Talk:BSicon/Icon topology and semantics

"No bridges below surface"— NOT!

moved from User_talk:Axpde/Archive_3#.22No_bridges_below_surface.22.E2.80.94_NOT.21

Without these icons, how are we supposed to denote which tunnel crosses on top of the other? Train2104 (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the sense of knowing which tunnel crosses where, you can't even see the other tunnel! Anyways, abusing the "bridges" is the wrong approach! axp_de^Hello! 08:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please untag the files and create a more visible discussion about this, using the icons below to show crossings only is a workaround, but there is no reason to delete these icons. If a consensus supports their discontinuation, I have no objection to that.Train2104 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Those icons does not describe bridges, so I think it is a bad idea to name them so. However, they will still be needed to make it possible to describe underground non-level crossings. There is no rule in Wikipedia that says what you cannot see shall not be described. In fact, different levels of underground railways may cause significant issues on consequent constructions - the planned new Stuttgart central station is one example of this. BjørnN (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 (BRIDGE) &  (BRIDGEq) with overlays;

 (ÜWt3) +  (utSTR3) or  (utSTR3+l);

 (ÜWt1) +  (utSTR+1) or  (utSTRl+4);

 (ÜWt2) +  (utSTR2) or  (utSTR2+r);

 (ÜWt4) +  (utSTR+4) or  (utSTRr+1).

Useddenim (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If I could refer everyone to the photo on p.22 of Brian Hardy's Paris Metro Handbook (Capital Transport, 2^nd ed., 1993), which clearly shows a three-level bridge structure within an underground tunnel. 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." (If anyone wishes, I will post a scan of the image elsewhere than Wikipedia.) Useddenim (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you mean this. Regards, BjørnN (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a cut-away of the station itself. The underground junction is just to the east. Useddenim (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are, and must be different levels of tunnels under ground and just using a level icon does not accurately describe such a structure. As for the "bridge" naming, I also believe that it ought to be changed (to a crossing, perhaps, as in uextKRZtu ?) - though the icon, with its usefulness, should be kept. The "bridges" can be modified to represent that of a crossing if necessary. NoNews! 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 (BRIDGErl) &  (BRIDGElr) added for use with   (utÜWorl) &   (utÜWolr). Useddenim (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As consensus seems to be against removing these icons, please revert your modifications. Templates need to be removed and categorizations restored. Train2104 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For sake of completeness, don't forget about (the curiously named)  (SKRZu)   (SKRZua)  (hNULl)   (SKRZum)  (hNULq)   (SKRZue)  (hNULr). Useddenim (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think those were supposed to be the overlays for  (SBRÜCKE), which is the one that de.wp uses for road crossings (ironically, they don't really use the AKRZ family of icons at all!). Circeus (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Separating arrows/ends from junctions

moved from User talk:Axpde/Archive 3#Obsolete BSicon

Since you seem to know better about these things (I just to make several rail route templates for fi.wikipedia), why is the icon   (ABZ3CONTlg) billed (categorised) as obsolete? There's at least five templates in fi-wiki that could use this one and another five that could use it's mirror image (flipped horizontally). Also Russians(?) seem to have the need for it too. Thanks in advance. --88.195.132.227 01:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's generally considered preferable to have the junction and the continuation arrow on separate icons. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I think as well. There's a tremendous count of combinations we can't all keep in storage. Plus this BSicon is very badly named! How about creating a slender version of  (CONTl)? Can be used with overlay ... axp_de^Hello! 09:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As in   (dCONTl)? Useddenim (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it WAS an old convo. Circeus (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But then there’s   (vumCONTg)… --Tuvalkin (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Now defunct. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Building bridges for double lines

Example
WASSERrg│dWBRÜCKE│WASSERq v-WASSERe|vSTRa WASSERlf|vWBRÜCKE|WASSERq uCONTr|mvTBHFo|uCONTl CONTr|O1=vhLGD-L|uvBHF|CONTl|O3=vhLGD-R WASSERrg|O1=vhLGD-L|uvSTR|WASSERq|O3=vhLGD-R WASSER|uvSTRe WASSERlf|uWBRÜCKE|WASSERq

