I agree that these seem to be better handled as overlays.
Also, at 20 px these are indistinguishable, the overlaid part (as a separate BSicon or within the svg) could/should be much bigger.
If these are Swedish, then they are not generic — although they were drawn to match the generic icon set, which, unlike, say, , were meant to be… well, generic, and, by their graphical nature, meant to be a complement of things like , not the axis of a diagram in themselves. I’m sure that the Swedish national road authority doesn't use white-on-grey as their standard of color marking on maps and diagrams? (But yes, I know these icons are being used as the axis of road diagrams — wrongly so, IMO.)
(RP2oWq) is not a problem at all: It matches the rest and indeed showed up “magically” on the table above as soon as it was uploaded. (As well as the other recent road icons by Civilspanaren not listed in this section.)
I used the Swedish signs as they were the ones I found the fastest. But I have also discovered that the signs was a little too small. They looked really great when I made them, but then you could see them in the 500x500px. The traffic light can hardly be said to be purely Swedish because it looks the same across most of the world.
The picture on the (RP4 Exit1) and (RP2 Exit1) are taken from (see also ) but are taken from the Swedish model because I could not find a similar sign in the world, though I know they exist.
The new, bigger elements are much better, Civilspanaren. I should say, because it was not clear so far, that in spite of criticism (and I ain’t done yet, either ), I find your work — on these icons and with them — to be a good one, and makes me glad, once again, that I started this style of roads. -- Tuválkin✉18:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say that I think that is too overworked indeed. These icons, as said above were designed to be a complement to rail diagrams, purposefully devoided of detail and purposefully subdued, a background element to the brighter and more stylized lines and discs of that main element. These icons should show a road as it shows from the “trainspotter’s” eye, varying only in its width and pavemnent type, nothing more, especially no indication of immaterial properties, such as toll class. That’s why (RP2) is described as having «two or three lanes» and (RP4) as «four or more lanes» — although number of lanes could be considered, as it is a visual characteristic, my idea was to minimize the possible choices: Just dirt, narrow, regular, and wide.
As I said above, this doesn’t mean I deplore the usage of this set as done in wp:es and wp:sv, instead of the other road sets, but this level of detail is IMO better dealt by using things like (uvSTR) for road lanes than custom creating single icons with complex one-off situations (cp. this).
As the original BS-icons grow in variations I think it's possible to make a table of the road network as well, but as you say, it shouldn't be to detailed. Every little junction to farms or like should not be rendered, like the railway-descriptions shouldn't describe every little railroad switch. --Civilspanaren (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about sub-categories for this set of icons? Dirt-roads (RD), Roads (RP1), Bigger roads (RP2), Motorways (RP4), 2+1-roads (RP12, RP21). Junctions and simular with more that one set sould then bli dubble och more categorised. --Civilspanaren (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These icons should be subcategorized as all other BSicons are (being). Multiple categorization is theproper way to do it, of course. -- Tuválkin✉22:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, RD=Dirt roads, RP1=Small roads, RP2=Contryroads, RP4=Motorway/Highway/Expressways, RP21/RP12=Multi-lane expressways. Are they better names? I thought it was better to down categorize this icons by type before we subcategorize it down by straight, curves and so on. --Civilspanaren (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RP12 & RP21 roads are not trunk roads: they are a special category used in special situations. (Most commonly when traffic in one direction moves differently from that in the opposite, e.g. when climbing a long grade, or approaching a busy junction prone to delays.) Useddenim (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this would be a good idea. Given how light the ex-grey colour is, once overlaid with white stripes it would be difficult to see much detail. Why not just use tunnel icons? Many road maps use dashed lines to indicate “under construction”. Useddenim (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will/would particularly difficult to create a set of planned/former roads in this “generic” style (et c.) matching the way that is done in the usualt BSicon style (et c.) because these “generic” icons were designed against that very possibility: These are icons to show roads in railway diagrams, and they are more ornamental than schematic, unpractical to show more than how they look like.
According to that original idea, road diagrams with the level of detail those need, should be made with regular BSicons, and where those roads cross rail tracks those would be identified by simple, subdued, and detailless icons that would look like .
People liked the grey road icons with the white dashline more than they should, maybe, and developed them past their planned roles: Eventually those original design constraints would start clashing with the new uses. Good luck with that. -- Tuválkin✉10:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general the BSicon description pages in w:en are more complete than in Commons, because in Commons there is only very few such pages. That said, the two catalogs (w:en’s and Common’s) you mention follow different approaches; one being momentarily less up to date. “Replacing” would destroy that difference in approach, to cause yet one more unsynch-prone clone of w:en’s Catalog of pictograms like those that plague the whole project. -- Tuválkin✉11:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better not: The grey set, as usual for any typical BSicon, has lines 100 px wide. RP1, on the other hand, is only 75 px wide. (For the record, RP2 is 110 px wide, and RP4 is 220.) -- Tuválkin✉20:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Icons have been redrawn—I leave it up to someone else to determine better names. (“br”, “A” and “E” suffixes? And aren’t these really just variants of (RP2yvRP2) and (vRP2yRP2)?) Useddenim (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, Useddenim! Fast and accurate, many thanks. As for the naming, as usual I opted not to change before some discussion is held, but seems to me that the best way to view these is as special cases of roundabouts where one of the oulets is a boulevard. The "A" and "E" suffixes (inspired by their lowercase counterparts in more usual BSicon naming) should be north and south, with east and west being possible further additions. The shape indicator (akin to "r", "y", or "x") could be a mnemonic "c" (as "u" is already taken). -- Tuválkin✉09:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like the driving husband replied on the phone to his worried wife, «It is not one lone loony driving on the wrong side, it is everybody!!». (Seriously, after correcting some of mine, I found more RP2 icons with 100 px instead of 110 px.) -- Tuválkin✉20:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
, were meant to be… well, generic, and, by their graphical nature, meant to be a complement of things like 
, not the axis of a diagram in themselves. I’m sure that the Swedish national road authority doesn't use white-on-grey as their standard of color marking on maps and diagrams? (But yes, I know these icons are being used as the axis of road diagrams — wrongly so, IMO.)
(
(
(
(see also 
) but 
are taken from the Swedish model because I could not find a similar sign in the world, though I know they exist.
), I find your work — on these icons and with them — to be a good one, and makes me glad, once again, that I started this style of roads. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
.
(
(
(
