Trace each exterior luminaire and pole from the site lighting plan into its specified fixture, pole material and height, foundation, and photometric coverage basis, then confirm the controls and circuit interface for that pole location.
Assemble the review package
Gather the site lighting plan, the photometric plan, the luminaire and pole schedule, civil grading and foundation details, and the issued exterior lighting specification. Include the lighting-control sequence and any obstruction-marking requirement near roadways or aircraft operating areas. This guide is scoped to exterior and site luminaires and poles, distinct from the building’s interior lighting and lighting-control review.
WBDG publishes UFGS 26 56 00: Exterior Lighting as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 27, 2026). Use your project’s issued specification and amendments for the actual comparison; the guide specification does not automatically govern your project. The checklist below is an original suggested review workflow, not a reproduction of the UFGS requirements.
Eight checks to run against the issued set
Use one record per location or system. The CSV contains the same eight prompts plus fields for source revisions, observed evidence, the review owner, the decision, and closure references.
| Check | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Fixture-to-symbol assignment | Site plan symbol + luminaire schedule | Does each plan-located luminaire resolve to a schedule entry identifying fixture type, mounting height, and pole assignment? |
| Pole material and height | Pole schedule + pole material clauses (aluminum, steel, wood, fiberglass, concrete) | Does the specified pole material and mounting height match what the site plan and civil grading show at that location? |
| Foundation and setting | Civil or foundation detail + pole foundation clauses | Is the pole foundation type and embedment coordinated with the actual soil, paving, or structural condition shown at that location? |
| Photometric coverage | Photometric plan + specified illuminance basis | Does the photometric plan actually demonstrate the coverage the specification assumes for that area, rather than a generic layout copied from elsewhere? |
| Luminaire and driver data | Luminaire schedule + product data clauses | Do the documented luminaire output, light source, and driver data match the fixture actually scheduled for that pole or wall mount? |
| Controls interface | Lighting control clauses + circuit and photocell/timeclock documentation | Is the exterior lighting control method (photocell, timeclock, or networked control system) documented consistently between the specification and the electrical drawings? |
| Obstruction marking and special conditions | Site context (roadway, helipad, airfield proximity) + obstruction-marker clauses | Where a pole is near a roadway, helipad, or aircraft operating area, does the documentation address the obstruction-marking or height restriction that condition requires? |
| Warranty and field testing | Specified warranty and control-verification test + project test plan | Does the project identify where the specified lighting-control verification test occurs and who reviews the pole, luminaire, and control warranty documentation? |
Worked example: a photometric plan built for the wrong pole height
Illustrative example: a photometric plan demonstrates the required illuminance using a luminaire mounted at one pole height, while the pole schedule and civil detail call for a shorter pole at several locations along that same walkway, matching an adjacent clearance requirement the photometric analysis did not account for.
Compare the pole heights shown in the schedule and civil detail against the height assumed in the photometric analysis, and ask the lighting designer to rerun the coverage calculation for the actual pole heights or revise the schedule to match the analysis. Recheck the foundation detail for any changed pole before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A photometric plan demonstrates coverage only for the pole height, fixture, and layout it actually models; a later change to pole height or spacing can leave the coverage claim unverified. Confirm the modeled condition matches the scheduled condition before accepting the photometric result.
When requirements disagree, follow the project’s document-control and clarification process. Do not assume that drawings always override specifications, or the reverse. Identify the exact sources and request an authorized decision.
Close the issue across the affected documents
Record the location or tag, drawing and specification references, issue dates, observed difference, and the decision needed. Assign an owner and keep the item open until the response identifies the governing requirement. Check the revised drawings and specification references together; a response email alone may leave the issued package inconsistent.
For the overall process, use the guide to drawing and specification conflicts. Mark an inapplicable checklist row with a reason, and distinguish a verified correction from a question that still needs design information.
Where Groundbook fits
Groundbook’s drawing and specification review helps investigate potential disagreements in the documents you supply. Include the relevant specification sections and drawing references, then verify the cited evidence with the responsible reviewers before acting on a finding.