I been thinking that bridges for double tracks are just too small for lack of room in the icon. Why not put the bridge “rails” on the adjacent icon cells, left   (vBRK-L) and right   (vBRK-R)? See these examples →, with too-tight bridges in the red track and more slack ones in the blue. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(Yes, the names   (vBRK-L) and   (vBRK-R) are not good, sorry I was not thinking right. Should be something like   (lvBRK-Lo) and   (lvBRK-Ro), or   (vNUL-Lo) and   (vNUL-Ro), even using Circeus’ system; or, more consevatively   (vBRÜCKE-Lo legende) and   (vBRÜCKE-Ro legende). Lets discuss these names here. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

Ditto for double lines across, like this really tight bridge in   (mvKRZqu). -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(moved to naming discussion) We would also want half-width (d) versions to keep a diagram from getting too wide if it's the only icon in the outer-most column. Useddenim (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the half-icon versions ready, waiting for stable naming. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that half-icon versions have existed for almost 4 years now:  (dBRÜCKEr) and  (dBRÜCKEl)! ;-) -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, long after the discussion above, the following icons were created:

  (vBRÜCKE-L)   (vBRÜCKE-M)   (vBRÜCKE-R)

which ignore the (much simpler) solution suggested above and go for bridge/elevated markers to be split among two adjoining icons, striving to achieve the same distances between them and the track as in the single line icons;

and  (vhLGD-R)  (vhLGD-L)

which seem to be duplicates of   (vBRK-L) and   (vBRK-R).

Opinions? -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, Monsieur Pic-Sou (talk · contribs) strikes again. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to draw first, rather than check the catalog pages. Usually I just change the single use of his new icon and then tag it as {{Duplicate}}. Useddenim (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case it seams to deal with the corner case of two v-lines crossing. I'm not sure if  (vhLGD-L) wouldn't show more of the color at the corner. Circeus (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi friends, just my 2¢. I don't like the idea of bridge indicators spreaded out over two icons. IMHO the depicted solution above is the better one! Regards a×p_de^Hello! 12:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely new BS icon set

moved from Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness#Another fine kettle of fish

Konstantin Filippov has taken it upon himself to create a whole new category of BS icons here:

•  (MetroSPB01 spTRACK)
•  (MetroSPB01 ST)
•  (MetroSPB01 STs)
•  (MetroSPB01 bST)
•  (MetroSPB01 OB)
•  (MetroSPB01 uOB1)
•  (MetroSPB01 dOB1)
•  (MetroSPB01 dOB2)
•  (MetroSPB01 uOB2)
•  (MetroSPB01 uDEPO)
•  (MetroSPB01 uzCROSS)
•  (Techno1)
•  (Techno2)
•  (Techno3)
•  (Techno4)
•  (TechnoST)

↓ original diagram

redrawn with standard icons ↓

Legend ТЧ4 «Северное» v-STRe vSTRe- leer+BSl leer+BSr Девяткино vBS2+l vBS2+r Гражданский проспект Академическая vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Политехническая vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Площадь Мужества Лесная vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Выборгская vBS2r Площадь Ленина vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Чернышевская Площадь Восстания vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Владимирская vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Пушкинская ÜWc2 File:BSicon uÜWc2.svg File:BSicon STRrg grey.svg Технологический институт File:BSicon uÜWc3.svg Балтийская vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Нарвская Кировский завод vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Автово vBS2+r vBS2+l Ленинский проспект vBS2r vBS2+l vBS2+r Проспект Ветеранов exvBS2+r exvBS2+l Ульянка exvBS2l exvBS2r exvBS2+l exvBS2+r Пулково

Legend ТЧ4 «Северное» Девяткино Гражданский проспект Академическая Политехническая Площадь Мужества Лесная Выборгская Площадь Ленина Чернышевская Площадь Восстания Владимирская Пушкинская Технологический институт Балтийская Нарвская Кировский завод Автово Ленинский проспект Проспект Ветеранов Ульянка Пулково

