On 2/11/2016 9:04 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Don Y wrote:
On 2/11/2016 5:57 AM, dadiOH wrote:

Is there some rule of thumb that governs how folks pick the
point for the "first" tile (even if it is not laid first)?

Yes and lay it first. One tries to make the edge (cut) tiles as
large as possible. One first lays out horizontal and vertical
centerlines (or, in

"vertical" and "horizontal" being "front to back" (of house) and
"side to side", etc.

your case, 90 degree diagonals), then dry lays to determine the
starting point (which should be center out) for both directions.

In my case, I can do all of that "thinking" on paper/CAD so I know how
the tiles will lay *throughout* the house, based on an "initial tile
placement".

The possibilities
for both directions are tile center on line or tile edge on line; it
is entirely possible that tiles along the horizontal line will be
one choice and the vertical the other.

That means that one treats each area as a separate entity which is
not what you want to do and which is IME and IMO a HUGE mistake. It
is virtually assured that you will wind up with untenable,
unworkable situations. Much better to treat each area as separate
and lay the tiles to conform to that area, using some sort of
transition between areas.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying two different things:
"treats each area as a separate entity which is NOT what you want
.................................................. ......^^^ missed this! :
to do and which is IME and IMO a HUGE mistake"
suggests I want to treat the *entire* floor as a single entity (that
just happens to have an odd shape)

That's what you said you wanted to do..."As the house will effectively be
one continuous stretch of tile,..."

Yes.

"treat each area as separate and lay the tiles to conform to that
area, using some sort of transition between areas"
suggests that I'm NOT treating the entire floor as a single
"area"/entity but, rather, treating the kitchen as one, family room
(which flows into the kitchen) as another, dining room (which flows into
kitchen from
the *other* side) as yet another, living room (which opens into
dining room) as still another, along with the hallways that border each of
these
"areas".

I am suggesting that treating each area (room) as a separate entity and
laying the tile in that area in a manner that conforms to that particular
area.

Yes, understood (long day yesterday: pulling wirer, hanging wallboard,
juicing oranges and preparing for a furniture delivery. Should have
taken a nap somewhere in all that. Sorry!)

[House is very "open". E.g., I can stand on the spot where I've
proposed locating this "key tile" and see into all of the rooms that
will be tiled -- with the exception of the guest bathroom (the front door
wouldn't be visible but the entry foyer would!). I.e., there are no
thresholds anywhere.]

I can stand in the western most room in my house and see almost 100' to the
most eastern room. There are no thresholds anywhere except at the entry
doors. Nevertheless, there are demising walls between the rooms, some of
which have passage doors and some of which do not.

In our case, dining room and living room are effectively the same
room (the demarcation is a step DOWN into the living room as it is
sunken). The ~15 ft "wall" between the dining room and living
room does not exist. Likewise, the ~20 ft wall separating the
living room from the adjoining WIDE hallway does not exist. Nor
the wall that would separate it from the entry foyer.

The kitchen and family room are separated by a (counter) "peninsula".
So, no wall there, either. (living+dining = kitchen+family in terms of
sizes). The bedroom hall juts off perpendicular to these (LR/DR/K/FR
fill the western half of the house with the bedrooms along the east side;
narrow bedroom hallway protruding into them).

The "key tile" in my description lies where these come together:
at the border of the dining and living rooms (alongwhich the wide
hallway rides) but where the (narrow) hallway juts off.

In my case, the whole house is 12x12 Saltillo. I used two types of
transitions...one was square layed against diagonal but most were
small pieces (2" x 6") at the opening of one room to another,
regardless of whether there was a door at that opening or not..

frown I think that would chop up the spaces too much, visually.
E.g., as I stand in the dining room and look towards the kitchen,
my eye wants to keep traveling along that "virtual hallway"
*through* the kitchen, past the peninsula and into the family room.
Putting artificial "transitions" seems like it cuts everything into
rooms when the "space" doesn't really suggest it.

You have two choices...

1. Treat each room/corridor as separate and lay the tile as best suits that
space using some sort of transition between areas..

2. Do as you suggest and live with the areas that have teensy-tiny tiles
along one edge, very large ones along the opposite edge.

The CAD drawing shows that there aren't any "teensy-tiny" tiles in the
layout. For the most part, the sizes of the "triangular tiles" on one wall
are roughly the same as on the opposite walls (in those areas that have
opposing walls). The area with the most pronounced "small tiles" is the
narrow hallway -- simply because it is narrow and setting the tiles on
a diagonal, CENTERED forces the edges to have smaller pieces; setting the
tiles SQUARE (aligned with the walls) would have made the area look like
there are fewer *pieces*.

[Tiles are 18"; I "asked" the CAD drawing. So, diagonal is a bit more than
25 inches across -- only leaves ~12 inches to *split* between the two sides]

You would also
most likely have to enjoy wobbly grout lines; the longer the course the more
difficult it is to keep spacing between tiles the same and straight.

I was going to use the little spacers between them, fitted dry.
I can put chalk snaplines on the concrete floor to keep the
opposing CORNERS on line.