Category talk:Icons for motorway descriptions/generic/crossing rail

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Catalog and “roadmap”[edit]

moved to Category talk:Icons for motorway descriptions/generic/crossing rail/descriptions

Discussion[edit]

Elevated[edit]

In the previous version of this overall (re)naming effort, I had made the mistake (see here) of assuming that suffix "h" would not need an "o"/"u" suffix, but of course this is incorrect, as the main track on the icon may go either over or under an elevated road:

  • If over,
    • either on a bridge   (SKRZ-G2oh) or
    • elevated itself   (hSKRZ-G2oh),
  • if under,
    • either on the surface   (SKRZ-G2uh) or
    • again elevated itself   (hSKRZ-G2uh).

Therefore, suffix "h" always needs to be either "uh" or "oh". -- Tuválkin 09:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(Re)naming problems[edit]

Ideas about the following, please:

  •   (hRP2qa)  (SKRZ-G2quha)[1]  (SKRZ-G2uhqa)
  •   (hRP2qe)  (SKRZ-G2quhe)[1]  (SKRZ-G2uhqe)
  •   (RP2ow)  (SKRZ-G2-Lo)[1]
    • Rather   (SKRZ-G2o-L) and   (SKRZ-G2o-R). -- Tuválkin 00:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Roads across rail forks[edit]

I would place things like   (evSTReRP2o) under my "overlay" naming scheme: evSTRe+RP2o (I haven't written it down, but basically: you use a dash to combine what would be two narrow icons, as is done, but a + for icons that overlay two other icons and are not otherwise accommodated, mostly intended for some v- and BHF icons, but works well here). They work fine as is, but I don't like to "merge" roots where it is not a formally "new" base shape (as in the KRZSTR case). Circeus (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For sure you mean evSTRe+SKRZ-G2o, right? --Tuvalkin (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I meant with the scheme you have here. In mine I'd go for a shortcut of evSTRe+G2o. Circeus (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
There’s only two schemes: Mine and yours — so I’m taking the forks away from the table above and put them in a new one to reflect your naming proposal, but please clarify one last point: Why evSTRe+G2o and not evSTRe+SKRZ-G2o? Isn’t evSTRe+G2o ambiguous in that it lacks a explicit statement that this is a crossing? For all one knows, evSTRe+G2o could be a superimposition or a line-up of   (evSTRe) and BSicon RP2o.svg(G2o)… Please advise! --Tuvalkin (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. The truly correct name would be evSTRe+G2qo (SKRZ has no business in a + icon, since + already means that you are overlapping them!). My first reaction was that a crossing should be presumed, but you are right that there is NOTHING to prevent a series of mixed icons with a G2 in the middle of a   (vSTR), which would then have naming issues. Maybe we can reverse the normal system for those cases, with the + (which indicates an overlapping of icons) presuming a crossing in the case of rail, and -g used (as elsewhere) to indicate a vertical parallel line? Circeus (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done above --Tuvalkin (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Elevated roads under track?[edit]

I have been wondering if it is necessary to preemptively allow the naming scheme for elevated roads under the rail line — for which it would be necessary to disambiguate the suffixed "h", replacing it with either "uh" or "oh". --Tuvalkin (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean unelevated vertical rail over elevated road? I say it's safe to keep the base as SKRZ-G2h ("h" being assumed to be on top unless both are elevated) and only make that special case into SKRZ-G2oh. Circeus (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean both elevated — necessarily one above the other (hm, is there need for elevated flat/level crosses?). So far I only come across with cases where the rail track is above the road (with a single exception that could be done with a regular bridge   (uhSKRZ-G4u)), but for sure both cases are equally often. --Tuvalkin (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
(I suspect that “unelevated” is a line running on a trench   (CUT).) --Tuvalkin (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I understood the base line (i.e.   (STR)) over an horizontal elevated highway, so i was confused. I think in your scheme that would simply be   (hSKRZ-G2uh)(fixed from "G2hu" -- Tuválkin 03:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)) as per   (hKRZhu), with -h suffixed regularly to indicate that the crossing feature is also elevated. I'm not where the issue is at all, really (I think I need to make sure I formalize rules for suffix ordering *sigh*). Circeus (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done! (or at least pushed further on the right way). -- Tuválkin 12:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mixed set[edit]