Useddenim (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I noticed these last week, from Algagraphix’s new BSicon warning list. I think these should be discussed, of course, but more than their geometry (which is shaky, too) we want to address their topology and semantics, so please lets move the discussion there, and with a better section name, too? (Also, congrats to Useddenim for the patience and skill creating the equivalent of these.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Unfortunately my Яussian consists of only "Da" and "Nyet", so I will leave it up to someone else to contact Comrade Filippov. Useddenim (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The Commons templates do not display dICONs at the proper size, and only allow a single overlay. Useddenim (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Those icons are completely incompatible with all our BSicons, I'd prefer he'd use another name for those, maybe just dropping "BSicon" or alike! a×p_de^Hello! 12:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

He uses the "BSicon_" name prefix so he can use the BS diagram templates with them. I agree with Axpde and Useddenim on this, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved all these to a separate Category:Icons for railway descriptions/experimental/MetroSPB. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Quarter curve and half depot

File:BSicon KDSTl+STRrf yellow+red.svg

Do we need this?

I’m finished cleaning up the yellow+red set — all that’s left is this:   (KDSTl+STRrf yellow+red). It is (now) unused. And it shows a situation that classically should be addressed by overlaying. Yet it is properly named, as far as it could be. What do you all think? Just delete or integrate it in the yellow mixed set after removing the edges, like the rest? -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete! YLSS (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

∇ete. Useddenim (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete, but keep the ROOT+ROOT as the official scheme for icons most simply named as overlays Circeus (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

same here - we can't keep any special icon which can be easily substituted by overlaying other icons. a×p_de^Hello! 11:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Arrows

At de:Stadtbahn Alicante, several diagrams show things like  (uABZg+lr) where  (uCONTf) is obviously intended (actually 4 in 16 uses show proper arrow icons). I just thought you’d like to know this… -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is definetely no standard use of BSicons, no BS-templates are used. Strange ... a×p_de^Hello! 21:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Multi-function stations

Which icon would be use when we wish to represent stations that are halts on one platform but normal on others? The same applies for stations which are mixed use; one half is normal, the other a goods halt? Would we use CPIC?

Deonyi (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how you want to represent this situation and what kind of diagram you are using. In the second case, you can use  (BHF-L) &  (DST-R) in two cells,  (dBHF-L) &  (dDST-R) using half-width icons, or  (vBHF-DST) if no connection is necessary. In the first case,  (dHST) &  (dBHF) as half-width, or  (vHST-) +  (v-BHF) =   in a single cell using overlaying. I can't visualise a neat connection between HST and BHF circles; but you are free to experiment if you insist on having one. I haven't seen an HST icon with a CPIC interchange, but once again, you can try something like  (CPICrr) +  (HST) =   &  (CPICr) if you think that would be clearer to readers. YLSS (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

An alternate method would be  (lvDST-※ BHF AUSW)  and  (lv-BHF※ HST AUSW)  (underlaid with  (CPIC) if you want). Useddenim (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@Deonyi: It just occurred to me that  (BHFlf※ lHST)  might be a more elegant solution. Useddenim (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

Moved to Commons talk:WikiProject BSicon

Formations and ex-ness

Tuvalkin has suggested that someday this situation should be discussed. I believe that someday is today. I've already been called out for narrowing the elevated formation lines by YLSS for the continued use of straight formation lines around bulging features when that particular discussion has not yet been resolved. The point was made that things should be hashed out to avoid having to redo everything later and I agree with this. Since we have already agreed to change the formation lines for elevated icons (and since I've already started doing some conversions) we need to discuss the lack of an "ex" color/variant for formations (portals, elevated, embankment, cut, and bridges) so that work doesn't have to be done twice.

This has already been brought up by the "exTUNNEL" icon set. Useddenim's proposal of using dotted lines to represent an ex-formation has some drawbacks, but does demonstrate that there are instances where an "ex'formation'" icon is plausible and therefore valid for creation. Here in Chicago, we have several of these instances. On the North Side Main Line there are places where the elevated track is no longer in use, but the elevated structure is still in place. Likewise on the Kenwood branch, the steel elevated structure and all of the tracks are gone, but the vast majority of the embankment still exists. Additionally, we also have the opposite of exTUNNEL. The Randolf Street Station was built in a cut, but about ten years ago this section of the cut was turned into a tunnel when Millennium Park was built on top.

