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

Overview

Moved from Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness/Archive 1#Drawbridges

Too realistic, axis-dependent, and too cluttered for 20px.

I’m not really convinced that  (HBKq) has an acceptable geometry as it is right now. A non-q version of it (as needed and asked-for here) makes this even more evident. I’d rather see a variation of  (WBRÜCKEq), with some stylized difference. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The design came from this:

The problem stems from the fact that the bridge's movement is along the z-axis, whereas the icons are on the x-y plane. Got any better suggestions? Useddenim (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont have any good suggestions, and I’m not sure whether those I have are any better. Anyway, your analysis is spot-on and I think it agrees with my critique. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I come to notice that the same critique applied to other also-cluttered unusual bridge icon,  (DBK). -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, my only suggestion that fits my own criticism of the current design: Make an regular bridge icon with the track line interrupted in the middle with a single lücke-style spot (like the one here at the right → but transparent instead of dark blue, in the middle). It can be colored (black, formation color, or line color) or reshaped (disc, square, diamond?) to reflect any possible variants (drawbridge, swing bridge, lift bridge).

The idea behind this is to use clear design differences that can be seen at 20px based on non-naturalist iconic stylization — after all, since real stations  (BHF) are not round, funny bridge icons don't have to look like they real life counterparts, right?

-- Tuválkin ✉ 15:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Does  (BRK!) and  (uBRK!) fit the bill? (And yes, I just realized that the first one is a q version…) Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

While I was fleshing up in these ideas, I was not the only one doing it! ;-) Meanwhile, we all want to look at this Category:Animations of bridges — not only because it is cogent (limiting all these to those used for rail), but so we know we’re not the only ones creating useful and fun images for Wikipedia! -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I just found out (here) that there are other designs in use for this:  (uAKRZuba)  (uALIFTu)  (uASWINGu)  (ugLIFT)  (ugSWING)  (uHSWING)  (uKRZuyba)  (uKRZuysw)  (uLock5SWING) and more. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

So, my idea is to have icons for “conditional bridges” (swing, draw, lift) that look good at 20px and match the existing icons better than current  (HBKq) and  (DBK). I propose the design of two gaps in lücke style on an otherwise unchanged  (WBRÜCKE), with the three ersatz dots colored to denote the status of feature unused (i.e., line in use on formely conditional bridge stuck in the open-for-rail position) and/or any of said dots colored  formation  to denote assymetry of the bridge arrangement (or emphasize symmetry), as deemed necessary.

Proposed:	Replace?		Proposed:	Replace?		Proposed:	Replace?
	(eqv. triv.)			(eqv. triv.)			(eqv. triv.)
	(no eqv.)			(no eqv.)			(no eqv.)
	(no eqv.)			(no eqv.)			(no eqv.)

Will add a sample mock diagram for realistic testing. Opinions?-- Tuválkin ✉ 05:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Other advantages of this porposed design:

• It is trivial to create additional icons matching other types of bridges, such as  (BRK3),  (BRÜCKE2),  (BRÜCKE1), and, particularly —  (BRÜCKEa),  (hSTR), and  (BRÜCKEe).
• It is trivial to create additional icons showing other types of crossed body, as said — not only  (WASSERq), but also  (RP2q),  (uSTRq), and even  (STRq) or  ( ).
• It is trivial to create additional icons for  (vSTR) (I recomend using formations on adjacent icon cells for these.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 06:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, I do not really think a differentiation between normal and moveable bridges is needed; if one wishes to learn more, they can look at the bridges article, or failing that, add a note.User:Deonyi 05:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Design

Maybe  (eHBK(!)) is more intuitive if the line is not broken, as in  (eHBK(!)※ STR) ? On the other hand it is less visible like this…? -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those varied patterns of gaps and spots of different colours don't suggest "movable bridge" to me, let alone indicating how the bridge moves. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with our existing icons for a bridge swinging in a horizontal plane, such as  (umKRZuswq). Changing these to something less intuitive just doesn't make sense. We do have two different systems for a bascule bridge orientated left-right, namely  (HBKq) and  (uKRZuyba), but I think we should settle on one or the other and not invent something else. All that we really lack is something for a bascule bridge orientated top-bottom instead of left-right. See Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests#Rolling-lift bridge. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks bad. User:Deonyi 05:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming

The examples above should have a "W" preffix, sorry about that. Since these are realistically needed only for such bridges over water, all icons should either have a "W" preffix, as said, for rivers (or any body of water in rail diagrams), or a "um" preffix for canal (diagrams). Icons with neither of these would mean (and show) a conditional rail bridge over another rail line (lightrail, if with "u" preffix), an unusual situation. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no need for an "o" suffix, as these are inherently about the bridge that goes over. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The "(!)", of course, is meant to go. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Past discussions

