Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:BSicon texHST.svg

moved from User talk:Maxima m#Image:BSicon texHST.svg

"Image:BSicon texHST.svg" is about to be deleted, use Image:BSicon extHST.svg (BSicon extHST.svg) instead. Axpde (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed

style="fill:#d77f7e; stroke:none"


fill="rgb(215, 127, 126)" stroke="none"

, and it seems OK now. Don't know why, though... ;-) - Erik Baas (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Just now I was going to change to
   stroke:none" >
 <circle cx="250" cy="250" r="100" />

and I hoped it would be OK. SVG Viwer of Adobe shows all versions as I wanted, though, and sigh.--Maxima m (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Firefox (2 and 3) also displayed the icon the right way. In the mean time I found out what the problem was: line breaks are not allowed in "style"... See Image:BSicon TEST.svg, it has 5 circles:
  • first circle is before the path
  • 2nd is the same as in the original file
  • 3rd has "style" on one line
  • 4th has a semicolon after "stroke:none"
  • 5th has "style" on one line and a semicolon after "stroke:none"
3 and 5 are handled okay, the others don't
- Erik Baas (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanx a lot, you wizard. Though Mediaiki shows 3 black and 2 pink circles, IE + SVG Viewer, NN + SVG Viewer display the same 5 correct cooloured circles. I will code as you showed above next svg file. --Maxima m (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Parallel-track column shifts

uBS2c2 vSTRelr uBS2c3
uBS2c2 BS2lr uBS2c3

I recently replaced a renamed icon and it now shows misaligned. I repeat the sequence here (→), with blue corners for contrast. This is bound to happend in many other cases, not only in this little one example I detected it at. As you can see, it is visibly crooked, even at 20px high and in the same color. Short of needing an endless new vBS2c_ icon family, surely   (vSTRelr) and   (vSTRalr) could be redrawn to match the existing corners?

(For what is worth, the diagram in question did use once   (vBS2lr) and that did match the corners smoothly. Maybe revert to its geometry, namings aside?)

-- Tuválkin 15:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Useddenim (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yay! -- Tuválkin 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}} vs. {{PD-geometry}}

Hi Useddemin,

some time ago we came to the conclusion, that all BSicons should be labeled as {{PD-ineligible}}, but I have to admit, that {{PD-geometry}} fits even better, so no hard feelings ;-) axpdeHello! 07:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, {{PD-geometry}} is an alias for {{PD-shape}}. -- Tuválkin 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I had already noticed that, and have been using {{PD-shape}} ever since. Useddenim (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

which looks best?

Hi Useddenim, what do you think, which bow (suggested name "STR3+4") suits best? a×pdeHello! 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
STRc12 STR3+4
STR2+r STRc3
STRc12 STR3+4
STRr+1 STRc4
My version connects in the corner at exactly 45°, and goes to the 125/375 px line, for consistency with the ÜW and v icon sets. Useddenim (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Light/heavy hierarchy

moved from User talk:Axpde/Archive 3#File:BSicon ~mKRZ.svg Reverts

  (mKRZ)   (umKRZ)   (exmKRZ)   (uexmKRZ)

Having one line interrupt the other implies superiority, which is not necessarily the case. My redrawn versions gave equal weight to both lines. (Note that in the case of in-service crossing out-of-service, the former does logically interrupt the latter. Useddenim (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The design of the icons is 5 years old and globally used. It's not up to you, to determine what's "logical" or not. Heavy rail outranks light rail thus the red line superimposes the blue line. axpdeHello! 15:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
“Heavy rail outranks light”: not necessarily so. There are numerous instances where a light rail line with very short headways crosses a heavy rail line that sees only occasion use. Besides, on 2 April 2010 you arbitrarily decided that all the ~tKRZt~ icons are not logical “…and there are no bridges below surface!!”—despite since being proved wrong! (Or maybe I missed seeing the notice of your appointment as the sole arbiter of logic for Wikipedia.) Useddenim (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, there are very few examples of bridges below surface, but in most cases, those bridge icons are used to display crossing subsuface lines that are completely independent. Anyway, that a different story discussed elsewhere.
If you have a situation where the light rail track is more important than the heavy rail one, feel free to overlay uSTR or uSTRq ... axpdeHello! 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive note: The "redrawn" version referred here are now known as   (mCRS) and   (umCRS). Circeus (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note 2: Three-level bridge structure within an underground tunnel, from p.22 of Brian Hardy's Paris Metro Handbook (Capital Transport, 2nd ed., 1993). The photo caption states, "At Opera, lines 3, 7 and 9 cross, all underground. This view shows line 9 (lower right), line 7 (left), above which can be seen the girder works for line 3." Useddenim (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another fine kettle of fish

