a perfect circle.) But if a mathematical model—essentially, a vector graphic—is declared to be the official definition of the part, then any amount of "scaling the drawing" can make sense; there may still be an error in the model, in the sense that what was ''intended'' is not ''depicted'' (modeled); but there can be no error of the "not to scale" type—because the mathematical vectors and curves are replicas, not symbols, of the part features.

Even in dealing with 2D drawings, the manufacturing world has changed since the days when people paid attention to the scale ratio claimed on the print, or counted on its accuracy. In the past, prints were plotted on a plotter to exact scale ratios, and the user could know that a line on the drawing 15&nbsp;mm long corresponded to a 30&nbsp;mm part dimension because the drawing said "1:2" in the "scale" box of the title block. Today, in the era of ubiquitous desktop printing, where original drawings or scaled prints are often scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file, which is then printed at any percent magnification that the user deems handy (such as "fit to paper size"), users have pretty much given up caring what scale ratio is claimed in the "scale" box of the title block. Which, under the rule of "do not scale drawing", never really did that much for them anyway.