It is an improper node formation.
Both because it is off by one character, AND because it breaks design rules, conventions AND standards.
No need for that. They fall on a string, and you place the entire string within a bounding box. You can also create a ground node component to handle it.
Oh boy! You are an inspector too!
Any good assembler or technician or whomever one gets to build one's 'gear' would easily interpret a proper drawing just fine. Without the dopey inspector wanna be.
It is even easier to show in a block diagram where each wire gets a part number. THEN you can route all of them to the same "GND" "box".
That is how large system integrations get done. The components are already built, so they are all represented by a box. Vendor items like downlink converters, uplink converters, and RF Amplifiers, and on the data side, routers and switches, servers, and accelerators, etc. all get boxes that get filled in with component PN, and the rack and slot location they get put in,. So all the wiring gets wire numbers.
So the entire drawing of a million dollars worth of "gear" is boxes with lines connecting to them. Those wires have source and destination tags on them, including the ground fault returns from each chassis. They typically get tied to the ground bus bar that runs the length of the rack. THAT IS THE SAME NODE, even if it is not the same stud.
Now, INSIDE a chassis is a different story. You DO, in many cases (but by no means all), want all internal ground ties at a singular location.
THAT should typically be an Assembly drawing detail, NOT a schematic detail. A schematic is an electrical drawing. You are mixing details from a mechanical assembly drawing and schematic representation.
A bounded box DOES denote a singular tie point. That is why they make them. That is what they are for.
Your 'method' works, but is not the formal method. The formal method would include a written note about the requisite, And the bounded box method.
The "StarTard" method,though able to be interpreted is neither correct nor aesthetic.