It's really similar to the usual coodinate system you may be familiar with, the difference is that it also sub-divides the map into different zones. So instead of referencing a set of coordinates on the whole planet, you'd first specify the zone you mean. https://maptools.com/tutorials/utm/quick_guide More on reddit.com

That's strange. By definition UTM measurements are in meters.

If you're sure the conversion won't cross a UTM zone, make a usual conversion yards-> meters for each coordinate.

More on reddit.com

Load your building and people positions into a GIS software platform. Georeference the floor plan image in the GIS software so that it aligns with the building. Symbolize data as needed, add a basemap if appropriate. Export your map to what ever image format you desire. More on reddit.com

Hi! There are already a lot of diverse and valid answers in this thread, but I figured I'd try to aggregate them a bit. I'm a geographer and cartographer, so this stuff is my job as well as my hobby. UTM is not "better" than Lat/Lon, nor vice-versa. The two systems are each better for different things, though. Latitude and Longitude were developed by sailors as a way to navigate over the ocean long before GPS. We all know that the largest units of Latitude and Longitude are degrees, but Degrees latitude weren't originally meant to correspond to the surface of the earth as such; they correspond instead to the angle of Polaris over the horizon, and their surface locations are a derivation of that. Longitude was later developed using the same units, but it's really an entirely different animal; Unlike latitude, it has no objective geographical value, only values relative to other locations (we use Greenwich, England and the Prime Meridian as a reference point.) This is a very good way to navigate if your only tools are a sextant and a reasonably accurate clock, and you can, of course, give very accurate coordinates in Lat/Lon. However, there are some serious drawbacks to this system. First, there's the roundness of the globe. You just can't wrap a perfect grid around it and expect neat little squares. The meridians of Longitude converge at the North and South poles, and this means that a 1 degree by 1 degree "square" of lat/lon will be a different size and shape depending on where you are on the planet. The second problem is that calculating lat/lon is an exercise in extreme frustration. Each degree is a certain distance (which, as we mentioned, changes depending on your location) and is broken up into 60 minutes. These are broken up into 60 seconds. Any kind of math you do with these units is pretty daunting, even for a red-blooded American like me who can tell you how many teaspoons are in a bushel. Decimal Degree format makes this easier, but you still have to contend with the fact that your coordinates don't actually correspond to any set unit of distance. So how does UTM address these issues? Well, it does exactly what we said was impossible a bit earlier--it lays a square grid (each square having sides of 1 meter) on the surface of the earth, giving us easy math and consistent measurements. But how can it do that? After all, the earth is still round! The answer is that UTM cheats a little bit. First, it cuts off the top and bottom of the planet, where the meridians of longitude converge and coordinates get really funky. Next, it breaks up the earth into zones, long north-to south strips that in turn are chopped up into little rectangular blocks that can be smooshed out flat a lot easier than the whole thing at once. This still isn't perfect--even those strips have a bit of curve to them, of course--but it allows you to get very, very close. This makes calculating distances much easier, but often more importantly, it makes describing your location much easier. This is practical in rescue situations, when relaying your location on a map is a lot faster if you don't have to estimate a bunch of divisions by 60 in your head. In everyday camping and hiking, too, it's much easier to find the location of my GPS' coordinates on the map if I'm not dealing with those crazy lat/lon units of 60. Not to mention, most topos (even in the US) have UTM coodinates along the side, so you kind of have to use them sometimes. But what about those pesky zones? At least lat/lon doesn't bother with those! First, sure it does. It divides is coordinates in to hemispheres north and south of the equator, and east and west of the circle formed by the Prime Meridian and the International Date Line. But yes. They can be a bit annoying, and they'd be even more frustrating for a mariner who would have to cross 12 or so numbered zone boundaries on his way from England to Virginia. However, for your average hiker, 443,000km2 (or so) is usually plenty of room to wander around in without worrying about changing zones. What if you live near an edge (like I do) though? Do you have to keep switching back and forth? Thankfully, no. You can just cheat again. When you reach the Easternmost edge of a zone, with an easting of zero, you can stay in the same zone and just switch to negative numbers. Going the other direction, you can just keep counting upward when you exceed the zone's theoretical maximum. The same applies to the "northing" or north/south coordinate of each location. Bear in mind that the further you get from the center of a zone, the more your coordinates suffer from the curving distortion of the earth's surface, but the zones are small enough that you don't generally have to worry too much about this. In summary, if you're a sailor navigating by the stars, I highly recommend Lat/Lon. However, if you're a backpacker with a GPS (or even just a map and compass), getting to know UTM is a good investment. Edit: formatting to break up my massive wall o' text. More on reddit.com