Category talk:Icons for motorway descriptions/generic
2+1 Roads: IMO
← Older revision
Revision as of 00:29, 2 April 2013
Line 1,366:
Line 1,366:
I'm thinking about creating a 5th set of road icon's (RP3) for [[:en:2+1 road]]s. Or is that too overworked? --[[User:Civilspanaren|Civilspanaren]] ([[User talk:Civilspanaren|talk]]) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking about creating a 5th set of road icon's (RP3) for [[:en:2+1 road]]s. Or is that too overworked? --[[User:Civilspanaren|Civilspanaren]] ([[User talk:Civilspanaren|talk]]) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:Useddenim|Useddenim]] ([[User talk:Useddenim|talk]]) 22:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:Useddenim|Useddenim]] ([[User talk:Useddenim|talk]]) 22:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
+
+
::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 {{BS-q|RP2}} is described as having «two or three lanes» and {{BS-q|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 {{BS-q|uvSTR}} for road lanes than custom creating single icons with complex one-of situations (cp. [[Talk:BSicon/Icon topology and semantics#Completely new BS icon set|this]]).
+
::-- [[User:Tuvalkin|Tuválkin]] [[User talk:Tuvalkin|✉]] 00:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)