moved to Talk:BSicon/Icon topology and semantics#Completely new BS icon set

PNGs to convert

Here’s what I found: -- Tuválkin 05:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

x60px (uexGRENZEa)
Already marked for replacement with svg:   (uexGRENZEa) -- Tuválkin 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
x60px (STRs)
Marked for replacement with svg as   (STRs), but this is a different design. Better discuss this icon semantics and geometry before making and filename/format changes though. I think, too, this one is to go straight to the dustbin. -- Tuválkin 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
60px (AKRZuq)
This is obviously akin to   (AKRZu), and its svg version is trivial. -- Tuválkin 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
And identical to   (AKRZuq), m.m.. I just marked it as repleaceable. -- Tuválkin 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
x60px (MWABZlgu)
Part of the   (MWABZlu) family; redrawable as svg, if usage begets it. -- Tuválkin 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Redrawn:   (MWABZlgu) -- Tuválkin 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
x60px (xvINTe-KBFe)
I'm not sure of the logic of this one… Useddenim (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a single-cell twinning of   (KINTxe)+  (KBHFe), which seems to suggest vKINTxe-KBFHe for its name, while   (vxINT-INT) hints at the desirable geometry for half a   (vINT).-- Tuválkin 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
But I can see what you mean. being half   (INT) half   (BHF) seems senseless, regardless of the “severed limb”. If it is two stations connected by passengerways, one of which is multi modal and the other is not (like this), then it should be iconized with CPICs, not as a single icon. -- Tuválkin 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
An svg version created   (vKINTxe-KBHFe), anyway. And with it we got (for the moment) rid of BS (pseudo)icons in png format lacking an svg equivalent. -- Tuválkin 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, I've changed the configuration of the icon from ⊂⊃ to ◦◦ (since De COUVILLE, the original creator, hasn't given us any context for its proposed use). Useddenim (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
further discussion moved to #double_stations

double stations

Based on the above discussion, I've changed the configuration of the   (vKINTxe-KBHFe) from ⊂⊃ to ◦◦ (since De COUVILLE, the original creator, hasn't given us any context for its proposed use). Useddenim (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I always assumed these icons were to be linked by default. How the crap are we supposed to tell apart icons that are joined and those that are not? Circeus (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Should   (vBHF) look like   (BHF)+  (BHF) or like   (BHF-L)+  (BHF-R) (as it is now), that is the question. I can see advantages in either approach. -- Tuválkin 02:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that it depends upon the particular situation. I would, however, suggest leaving   (vBHF) as it presently is, as   (dBHF)+  (dBHF) could always be used where warranted. Useddenim (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Can most project that uses BSicon handle the d- ones seamlessly? If so I think it is a sound approach to have v- station of any kind joined only, and others created via d- icons. If we keep both icon sets, we will need to come up with separate conventions because otherwise sooner or later someone will try to upload a separated form of something we already have in joined, or need a joined form of something that's currently only in separate. Circeus (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
If one checks en:Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/parallel stations#Combinations, you will note that — aside from mixed light/heavy rail — they are all of the double-circle format. If it turns out to be needed,   (vBHF-BHF) could be created (even though Axpde will probably detest the name). Useddenim (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets move this discussion away from where it is expected to be about double stations icone shapes. -- Tuválkin 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

moved to Talk:BSicon/Templates#Synchronize!. -- Tuválkin 02:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

¾-shift curves

exvÜSTxr + vSHI3l-
BSicon exvÜSTxr.svg
uBS2c23 v-SHI3r
exvSTRe + BS2+l
BSicon exSPLe.svg
uBS2c14 v-SHI3+r

I created three of these and added them under en:Wikipedia:Route_diagram_template/Catalog_of_pictograms/parallel_straight_tracks#3.2F4_shift, named after their ½-shift (and ¼-shift) counterparts:

  •   (vBS2-r)    (BS2r)
  •   (vBS2l-)    (BS2l)
  •   (vBS2-+r)   (BS2+r) — and   (vBS2+r-)

