Using Floor instead of Roof or Ceiling?!

[Haanaaj]

Hey guys!

I am organizing our company Revit assembly types and I would like to know the best practice for making roof and ceiling types.
In my previous firm we always used floor for everything. Main reason is the way Revit aligns it with level. So top of my roof stick to the level not the bottom of that.

What do you think of pros and cons of this method?

Thanks (BTW my first post here!yehooo)

[KoryCox]

The major con is not being able to independently control visibility by three categories. Instead they would all have to look the same. Tags would all have to be of one category as well. So you'd end up creating additional types and have to manually choose which one to use in different plan types. Scheduling becomes difficult too.

Roofs have more robust options for editing of slopes.

All I see are downsides. Especially since it's so easy to offset the roof to the correct height above a given level.

I would similarly keep ceilings as ceilings.

There are cases where I use items from one category to serve another purpose (like using a railing object to represent train tracks) but I try to keep these to a minimum and only do so where there is a clear advantage.

[david_peterson]

I'd also look at it this way (but I'm a former structural guy), the roof level is set by the top of steel and built up, vs a poured floor which is set by top of floor. So in reality, the roof should be set by the bottom and not the top. You provide a minimum thickness and it gets thicker from there.
I'd use roof for roofs, floors for floors and ceilings for ceilings.
The other issue you're going to get is when the contractor pulls data out of your model by assembly code.