Useddenim's  (exlTUNNEL) uses dots to represent "ex"ness, but this overlaps with the concept for elevated interruptions and elevated continuation pieces which is undesirable. Therefore, I think this warrants the creation of an ex-formation color. Under this system, the colors for exhSTR would become the new xhSTR icon (we would simply fix the formation color of the original icon to avoid the huge hassle of fixing every use of the old name). The only problem here is that e and x junctions could become complicated. Thoughts? Lost on Belmont (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm just afraid of this. YLSS (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what pops into my mind for the situations mentioned above:

•  (lhSTR※ uexlHST)  for North Side Main Line
•  (lDSTR※ uexlHST)  for Kenwood branch

since, in my mind  (uexhHST) implies that the entire structure has been removed. Useddenim (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's just as it should be since that is an "ex" icon. In your examples, however, you omit the track to signify that the structure exists, but the track does not. This unfortunately goes against the whole concept of  (uexSTR) which is to easily demonstrate that the track is out of use. Based on current convention, those look more like elevated/embankment lines that never had track with a closed or planned station on them. (By the way, I have no plans to describe such features in those templates as of right now. They're merely examples.)

I guess the main question is, why shouldn't we have an "ex" variant for formations? We have them for other things ( (BAHN) →  (exBAHN) and  (lACC) →  (exlACC)). There seem to be two reasons against implementing an ex color for formations 1) we don't need that level of information (if it's gone, it's gone. What does it matter?) and 2) adding an ex color to existing icons and creating a slew of x icons would be a lot of work.

1) If it's gone, it's gone. We have icons for former connections, former electrification, and former/planned accessible stations. Why illustrate connections that aren't available if they don't exist? If it isn't electrified, it isn't electrified. Why have icons for stations that are/were accessible, but aren't in use and are therefore basically just regular inaccessible stations? We already have use that goes against this argument.

2)Holy crap, that's a lot of work! This, I understand. But there have already been large scale fixes implemented (tunnels, anyone?) so why not add (as Useddenim put it) "one more task on the endless list of 'fixing' Wikipedia"? Lost on Belmont (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's merely the same situation as with tunnels:

1. track and tunnel (bridge, etc.) are both in use,
2. track is out of use, but tunnel (bridge, etc.) is still intact (maybe a ruin, maybe reused for other kinds of traffic),
3. track is out of use, and tunnel (bridge, etc.) is gone.

The first case ( (BRÜCKE),  (TUNNEL1), etc.) is ok. Period.

But our "ex" BSicons mostly show the second case, instead of the third one:  (exBRÜCKE) should be  (xBRÜCKE),  (exTUNNEL1) should be  (xTUNNEL1).

And then we need a set of "real ex" BSicons, whatever the may look like.

There is a very little chance to find an "ex" color for formations, since the actual color is already a light grey. Can't be brightened up much ... Greets a×p_de^Hello! 17:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This one odd icon  (uxgCROSS) could be simply redrawn to match  (KRZo), but maybe its shape and name could be food for thought w.r.t. the discussion above. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

…and is visually (nearly) equivalent to  (gSTR※ MASKm※ gSTRq)  (if it is actually needed somewhere). Useddenim (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Again: Completely new BS icon set

@Tuvalkin: I've made all the icons (without the Techno 1-4/-ST) new with hand-written code. Also I designed a new naming system using a 2-letter-system for the main situations and the numbers 1-4 for the four main tracks. Currently these icons are in the same category as the old ones. A overview about my naming system is in my lab. -- C₂₁H₂₂N₂O₂ /talk/de/en 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

But what's the point? Useddenim (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@C21H22N2O2: If you're to design a naming system I think you should avoid creating conflicts with the current BSicons (especially the width prefixes), and make it more flexible (e.g. don't use 1, 2, 3, 4 for track numbers since this makes it harder to name a three-track icon). I don't think we need them, though, since we already have 55,000 of these other icons. Jc86035 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that we need more than the four main tracks. Also I hadn't the idea to create it, I only "re-coded" the icons and designed new, better names. -- C₂₁H₂₂N₂O₂ /talk/lab/de/en 17:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of these icons? Why not use the standard ones? Steepleman (t) 06:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem detected in icon ueHSTr

Moved to Talk:BSicon#File thumbnail display
12:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)