Is staircase DIN 18065 mandatory or not?

Well, if the length is to be limited to 250 cm, then with a 1/4 turn in the 2nd direction it will also be about 250 cm. Here from the corresponding floor plan drawing marked in red. Is there that much space in the other direction?

Well, if the length is limited to 250 cm, then with a 1/4 turn in the 2nd direction it will also be about 250 cm. Here from the corresponding floor plan drawing marked in red. Is there that much space in the other direction?

[ATTACH alt="1732031145242.png"]88892[/ATTACH]

We planned it as in the picture.

Is that the absolute minimum the staircase builder builds for you "according to DIN"? As I said before, I would never go below 3.60/3.70 in the straight run. You could also say that the guideline of 19/26 should not be undercut. 19 cm as the rise, 26 cm as the tread, whereas with open stairs you could slightly go below, since the tip of the foot has enough space without risers. But okay. The experiences here should be clear for you. What you make of it, honestly, is then your problem.

I see it like , tread depth of 23.26 cm instead of the 26.5 cm from my example, that's more than 3 cm difference.

And, I thought the staircase length was limited to 250 cm. Here, 305 cm are planned now.

Is that the absolute minimum that the stair builder builds for you "according to DIN"?
As I said before, I would never go under 3.60/3.70 in the straight run. You could also say that the guideline of 19/26 should not be undercut. 19cm as the rise, 26cm as the tread, while with open stairs you could go a bit lower, since the toe has enough space without risers.
But well. The experiences here should be clear for you. What you make of it is honestly your problem.

As I said... other stairs can certainly be more comfortable to walk on.
But I prefer 60-70cm more living space if DIN allows it.

And that is, in my eyes, the wrong assumption – or a circumstance that can be compensated for through better planning.

It is like wearing shoes one size too small.