Floor plan of a single-family house with a gable roof, 1.5 stories - improvements?

that you have drawn 130sqm large children's rooms in relation to the staircase, doors, and windows?

I don't see it as that bad, rather as steps and doors indicated not to scale. But it is interpretable for the further processor - after all, enough so that the TE feels understood by the planner or recognizes their drawing again. More than such a means of communication between client and planner, a layman's drawing does not need to be.

Building a house is a serious matter.
please try "sweet Home 3d" on Google, download it and then design to scale:
- North is at the top or clearly marked
- Exterior walls are 47cm
- Interior walls 17cm
- Stairs are at least 110cm wide, have 15-16 steps, and each step is about 26cm long.

Attached is how something like this can look. This is one of my ideas, but it is not tailored to the OP, but just an example for the program.

Regards

Building a house is a serious matter.

And in this respect, it is actually illogical to encourage a layperson to use planning software: with a hand drawing, it is much easier for the professional to recognize if the layperson as planner is still acting clumsily. Your drawings are also a good example that using such software does not promote design understanding: your dimensions are all out of sync. Moreover, such programs carry the "danger" that the result appears "professional" and successful too early—simply due to the high factor of apparent reality, which comes into the representation through color, "precise" symbols (and possibly even 3D). The biggest nonsense (with dressing rooms where you pinch your fingers opening the wardrobe doors, and toilets you have to park in backwards from the door) looks in clicky-colorful virtual reality as if all that's missing for the building application is the stamp. In my opinion, this advice does not do any favor to homeowners. For the architect meeting, it is much more valuable if the homeowner does not try to appear as a "colleague," but is happy to "make themselves understood with hands and feet" as a layperson. And please, also do not use technical terms that they do not yet understand.

And insofar it is actually illogical to encourage a layman to use planning software: with a hand drawing, it is much easier for the professional to recognize if the layman acting as planner is still somewhat clumsy.

So basically you are saying that there shouldn’t be threads named like "what do you think of my floor plan?".
You would comment under every floor plan: "just go to the architect!"
Of course a design is not finished, the architect still has to review it, but paper walls and dashed stairs don’t help either.
The program should not pretend professionalism, but help to be able to imagine the whole thing.

with dressing rooms where you pinch your fingers when opening the wardrobe doors, and toilets where you have to park backwards from the door

And that is exactly what the program is for, so I can now adjust the direction of the doors without needing an "eraser". (Nice that you only find such small things, I take that as a compliment that you found nothing else except doors whose orientation can be very easily changed : )

Nice that your thread consists only of negating my post, I at least try to help the OP a bit ; )

No, the elephant advises to stick with pencil, graph paper, and eraser, and I agree with him. Doors and other fixed elements and furniture can be cut out to scale (on graph paper, practically: 2 squares correspond to one real meter) and used to "populate" an initially empty floor plan and, above all, easily moved back and forth.
At some point I also played around with sweet Home, and I spent far more time entering my designs accurately there than actually designing and developing them.
By then, my designs were already quite advanced, and I just wanted to see the whole thing in 3D. And for that, it’s a nice toy. Most architects, however, have much better software that generates much prettier pictures (only we still had one from the old school), but that’s just fluff and not really necessary. Also, I noticed with sweet Home that you have to be very careful how big the individual elements are specified there (doors, windows, toilet, sink, etc.). Mostly only in the smallest possible version (if I remember correctly, 160cm is the standard for a double bed). Meaning: all elements have to be adjusted accordingly, which most people don’t notice because fiddling with the program already takes a lot of attention. And then one wonders why the design looks really nice and practical, but then you are told: That doesn’t work! Because, for example, the toilet was too small, and on the plan with the too-small toilet, the guest bathroom looks exactly big enough. But if you take realistic measurements, you can only get to the toilet by climbing over it, etc. Through the perfect views, you lose sight of the real proportions.

I’m completely with the elephant: to get a feel for size and layout, the old-fashioned method with pencil and graph paper is unbeatable.
Whoever wants something a bit more comfortable and doesn’t want to paint a new floor plan for small changes every time, invests in a roll of tracing paper. You lay it over the last draft and can try out changes as long as it’s worth painting a new version again.

We are still waiting for a sketch from Lahahahahand...