Open main menu

Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness


Separated from Talk:BSicon/Renaming#GRENZE vs ZOLL

To be honest, I wanted to raise this issue for quite a long time, but always postponed it. So,
My impression – don't know where I got that from, correct me if I'm wrong – was that the present design of   (ZOLL) was intended to make it different from   (GRENZE) and thus prevent it from being deleted as a duplicate. With that threat gone (hopefully), I think we might reconsider the geometry and the colours. I understand that Tuválkin as the author of that change might think different, but... To my eyes, the older one looks better. There are two issues:

  1. The ring in   (ZOLL) is both thicker and smaller in outer radius, so the inner space is much smaller and the icon looks really blurred and cluttered. Similarly, the distance between the ring and the black bar is reduced, so there is no space visible between them at 20px as in   (GRENZE), which was better – again, IMHO.
  2. The colour of the ring is too bright. Not as much as some were originally, but still. I does stand out in an RDT.   (GRENZE) uses #CC0000, which doesn't differ much from #BE2D2C, but... is that bad?

A minor issue is that the white outer ring, if kept at all, should be confined to the area where there's a track (like here). All in all, I could live with the older design... But I would really like you all to tell me that I'm a fool and that the newer design is much much better!! YLSS (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at en:Comparison of European road signs#Checkpoints. (I'm sorry I did.) Useddenim (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tested a new design at   (GRZq+ZOLL). Can be seen at the bottom of fr:Schéma de la ligne de Creil à Jeumont. Opinions? YLSS (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I like that new design, and it seems to work well at 20px — which was my concern when I created the alternative design for the ZOLL family. -- Tuválkin 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Maybe it might be better with a mask instead of the grey separator? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
07:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the separation element should be all around, as a disc, to enable clean overlaying. (I’m not calling it a mask, but yeah.) -- Tuválkin 10:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I meant using an SVG <mask>…</mask> for the non-overlay icons; sorry for the ambiguity. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
10:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: I think YLSS's design should be used, and four people is probably a pretty good consensus around here, although now I think the grey separator is probably fine. Jc86035 (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Haha you found me out while I was testing around with the icon.
By grey separator I guess you mean the off-white boundary around? One issue I had with it was that the coordinates have to be continuously changed based on lines' orientation, not sure if it would be better to integrate it into the circular disc? (Also @YLSS: @Tuvalkin: )   ~ Newfitz Yo! 08:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Btw I compiled some numerical stats for the icons, just for reference (please ignore the last one):
@Newfraferz87: JJMC89 bot now makes daily logs of uploads, moves and deletions, and I've been checking them regularly for a while as a sort of quality control.
I think if the icon is going to use the BHF elevated formations then it should retain the black line, although right now neither the black nor white lines are noticeable at 20px–25px in the "random test". I think YLSS's proposal looks better than the original and should be used as the base if all of the ZOLL/GRENZE icons are to be replaced. Jc86035 (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I uploaded     (hZOLL) with the black border, what do you think of it?   ~ Newfitz Yo! 12:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Newfraferz87: I've uploaded one with the standard formations style over it (I didn't realize the circle was slightly smaller). I don't think it's actually visually distinguishable from YLSS' design at 20px, but it makes more sense with the formations when it's at 500px. I'm not sure what else to do with it, though. Is it good enough as it is? Jc86035 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)



@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Epicgenius, Vunz: Should the geometry of   (vÜWBol+l) or   (vÜWBg+r) be used? (Both were uploaded by Useddenim, four years apart. There are a few other duplicates.) I'm not sure which track shape or formations (or file name) should be used. The icon should be consistent with both   (evÜWBl) and   (vÜWBol+lr), which is to say at least one of those two should be renamed (probably vÜWBl+lr, since the "o" seems to be implied; or evÜWBol). Jc86035 (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I like   (vÜWBol+l) much better than   (vÜWBg+r). (And I agree with the renaming, but lets discuss that elsewhere.) -- Tuválkin 04:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
In retrospect, I like the curved version better. I think I drew the tangent in an attempt to make more space for the formation. Useddenim (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


