Grouping of deleted note numbers

[lonsgsp]

I have been asked if it is acceptable to take a group of note numbers (in sequence) on a drawing and put them on one line "4-11 DELETED", instead of the customary listing each note number individually on it's own line, with the term deleted after the number. (we use term deleted, not removed).

Looking over ASMEY14.100 it does not say that this cannot be done, just that note numbering should be sequntial. We also use the Genum modern drafting practices and standrads manual and it pretty much reads the same as the ASMEY14.00 specification.

Any input pro or con is appreciated.

 

[CheckerHater]

You basically answered your own question:
Your notes have to stay sequential, and maintain their numbers, so note 12 should still note 12 after notes 4-11 were removed/deleted.
It is difficult to trace all possible cross-references, so if some obscure instruction says something like “de-burr per Note 3”, it’s important that you are able to find either Note 3 or the date when Note 3 became irrelevant. Is your record showing notes removed together or separately is not that big of a deal IMHO.
If for some reason it is important to know that note 5 was deleted in March 2011 and note 7 in September 2008, you assign separate records/revision letters to them.
The only thing you should never do is to re-number your notes, because when Note 3 says “paint Hot Pink” that’s where the confusion starts.

 

[KENAT]

The single unified "4-11 DELETED" looks fine to me though I'm not going to claim I can think of a std reference that explicitly allows it.

For many things beyond the hardcore GD&T aspects, the stds do leave quite a bit of leeway.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fsincox]

I agree with Ken, I see no reason it does not work, you note says what happened.
Frank