moved from User_talk:Tuvalkin#RP.23_requests

Hey, wondering if you could entertain a few requests for your RP# icons? Namely mixed equivalents of   (vRP2o),   (vRP2u),   (vRP4o) and   (vRP4u) with blue on the left. (Not sure if those are best named as m- form or compounds... I'm not a big fan of compounds just because the line colors differ.) Circeus (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done (assuming you mean the left of the train driver):
  •   (mvRP2o)
  •   (mvRP2u)
  •   (mvRP4o)
  •   (mvRP4u)
I’m not that hot about the names, either, but at least this is consistent with   (mvSTRgl) and several such others, and can be changed in a batch whenever better naming conventions arise. (Meanwhile there’s   (buSBRÜCKE) and a few other thus named…) --Tuvalkin (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, I too have just discovered that altering BSicon is pretty easy. Circeus (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Bummer. --Tuvalkin (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
But yes, it is easy, and even fun! More so if the SVG code is clean and clever. --Tuvalkin (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure your icons (which unfortunately had reversed colors to what I needed) will find use soon. Circeus (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, for sure. Sorry about the left/right mixup. Tell me the names of the ones you created?
  •   (umvRP2o)  (vuRP2o-RP2o)
  •   (umvRP2u)  (vuRP2u-RP2u)
  •   (umvRP4o)  (vuRP4o-RP4o)
  •   (umvRP4u)  (vuRP4u-RP4u)
Not here above. --Tuvalkin (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I used the dashed names:   (vuRP2u-RP2u),   (vuRP2o-RP2o),   (vuRP4u-RP4u) (the dashes on this one are not good, they were taken from   (vRP4u)),   (vuRP4o-RP4o), since I'm not quite ready to start messing up icon names in new ones. Circeus (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, great. I hope the names will be homogenized soon enough.
--Tuvalkin (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unpaved bridges?[edit]

numNl
RD1rg + numOr
BSicon RD1rg.svg
SKRZ-GDu RD1rf
num1l RD1lf SKRZ-G1u RD1lg
num2l RD1rg
TUNNEL2 + RD1q
BSicon TUNNEL2.svg
RD1rf

Icons   (SKRZ-GDu) and   (uSKRZ-GDu) come from being combinatory at creating these, but they make NO sense. If there is a bridge for a path, it is paved by its very nature — the bridge platform is artificial, and that counts as pavement. The only border cases are, I think, only when a dirt track goes through a bridge, see case 1, or when a path goes over a really short tunnel (or over a natural arch), see case 2. Therefore, I wont create any more RD1u nor RD1h icons, and will reduce the rail×dirt area of the table above to one single column ("o"). -- Tuválkin 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in here years later, but growing up in a forested area, with lots of old logging roads around, the idea of an unpaved bridge makes perfect sense to me. Specifically, I think of old timber bridges, and Bailey bridge-style crossings, where the deck is fitted grates or metal plates, instead of any kind of pavement. The grate decks especially tend to get clogged up with gravel and eventually just become a gravel surface bridge. Vanisaac (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Natural arches[edit]

RD1 + lDSTR
BSicon RD1.svg
BSicon .svg
RD1 + lDSTR
BSicon RD1.svg
STRq + PORTALl
BSicon STRq.svg
tSTRq + RD1
BSicon tSTRq.svg
STRq + PORTALr
BSicon STRq.svg
TUNNEL2q + RD1
BSicon TUNNEL2q.svg
STRq
RD1 + lDSTR
BSicon RD1.svg
BSicon .svg
RD1 + lDSTR
BSicon RD1.svg

(Added a better rendition of “natural arches” but Commons doesn’t do multiple overlays — really gotta keep all these templates in synch! I repeated it at the right side, pathlessly: it is just this overlay BSicon tSTRq.svgBSicon lDSTR.svg (lDSTRtSTRq) ) -- Tuválkin 15:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Was: "{{BS4||tSTRq|O2=RD1|O22=lDSTR|ABZrxl|extSTRq|O4=lDSTR|PX=60px}} ") -- Tuválkin 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here → a new attempt at a natural arch with railway going through it and a foot path above — which is better? (Only one overlay on each icon, too.) -- Tuválkin 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Notes[edit]

  • * - as of 2011.09.06; auto-generated name — see any unschematic name in remarks
  • ᵗ - as per Tuvalkin’s proposal
  1. a b c User:Circeus/BSicon_renaming/Non-rail_crossings#Generic