@Useddenim: I don't think it's a good idea to suddenly start having perfectly parallel ¼ shifts like   (vSHI1r~l), because it doesn't really make sense given that there are a non-negligible number of diagrams with several parallel ½ shifts and given that it's basically impossible to make more than about three of them parallel at the same time. Isn't there a discussion from about five years ago which resulted in   (uvSHI2l) being changed to use the standard geometry? Jc86035 (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I just realized that   (uvSHI2l) does have a non-standard curve, so the above is probably moot. However, there should probably be some matching corners first so that you don't end up permanently breaking lots of diagrams, or the geometry should be changed (with the logic that the connection should match a standard single line). Jc86035 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I created   (vSHI1r~l) to try and fix a problem I was having with a diagram, but it turns out that the difference for a 1/4 shift is negligible. (However, as the displacement increases the difference becomes more and more noticeable; note that the 4/4 shifts are parallel:     .) But for now it's just a one-off. Useddenim (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

lvBHF2+4, uhSHI4+lq and RBoWq+ZOLLEdit


I see 2 geomtric errors with 2 BSicons:   (lvBHF2+4) and   (uhSHI4+lq). First, lvBHF2+4 has a mask overlay behind it(which is slightly higher brightness than   (MASK), making it useless as a station on a diagonal paralell line, and secondly, uhSHI4+lq has the elevated formation touch the entire track. 19:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I forgot something,   (RBoWq+ZOLL) should be light blue instead of dark blue —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done all. Jc86035 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

3 stationsEdit


@Useddenim:   (ue3HSTq-) just seems a bit... wrong to me. I would have made a ue3HSTq- with the line in the usual place and then a uex[l]3HSTq-~FF with the rest of the station at the bottom of that icon's frame. Jc86035 (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean something like this? I could see uses for both versions. Useddenim (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Yes, like that. I think if there's to be something like the current   (ue3HSTq-) it would be better to make it go into the normal top parallel line, but then that would just be   (uvSTR+lg-) +   (udHSTq-) +   (uv-STR+rg). Jc86035 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I've uploaded udHSTq-. There doesn't seem to be that much difference, and I think keeping the smooth curve would be better than forcing the station circle to be as close to the edge as possible. Jc86035 (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: This was fairly unnecessary, but I've also uploaded   (vvSTRl~r),   (vvSTRl~r~r~L), and other assorted connecting pieces, which would allow a station to use the normal ~F/~G icons (e.g. at w:en:Template:RER C). Jc86035 (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Expansion (i.e. making the page more useful)Edit

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Epicgenius: I've expanded the "deriving new icons" section so that new people (if any) don't have to spend hours figuring out how some of this stuff works. I made   (hkBHF+4 geometry) and the other two a year ago, but didn't put them anywhere because I wasn't sure what to do with them. Would more icons like them be useful? Jc86035 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A very good start. I will have to examine it in more detail, though, when I have some time. And yes, It's always nice to find that someone else has already done the complicated math when one of those esoteric icons is needed. Useddenim (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It would be good to make more icons like these, because it would probably help more users - both new and experienced. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Tunnel tracks acrossEdit

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Epicgenius: Is there an agreed geometry for tunnel tracks across in narrow icons? I was planning to mass-reupload these icons (along with a batch upload of similar icons with larger widths), and I realized that the existing icons were both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with other tunnel BSicons.

Icon Date Uploader Dashes
  (utcd-STRq) 13 June 2014 Useddenim 48.4375,48.4375,48.4375,(...),48.4375
  (tdSTRq) 18 January 2009 Axpde 50,62.5,62.5,62.5,50
  (utd-STRq) 5 June 2012 Useddenim 75,50,50,50,75
  (utcSTRq) 17 February 2013 Useddenim 66.66,41.66,66.66
  (utcSTRq-) 13 June 2014 Useddenim 56.25,62.5,56.25

Italics indicate dashes that aren't 50px long, assuming that the dashes always start 25px before the left and right icon borders. I would have thought that most of the geometries would follow the usual convention of having all the dashes be 50px long – 50,75,50 for tcSTRq and 50,43.75,50,(...),50 for tcdSTRq. For tdSTRq, most of the existing icons have a 62.5px middle dash, and it might be preferable to keep that (although if the middle dash should be wider then 60,60,60,60,60 might be better). Jc86035 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:BSicon/road/generic road/tramEdit

Should these be redrawn (and renamed) to be compatible with standard generic road icons overlaid with   (unSTR) etc.? E.g.   (RP4+T)    unSTR+RP4/RP4+unSTR. Useddenim (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks better to me at least.Deonyi 03:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Deonyi: Which one looks better? Useddenim (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The thicker one, using   (unSTR) looks better to me. Although, evidence of use would be good and I would hesitate before creating routemaps for tram routes in such detail, though I suppose the Russian wikipedia can do as it pleases. Deonyi 12:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Let me say this again: Detail is okay, but if one wants detail, then lets use regular icons instead of replicating everything at a smaller scale (that’s why I abhorr the whole n subset). Does it look too big on the page? — well, use PX=10 instead. -- Tuválkin 17:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)