I hope I got the names right (if not, lets discuss it in Talk:BSicon/Renaming). However the fitting with corner icons was unsure. Looks good enough in 20 px high, but I want to test it here in bigger size. ---- Tuválkin 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Already discussed at Talk:BSicon/Renaming/SPL (with no consensus or conclusion).
Possible coherent naming scheme
¼  (BS4+r) ½   (BS2+r) ¾  (BS3+r)

Bummer. Need either tighter curves or a new set of corner icons. -- Tuválkin 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

BS2c2 uv-SHI3r
BS2c1 uBS2+r
How about this? Path is d="M 0,500 C 0,175 375,325 375,0". Useddenim (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Neat-o! -- Tuválkin 19:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Tuválkin 07:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Upd: I renamed them and re-uploaded with smoother curves to be used with new 4/4 shift corners. The older design looked closer to a curve + curve than to a shift. YLSS (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Features to rotate along with the track?

We can say for sure that while some features are iconic and should always be pointing the same “up” direction (such as   (uxSTRbm) vs.   (uxHSTRbu), or   (ACC) vs.   (ACCq)), others are slaved to the orientation of the main line and rotate along with it (such as   (eABZrg) vs.   (eABZql), or   (ENDEa) vs.   (ENDEl)).

However, I’m not 100% sure about a few borderline cases, such as level crossing icons. Today I rotated   (BUEq) so that it shows the same design as a whole as   (BUE), but I guess it could be argued that the (upright) X-cross sign "20px" is an icon as much as "BSicon BUILDING.svg" or "20px" are, and as such it should not rotate along with the track/line. What do you think?

-- Tuválkin 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should adopt the (North) American icon   (BUE-us), which uses a shape that has 90° rotational symmetry. Useddenim (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Heh heh!, — that’s dodging the question. -- Tuválkin 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I think I have this one figured out: You see, the cross is two different parts (on symmetry axis) because gated level crossings have also two different ways to go — unlike, say,  , something like   shows one flow of traffic   that yields to the other  , as enforced by the thingy  . Sure this is a no brainer for road/rail, but a tram line crossing a heavy rail one, well, BSicon uSTRq.svgBSicon BUE.svg  would be it (as well as BSicon uSTR.svgBSicon BUEq.svg ), while BSicon STRq.svgBSicon uBUE.svg  (and BSicon STR.svgBSicon uBUEq.svg ) would mean the opposite (and unlikely) situation. The "X" rotates to show which flow yields to the other. -- Tuválkin 06:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

ÜW Lücken

exLSTR+1 LLSTRc4 exLSTR+1 exLSTR+4
uexLSTR+1 LLSTRc4 uexLSTR+1 uexLSTR+4

I modified   (LSTR+l1) to have a SW quarter disc at the corner, for easy match (and following the respective corner icons, too —   (LÜWc4), et c.). However all other such icons show unmatching corner ends; see examples. -- Tuválkin 18:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(Also, the names: Shouldn’t   (LSTR+l1) be just   (LSTR+1)? And what’s with all the dupes? -- Tuválkin 18:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts: notice the corner connection. (That's why I drew the ones I did the way I did.) Useddenim (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, while I was offline it struck me it should be it. My apologies for not having noticed it before!
That’s the reason for it, but both approaches have problems. While the way I did it we can have a continuous string of LUECKEs without any odd-shaped “discs” where icons meet, those same corners cannot be used for a seamless start or end of a dotte segment of the line. This calls for some thinking, and I think I have an idea. I’ll be back soon! :-) -- Tuválkin 23:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

STRc2 uSTR3+l LLSTRc2 STR3+l

fixed to LL -- Tuválkin 23:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so this is the problem, as illustrated at the right: Some times we need the corner dots as exact quadrants (green icons), some times we want them to match regular line corner (blue icons). The right side diagrams look bad and the left side ones look good.

My suggested solution is this: Lets change all ÜW LÜCKE icons to have quarter discs at the corners and lets create a new set of icons whereon the dottedness starts, something like   (LSTR3a green).

