move toilets icon to SVG

[nebulon42]

Implements part of #1165 by changing the icon for amenity=toilets to SVG (as requested by @mkoniecz in #1012).

Symbol (toilets-16.svg)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/46.79772/13.49504
before:

after:

A very similar symbol is also used by the HOT style, it is heavily inspired by Maki's toilets-18.svg.

[nebulon42]

see #1012 (comment):

toilet icon - I think that it would be a good idea to add this vertical bar.

I know that a lot of toilet icons have this bar. IMO it just adds unnecessary clutter and I think that toilet is clearly recognisable as such without it. I'm open for all opinions though, of course.

[althio]

I am not convinced by the separated heads. Also the woman's shape could be with waist and hips but without skirt.

Alternatively I would like to propose something radically different even if it may be controversial to introduce such a change on such a sign...
🚽 TOILET restroom

[pnorman]

👎 The old icon has a clearer meaning here.

[nebulon42]

As for depicting a toilet I think we should adhere to international standards and for toilet IMO this is in the majority of cases depicting a woman and man.

As we obviously cannot use the old icon I would be happy for more concrete pointers towards improvement.

Anyway, does this improve legibility?

More detail and more half-pixels, so a bit more blurry.

[pnorman]

As we obviously cannot use the old icon I would be happy for more concrete pointers towards improvement.

I see no reason why we cannot use the old icon.

[matkoniecz]

As we obviously cannot use the old icon

New SVG may render exactly like current image.

[nebulon42]

For me the transition to SVG is not simply about changing the file format. That would be fairly easy. I think this is also the time to think about how the icons can be improved in terms of sharpness and legibility. For me this means reducing complexity and aligning to pixel boundaries. At 16px the current icon cannot satisfy this. I have tried and you can easily try for yourself. This does not stop us from using it, but I will only propose to do so if there is no (IMO) better solution available (as I did in #1175).

On the other hand, I'm investing quite some amount of time here and I'm bluntly assuming that I deserve more constructive feedback on improving the proposal than just giving me the thumbs down (maybe that's unjustified to think so). So I ask you: please comment on the second try for improvement (#1178 (comment)). I will stop for now with new PRs until some proposals got merged/rejected because IMO managing 8 different icon proposals simultanueously is enough.

[matkoniecz]

@nebulon42

until some proposals got merged/rejected

It should happen soon after release of the new version. Currently we are in freeze before deploying, but after that merging rules will change - any maintainer (not only @gravitystorm) will have rights to merge a reviewed pull request.

[matthijsmelissen]

@nebulon42 Thanks for all your work. I didn't have time yet to look at it in detail (busy time around Christmas), but I will come back with feedback.

[nebulon42]

That sounds great. I just want to clarify that I didn't intend to rush someone in any way.

[matthijsmelissen]

To be honest, I find the old icon more pleasant to look at and more easy to understand. Is the old icon bigger? I suppose fitting the icon in a small square is the main problem?

I think the vertical bar helps to distinguish the toilet icon from a lift icon.

[polarbearing]

Thanks @nebulon42 for your effort.

Could we see the first version with the vertical bar included?

I have a bit a problem with the fused legs. In particular the second, more rounded version looks a bit like little flowers on a stem in the icon size, and overemphasize the bell-shapes skirt in the large version.

Definitely against the graphical toilet bowl in @althio's version.

[mboeringa]

So I ask you: please comment on the second try for improvement (#1178 (comment)).

I think especially this second proposal, due to the oversized heads and rounded forms, unfortunately starts to look like some type of "flowers", like an icon for a flower shop.

I agree with others that the old icon, although maybe not ideal either technically, is the most clear and familiar one. The vertical bar in the original icon also suggests a kind of separation or separated "cabin", or possibly a door, signifying and strengthening the sense of a toilet.

This makes the original icon hard to beat in clarity and significance.

[nebulon42]

Is the old icon bigger? I suppose fitting the icon in a small square is the main problem?

Yes, it is nearly impossible to have all those legs and arms and even the vertical bar in a 16px square without getting such a blurry version as we already have. We either have to make compromises or just keep the old icon.

I'm doing one more try and will - if unsuccessful - close this PR.

[nebulon42]

I found no suitable version, closing this now.

[HolgerJeromin]

Is it possible to have a svg icon with the old blurry style? This would allow us to use opacity for access #1012
Thanks for your time!

[nebulon42]

@HolgerJeromin I suggest that somebody else takes care of this.

[daganzdaanda]

I like the icons @nebulon42 proposes, the second is even better than the first IMO.

The old icon is 20px and was probably scaled down from something bigger, it is not sharp at 20px. If we want all icons to be 16px, there is not much room for the arms... I tried a number of versions:

https://gist.github.com/daganzdaanda/fae414f277eae88e3efb

First line:
the 2 proposals from here, then adding a vertical divider
2nd line:
The current png, scaled from 20px to 16px, and two tries at rebuilding them in svg
Next 4 lines:
various tests
Last line:
variation of the proposed icons with divider

[mboeringa]

I think adding the dividing line back in like you did, like in the last line of icons, does make the original proposal of @nebulon42 much more acceptable and recognizable. I have far less the feeling that it is some kind of "flower arrangement". That is a big change in experience based on a minor adjustment.

[nebulon42]

Thanks for working on this! What stopped me from adding the divider line is my requirement for 1px padding around the edges of the icon, which limits the space for filled pixels to 14x14. This is for inverse (shield) versions, so that those can be 16px with no icon content touching the border. You see there are lots of things to keep in mind.

Great that you tried some arm variations so it is clearly visible that these are too blurry at such a small size.

@daganzdaanda What is your favourite?

edit: corrected wrong pixel values

[mboeringa]

What stopped me from adding the divider line is my requirement for 1px padding around the edges of the icon, which limits the space for filled pixels to 15x15.

If that is a requirement, the lower left one (7th row, first icon) might be an option @nebulon42. That icon is very close to your original version, but just 14x14 pixels for the image area.

I like the balanced feeling between white and black space in that icon too.

[kocio-pl]

For me 7.1 too is the best (the same reason - great balance between visibility and regonizability), then 1.3 (better visibility, but worse proportions of a male figure) and 1.1 (very good visibility, but no line decreases recognizability - there are many places where simple people figures could be used).

[nebulon42]

Here is a new propsal based on the input by @daganzdaanda:

[kocio-pl]

I think it's very good.

[mboeringa]

I think it's good to go!

[nebulon42]

Somehow I cannot re-open this PR so I will create a new one.

[daganzdaanda]

I noticed that the pixel area that you use is really just 14x14. That is really a challenge! Thanks for explaining the rationale behind that decision.