Maybe things like File:BSicon uhpKBHFa.svg (basically KBHFs with p's and optionally u's, h's, and t's) could be uploaded? They could very well be used in some railways that don't stop at a huge station. These include:

  • tpKBHFa and tpKBHFe (whose bound to come up somewhere in a metro)
  • their u versions,
  • and their h and their at-level versions.

Any thoughts?

Ben79487 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire, pKBHF is very unlikely to be needed, as it's a major problem if a train attempts to bypass a terminal station. Useddenim (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hehe, yeah — but might come handy for overlays, though. -- Tuválkin 05:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Meant that the train doesn't stop there (for example, if the route usually starts at station A but some Ltd. Express services stop at station B further down and don't come up to the section with station A. Hehehe. :) – Ben79487 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It sound as if you're asking for something to be used in a schedule chart as opposed to a route diagram (en:Template:Tel Aviv suburban railway map vs. en:Template:Israel Railways routemap). Useddenim (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

TINT interchange stationsEdit


I've noticed that some TINT icons (interchange station where 2 lines cross) look a little strange. The black outline of the white station is a little too thick. Compare Pape station to Osgoode in en:Template:Ontario Line, Osgoode uses 2 overlayed icons and looks better in my opinion. Blaixx (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

They should be all identical, yes, as discussed long ago. I‘m surprised there is still some variation. -- Tuválkin 10:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Blaixx: Unfortunately I never got around to them; I'd held off on these mainly because I'd have to redraw the formations of icons like   (TINTo) properly before re-uploading them, since they use viaduct formations instead of crossing formations. Maybe in a little while. Jc86035 (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)



@Useddenim, Tuvalkin: I've done some testing with potential redesigns for the   (TBHFo) series, since there isn't really an obvious way to do it. Does any one of these seem better than the others? Jc86035 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Either β (Straight crossing formations) or δ (Rounded viaduct formations) but not γ (Straight viaduct formations). Useddenim (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I like them all, visually — the difference is negligible at 20px, and at a larger size I would approve either “message”, either straight or bent. Alas, not both, though, as different realizations of this detail in simultaneous use could be misconstrued as significant and contrasting.
That said, I would like to support the notion that the smaller bridges are the real TBHFos/TBHFos and that the larger bridges are hBHFaes, regardless of the presence of a second line, crossing below.
-- Tuválkin 15:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Good point. So, does that mean we've settled on β for the tBHF/tINT icons? Useddenim (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I think so, yes. My main concern was that it leaves a narrower gap than the   (THSTo) formations, but I guess it doesn't really matter since there are only two station sizes in the first place (and both would have to be different for the 45°-angle formations anyway). Jc86035 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Shift crossingsEdit


@Useddenim, Tuvalkin: To my knowledge, there isn't a convention for drawing crossings like tSHI2l+xl and tSHI3l+xl. (I omitted icons like the latter in the mass upload of SHI3 icons, because I couldn't find a satisfactory way to draw them.) Both icon groups have an even number of dashes for each track, so the overlap at the crossing is difficult to draw, especially if the angle isn't close to 90°.

Do any of the proposed designs work well? I'd be somewhat reluctant to change the dash spacing, but it's possible that it would still be the best option. Jc86035 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think ζ (dash spacing decreased) looks best at 20px. Useddenim (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Width of ENDEEdit

At Category:BSicon/railway/half-width/line_endings (and probably elsewhere in cats about endings) we can see varying widths for the black/grey orthogonal block that constitutes the line ending icon. This should be homogenized across all icons. -- Tuválkin 12:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: A while ago the width was changed to 200px for all of the normal-width icons. I've uploaded a bunch of half-width icons (and duplicated them into all of the other sets, because why not), though there are probably a few left over. Jc86035 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, great. Normal-width and also half-width, yes? (since 200<250). I can fix these. -- Tuválkin 14:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Sorry, what I meant to say was that the width was changed (across all icons) but I originally only uploaded the normal-width icons and left the others for later. I've reuploaded most of the half-width icons as well as some of the parallel lines icons. Jc86035 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness" page.