2012-2013

Moved from Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests/Archive 3#HBK

Could some kind soul please create a vertical version of  (HBKq) so that I can use it in here to represent the Kingsferry Bridge? Although the bridge in question is a vertical lift bridge, I thought this icon would be an improvement on the existing bridge icon. Ravenseft (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wont do it because I’m not really convinced that  (HBKq) has an acceptable geometry as it is right now. A non-q version of it makes this even more evident. I suggest we discuss the matter at Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness/Archive 1#Drawbridges. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

---

^{One year later…}

Can there be created a logo   (HBK), lift bridge (not sideways like this:  (HBKq)), as this is the only one that exists. Thanks!
Benhen1997 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, «looks bad in vertical» was the 1st criticism against that design. Indeed, this icon is not iconic enough. That’s why I suggested a completely different shape:  (HBK(!)) and  (HBK(!)q). But the need for a vertical drawbridge that looks good (and for a redesign in general) is not new and is not going away — so let’s settle the matter. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

2014

Moved from Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests/Archive 4#Rolling-lift bridge

What is the most suitable icon for a rolling-lift bridge? Specifically, the bridge that carries the West Wales Line over the River Towy to the west of Carmarthen railway station. Here are some pictures of that particular bridge; it's similar to this one, but with fewer fixed spans. The principal feature is that the opening span doesn't rotate about a fixed pivot, but rolls along like this.

The icon needs to have the same colours, layout and orientation as  (WBRÜCKE) or  (WBRÜCKE1) except for the style of the bridge. It's for use on en:Template:West Wales Line RDT which currently uses  (DBK) which is wrong, because that's for a swing bridge - one which rotates in a horizontal plane. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 13:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's an old but still unarchived proposal to unite all such things into one design here. YLSS (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

2021.01

Moved from Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests#Lift bridges

Looking for tidier versions of a lift bridge over a canal similar to  (umKRZusw) for the following:

• Rail  (uLIFT※ STRq) 
• Road  (uLIFT※ RP2q) 

Or even more of a 'Vertical-lift bridge' style of as opposed to the 'Bascule bridge'  (LIFT)

• 

--Trainsofvictoria (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Also how would I show a current road lift bridge that also has an ex-rail line over it?--Trainsofvictoria (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Trainsofvictoria: For the latter I’d suggest something like  (exSTRq※ RP4q) . About the former, well, I’m not a fan of icon designs like  (umKRZusw),  (uLIFT),  (DBK), or  (HBKq) — at all! See some thoughts at Talk:BSicon/Icon_geometry_and_SVG_code_neatness/Archive_1#Drawbridges. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tuválkin: , I had considered  (HBKq) as it was the closest to what I need except the middle section is lifted directly upwards (not pivoting at one end), and I needed  (uSTR). --Trainsofvictoria (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: There now is a vertical lift bridge icon  (uKRZuyli). Would it be possible to get it with a Major road (Highway)   (uAKRZuyli), normal road   (uG2KRZuyli) and railway   (uSTRKRZuyli) (not sure on final name) to fit in with other icons used for things on Australian pages. --Trainsofvictoria (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This icon  (uKRZuyli) has exactly the same issues as  (HBKq). It’s been 10 years now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

2021.11

Moved from Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests#Still waiting on lift bridge icons

There now is a vertical lift bridge icon uKRZuyli  (uHKRZ2-Yu). Would it be possible to get it with a Major road (Highway) uAKRZuyli  (uHKRZ2-Au), normal road uG2KRZuyli  (uHKRZ2-G2u) and railway uSTRKRZuyli  (HBK2q) (not sure on final name) to fit in with other icons used for things on Australian pages. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter: missed one –  (umHKRZ2). Useddenim (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Useddenim: . I was actually after  (umHKRZ2), not  (HBK2q), as there is a navigable waterway, which is represented by  (uSTR), underneath the bridge. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Now just need to find a way to represent  (HBK2q) rotated 90 degrees (red train line running up-down on a lift bridge over a river). --ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

New discussion

I created this new talk page to gather disjoint discussions, some current, some archived, pertaining the same subject. I have nothing to add to what I proposed back then, other than to stress that what was originally my main qualm (that  (HBKq) and such don’t work well for vertical lines), albeit dismissed by some back then — come back up in different discussions at least four times in the intervening nine years. Looks like this is a real problem that needs to be discussed to conclusion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I agree with your comments, but the only thing I could think of as an alternative would be to use the existing bridge icon with a letter overlaid to indicate the variant, something like  (DBRK)  for a drawbridge,  (SBRK)  for a swing bridge, etc. Useddenim (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)