Garage construction and height difference

Oops, I misread that, those are lengths on the side – coincidentally located near the height indications.

Okay, let's take the penetration point of the garage with the terrain at the left front edge of the garage (69.40 / D) as the anchor point for the 3m height limit, then I come to the following result:



1) Top edge of finished garage floor at 69.70 (=34 cm / 2 steps difference to 70.04 on the ground floor of the house)

2) Driveway from B to C at the same level

3) Driveway from A (69.31) to D rising 39 cm

4) Top edge of finished garage floor (69.70) minus reference point (69.40) of garage height 3.00 m subtracted results in 2.70 m total height of the garage structure from the top edge of finished garage floor

5) Parapet / garage ceiling structure set at 40 cm (the fake gable you said, don’t count it) gives me 2.30 m clear height of the garage. That’s enough for a Cayenne with roof box without scratches, I would say.

So the driveway embankment with C/D is at the same height as B, A can also remain as it is, you don’t have to lay a spirit level on the car roof on the driveway after all.

Hi, quick update for completion. Our architect has now also managed the height difference. Our garage is now somewhat smaller in height - front top of ring beam 2.39, intersection roof membrane 2.65 and with rider panel 3.03 / rear top of ring beam 2.22 and intersection roof membrane 2.48 - but better than no garage at all. I’m curious how it will look in reality later, since it is somewhat smaller in height compared to other garages. Sure, the rider panel at the front with 3.03 m conceals it, but what matters is also the inside. When I see at the rear that the top of ring beam is 2.22 and a door has a height of 2.00 m, it could look rather poor. But well... complaining at a high level, the main thing is having a garage in the end. You get used to everything.

The states have geographic information systems. They contain so much terrain data that the surveyor does not have to go out again every time. This is not rocket science.

This statement is complete nonsense.

Regards
Dirk Grafe

Hello Dirk, how do they do it then or how do you do it? So somehow he must have calculated it on the PC. I just wonder how? Average determined? Or do you measure every few meters during the surveying act, which is not visible in the plan but can ultimately be read out? I would be interested. The surveyor told me that they run the recorded buildings over a terrain model and then calculate the heights at the corner points.

Yes, I can already imagine how it was done, but the raw data did not come from a publicly accessible geographic information system or similar, but from data collected independently. Obviously, the previously measured heights were used and the area at the border, which was not originally recorded during the first measurement, was then supplemented by mixing/interpolation/extrapolation.

There is a residual risk because the terrain there can also appear differently, however, this should have been noticed and recorded during the first local survey.

But that is ... far far far ... removed from the thesis that such data can be derived from geographic information systems with sufficient accuracy and reliability and that the local survey can be skipped.

Best regards Dirk Grafe

But that is ... far far far ... from the thesis that one can derive such data from geographic information systems with sufficient accuracy and reliability and save the local survey.

Hehe, I wish. No, I didn’t mean it in the sense of a full scan of the world. Rather, that all sorts of data (far from anything like approximate completeness) can already be listed in digitized plans. Municipalities and utilities work with something like that; what you have, you have, and you don’t measure it anew every time. Alternatively, a lot is also interpolated, which naturally is only suitable for rough planning. In the plan shown here, many things look to me like such an approach, or, put kindly, the plots are fallow land.