You should remember this sentence for all other preliminary and layperson plans. Because it is precisely the stone dimension that you criticize in almost every layperson plan
No, and I sincerely ask for forgiveness if I have been understood by laypeople as criticizing
them for it. Laypeople (and in preliminary drafts)
I point this out –
I criticize "architects" for it (and in supposedly submission-ready plans)!
In a preliminary draft stage
it is about planning a room layout – in such a way that it "works" even when no furnishings are wedged in with centimeter accuracy. For this reason, it is even "pedagogically valuable" if the layperson who is (co-)planning thinks/counts/calculates only in whole double decimeters secondly, and first of all does not even dream of
confusing half-centimeter precise dimension specifications with the working precision in shell construction (see also "Where do the half centimeters come from?" at a well-known place).
In building application plans, on the other hand,
the plans should be judged by their ability to truthfully represent the conditions of the literally “construction drawings.” Stones can be cut more or less arbitrarily depending on the material (however, one does not need to deliberately create this necessity!) – but a consistently related bonding dimension must not be!
Therefore, it is proper for the diligent planner to not ignore the material working rhythm of the masons.
For those willing to build, this means: that they are well advised to think in 20 cm steps as long as discussions are still ongoing and when they create their own sketches; and to keep the octameter grid only "in the back of their minds" in order to "catch" their planner in case of possible negligence. This, mind you, not to please me or Gotthilf Penibel. But simply because ignored stone dimensions are the seedbed of botched jobs and violated bonding dimensions.
When in doubt, the layperson plans every interior wall as load-bearing based on spatial requirements and is then pleased when the structural necessity is satisfied with less in some places.