Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness/Formations

Elevated portal

@Useddenim and Tuvalkin: Should the portal in  (uhtBHFe) have a mask like  (utBHFe), or is it fine? I think the contrast might be a bit too low. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely help for clarity. Useddenim (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Reuploaded the file. Should the formations omit the circular arcs around the station, or is it fine? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Crossings

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Newfraferz87, and Axpde: A lot of the ÜW crossings have varying formations geometry ( (KRZ3+lo),  (KRZq3u)). Should the "standard" formations be similar to  (KRZ3+1o),  (KRZo) or  (BRÜCKE), or something else? I think the BRÜCKE-width formations are too wide and narrower bridges need to be used regardless for the half-width icons. On the other hand KRZo might have an odd angle (although I used it as a base for my recent  (STR2u) reuploads), and KRZ3+1o seems to have the formations a little too close together. Jc86035 (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• I.m.o.,  (BRÜCKE) should be standard for all bridges and elevated lines, except for culverts. Whatever doesn’t fit in one icon should not be drawn in one icon. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: I would agree with this rule, but as noted previously, this would be impractical and somewhat pointless for half-width icons (we would have to replace all of those on hundreds of diagrams, probably manually), and the distinction between a small bridge (BRÜCKE1/BRK) and a viaduct (hSTR) is useful for scale. Jc86035 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As creator of some of these icons, I can tell you that I matched the 3KRZ icons with hSTR formations, and the uw-KRZ crossings just followed along. For the diagonal crossings I went narrow, similar to  (KRZo) but tightened up a bit so that less of the formation would fall off the edge of the icon. Useddenim (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I'd probably want to keep both the  (-3BRIDGE) and  (-3BRIDGEq) icons as they are, for compatibility with  (lhSTReg) and  (BRIDGEg) respectively, but the remainder should probably be changed to the KRZ formations so the bridge (or more of it) can stay within the icon border. (I've already done this for some of the k-crossings.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Useddenim (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Different distance

Moved from Talk:BSicon

I cannot believe that the space left and right, or above and below, of the 100 px stroke in the middle had been intended to be so different

(ufvmKRZu-mKRZu) (15 px)

(KRZo-mKRZo) (was 36 px)

(umKRZvo) (was 40 px)

(vumKRZu-fmKRZu) (was 15px)

the 3^rd icon has also the grey part drawn otherwise. Can somebody state which distance will be "the right" one ?
Please Ping me when you answer-- sarang♥사랑 09:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sarang: Different icons were created by different editors at different times, but they haven't all been redrawn to the current standard, which is

• 50px wide formatations (color  80A080 )
• centered 125px from the route line's centre-line
• the formation ends spread outwards 70px and onwards 50px.

Of course, space limitations don't always allow this, especially with half-width icons. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlgaeGraphix: Thank you for telling me. That standard must be quite new, I could not find anywhere such a drawing! Most are

• 40px wide
• spreading outwards 50px and onwards 40px.

I changed the unused  (vumKRZu-fmKRZu) to these standards and ask again, whether that will be really the new intention -- sarang♥사랑 05:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I was just going by what Jc86035 said. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

After I saw icons in Category:BSicon/railway/elevated I changed the others -- sarang♥사랑 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sarang and AlgaeGraphix: I think I should clarify that there are several different formation types in use. The most common standards are:

•  (hSTRae) 0(55 + 70, sw=50 → distance 50)
•  (KRZo) (100 + 50, sw=40 → distance 30)
•  (kKRZ3+lo) (120 + 40, sw=40 → distance 20)

(To clarify it, each one has noted the start of the outward hook and its width which gives the center of the grey line (125, 150, 160), its stroke-width, and the resulting distance between the grey line and a 100px center line)
For some reason there were a number of attempts to use the largest formations for all crossings, although I think it would have been better to use the existing types consistently. As a rough guideline:

• Elevated tracks (indicated by the prefix h) should always use  (hSTRae) formations.
• 90° crossings of straight tracks in which the higher track is not elevated should use  (KRZo)/ (STR2u) formations.
• All other crossings should use  (kKRZ3+lo)/ (kKRZ3+lu) formations.
• Special cases like  (lvMKRZvu) may use narrower formations due to space constraints.

While there are many exceptions, all of the icons I have uploaded have followed the above consistently. Jc86035 (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thickness of Elevated Structure of Road Icons

Moved from Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness

I noticed that the elevated road icons formation is thicker than the railway icons (e.g.  (hRP2) vs.  (hSTR)). Shouldn't they be in the same thickness? Xeror (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xeror: Yes, they should. Your example was probably created early on, and somehow missed being updated when the formations were being standardized. @Tuvalkin: ? Useddenim (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. All elevated formations should have the same thickness. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. Useddenim (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I think all elevated road icons (those start with h, e.g.  (hRP2oRP2a)) have the wrong formation thickness. The crossing ones (those do not start with h, e.g.  (RP2oRP2)) have the correct ones. Also the gaps between the road and the formation are different. Shouldn't they be the same as well? Xeror (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they should. I drawn them thicker for roads back then because that’s how they differ for track icons, too. That has now been finally and fortunately standartized. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)