-- Tuválkin 00:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Create new icons with 1/4 disks, and keep existing LÜCKE to avoid having to make hundreds of changes. Useddenim (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
New icons? Okay, why not? So, LUECKEs ending at icon sides orthogonally are always good, while for LUECKEs ending at icon corners we’ll have regular ones matching non-LUECKE icons and special ones matching each other. Suits me. Any ideas for the new names? LLSTR, maybe? -- Tuválkin 04:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Tuválkin 23:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

KRW width

exKRW+l exKRWr KRW+l KRWr uexKRW+l uexKRWr uKRW+l uKRWr
exKRWl exKRW+r KRWl KRW+r uexKRWl uexKRW+r uKRWl uKRW+r
exKRWg+l exKRWgr KRWg+l KRWgr uexKRWg+l uexKRWgr uKRWg+l uKRWgr
exKRWgl exKRWg+r KRWgl KRWg+r uexKRWgl uexKRWg+r uKRWgl uKRWg+r
exKRW+l exKRWgr KRW+l KRWgr uexKRW+l uexKRWgr uKRW+l uKRWgr
exKRWl exKRWg+r KRWl KRWg+r uexKRWl uexKRWg+r uKRWl uKRWg+r
exKRWg+l exKRWr KRWg+l KRWr uexKRWg+l uexKRWr uKRWg+l uKRWr
exKRWgl exKRW+r KRWgl KRW+r uexKRWgl uexKRW+r uKRWgl uKRW+r
xKRWg+l xKRWgr eKRWg+l eKRWgr uxKRWg+l uxKRWgr ueKRWg+l ueKRWgr
xKRWgl xKRWg+r eKRWgl eKRWg+r uxKRWgl uxKRWg+r ueKRWgl ueKRWg+r

Hi, there. Which shape is to be adopted? For the simplicity and consistency with tunnel (dashed) line, 20% width throughout would be better. --Maxima m (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

20% (stroke-width=100px) is correct. I'm fixing them as time permits. Useddenim (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
100px (so, 20% of 500px, okay) is not only okay, is the obvious way to go — identical to the width of, say,   (STR). I have no idea why would someone think it should be different. (Of course we are dealing here with width as measured orthogonally to the length of a line, really the line path itself.) -- Tuválkin 01:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The blue set seems to be better drawn, evn though   (uexKRWg+l) and   (uexKRWg+l) are still missing. Maybe simpler is to recolor the blue set for the outdated red ones and upload it with no "u". -- Tuválkin 00:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The hybrid set is very incomplete and includes a few with mistmatching withs and axes. (I just add to the table →.) Missing:

  •   (xmKRWr)
  •   (emKRWr)
  •   (uxmKRWg+l)
  •   (uxmKRWr)
  •   (uemKRWg+l)
  •   (uemKRWr)
  •   (xmKRWgl)
  •   (xmKRW+r)
  •   (emKRW+r)
  •   (uxmKRWgl)
  •   (uxmKRW+r)
  •   (uemKRW+r)
  •   (xmKRWg+l)
  •   (xmKRWgr)
  •   (emKRWg+l)
  •   (emKRWgr)
  •   (uxmKRWgr)
  •   (uemKRWgr)
  •   (xmKRWg+r)
  •   (emKRWgl)
  •   (emKRWg+r)
  •   (uxmKRWg+r)
  •   (uemKRWgl)
  •   (uemKRWg+r)
  •   (xKRW+r)
  •   (eKRW+r)
  •   (uxKRW+r)
  •   (ueKRW+r)
  •   (eKRWr)
  •   (uxKRWr)
  •   (ueKRWr)
  •   (xKRWr)

I.e., the whole "m" series (both colors), a few red "e/x" and a lots of blue "e/x" icons. -- Tuválkin 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Now all completed and seem OK on the icons on the right, I hope. Sorry, I have forgot I uploaded narrow lined icons. --Maxima m (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


numN315 numN000 numN045
numN270 INCIDO numN090
numN225 numN180 numN135

So I didn’t like the name and the geometry of   (mapNORTH000deg), so I created and uploaded   (numN000) and its kin. I’m not 100% happy with these, but I think they're a step on the right direction. -- Tuválkin 05:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want a different name, you should 'propose that. Now we have two icons for exactly the same.
If you want to improve or change the image, you can upload a new version. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
And, to be clear, the name and the inamge both are not an improvement to me. I'll be back on this. -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The names "  (numN315)", etc, were chosen to match already existing ones, unlike "  (mapNORTH000deg)", which is an oddball. As for the design, I'm not happy with it (too thick), either, and will work on it. Separate names allow for separate experimental work, to be standartized later. -- Tuválkin 20:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
What match already existing ones you mean? I could conflow. - if there was a flow to go with. -DePiep (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
These «already existing ones» I mean: With names consisting of
"num" + the text in question + additional position indications.
-- Tuválkin 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
New, more elegant shapes ✓ Done. -- Tuválkin 16:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)