new name for YAPP "advanced signals"

[planetmaker]

Reading through this thread, path signals and block signals sound best to me. Small (or short) and concise is beautiful.

The suggestion "path reserving signals" is a bit confusing. I'd skip the "reserving" part as the signals themselves don't reserve anything - that's the part the trains do. "path reserving" is actually semantically wrong, path signals therefor better.

[FooBar]

Could live with path and block.

Any three word term would soon get abbreviated. Safe Waiting Point will soon be SWP, which is as much descriptive as PBS to one who doesn't know what the abbrevs are about. Same goes for PRS and TRS.

[Purno]

The suggestion "path reserving signals" is a bit confusing. I'd skip the "reserving" part as the signals themselves don't reserve anything - that's the part the trains do. "path reserving" is actually semantically wrong, path signals therefor better.

It's the signals though, that make the train reserve the path. I'm still for Path Reserving Signals, as a path gets reserved, thanks to the signal. One cannot have a name which describes the function better.

[Timitry]

I'm struggling between "Path Signal" and "Path Reserving Signal", however, the arguments for "Path Signal" are quite good, noone would write Path Reserving Signal, but only PRS, while Path Signal could be abbreviated, but isn't too long to write it down completely. Also i think the combination of "Block Signal" and "Path Signal" sounds very nice, while else we would have either "Block reserving signal" or "Block signal" and "Path Reserving Signal".

However, i think that the vote should be re-done with only the three favourites from this vote, to get a better result. Or, alternatively, make it possible to choose as many votes as you wish, so that you can choose all names which you wouldn't mind to see ingame - In this way we get the highest satisfaction with the new name.

[Purno]

Everything gets abbreviated, and I think "Path reserving signals" isn't too long for the GUI.

[Tekky]

I changed my vote from PBS signals to "path signals", because I really like the distinction between "path signals" and "block signals". I would love to see the standard TTD signals being officially called "block signals". The only thing I am unsure of is how "pre-, exit- and combo-signals" should then be called. Should they keep their name or also carry the word "block" in their name?

[Mchl]

I think 'path signals'/'block signals' duo would work really good.

[planetmaker]

I changed my vote from PBS signals to "path signals", because I really like the distinction between "path signals" and "block signals". I would love to see the standard TTD signals being officially called "block signals". The only thing I am unsure of is how "pre-, exit- and combo-signals" should then be called. Should they keep their name or also carry the word "block" in their name?

In my understanding the pre-, exit- and combo-signals are block signals, too. So block entry, block exit and block combo signal are my choice

[Tekky]

In my understanding the pre-, exit- and combo-signals are block signals, too. So block entry, block exit and block combo signal are my choice

I don't like the name "block entry" signal, because it implies that it is the only type of signal that designates the start of a new block. This is not the case, because all non-YAPP OpenTTD signals (=block signals) start a new signal block.

As the suggestion "path/block signals" currently has received more than double the number of votes than any other suggestion, it seems quite clear that this suggestion will be declared the winner. However, the question remains how the current "pre-, exit- and combo-signals" should be called. Maybe we should start a new poll about this. Currently, I see these three possibilities:

1. Keep the name "pre-signal", "exit-signal" and "combo-signal".
2. Call them "block presignal", "block exit signal" and "block combo signal"
3. What planetmaker just suggested

Are there any further suggestions?

[Eddi]

i think the word "block" or "path" should definitely appear in all related signal types.

i'd say:

• block signal
• block entry signal
• block exit signal
• block combo signal
• path signal
• path one-way signal
• (path advance signal)
• (path combo signal)

I don't like the name "block entry" signal, because it implies that it is the only type of signal that designates the start of a new block.

i don't agree with your reasoning... you don't argue that "block exit signal" does imply it's the only way to exit a block either...

and definitely "entry signal" is more descriptive to the function of the signal than "presignal"

[Tekky]

i'd say:

• path one-way signal

I think "one-way path signal" sounds better.

i don't agree with your reasoning... you don't argue that "block exit signal" does imply it's the only way to exit a block either...

In my opinion, it does imply exactly that.

and definitely "entry signal" is more descriptive to the function of the signal than "presignal"

I agree. But when you say "block entry signal", it sounds as if the word "entry" refers to "block entry" instead of "entry signal". This ambiguity can be misleading.

[FooBar]

"Block exit signal" sounds like a signal that blocks the exit of something. Whenever I put the old block exit signal at my front door, it keeps the burglars from entering my house. Or something like that.

I'd call them:
- Block Presignal Entry
- Block Presignal Combo
- Block Presignal Exit

Or alternatively:
- Block Pre-Entry Signal
- Block Pre-Combo Signal
- Block Pre-Exit Signal

[planetmaker]

"Block exit signal" sounds like a signal that blocks the exit of something.

That depends how you understand the grouping:

(block exit) signals
block (exit signals)

Either interpretation is valid, both are found principally equally in English AFAIK, the latter is intended here.

While calling these signal entry-, combo- and exit- pre-signals, I so far fail to see in what way they pre-signal anything, e.g. announce any signaling. They, as all other signals, also simply refer to the piece(s) of track behind them in one way or another.

otoh, if you consider block signals the upper category, a block may have entry and exit signals. Combo signal doesn't follow as logical to me, but in lack of better wording, I accept that as the name for a signal which relays info between exit and entry or further combo signals, acting as both, entry and exit signal.

[CommanderZ]

WHat about "Exit block signal"?

[planetmaker]

WHat about "Exit block signal"?

I don't mind "exit block signal" or "block exit signal"

[Brianetta]

WHat about "Exit block signal"?

I don't mind "exit block signal" or "block exit signal"

In which case, "Exit block signal" is preferable because its ambiguities aren't misleading. "Block" and "exit" both double as verbs. As a verb, only "block" gives a significantly different meaning.

[michael blunck]

While calling these signal entry-, combo- and exit- pre-signals, I so far fail to see in what way they pre-signal anything, e.g. announce any signaling.

Well, the term "pre-signal" was coined back in TTDPatch times, long before the development of PBS (Path-Based Signalling).

Because a "pre-signal" shows a green light if, and only if, one of the exit signals from the block behind it shows a green light, they are indeed in some sense similar to an "advance signal", but o/c not quite the same, because the behaviour of real "advance signals" couldn´t be modelled in the game without changing the existing concept of signalling and vehicle movement to a much larger degree.

regards
Michael

[Timitry]

Since this thread is already on page two, and i guess most of the people reading the suggestion forum have voted by now, if they felt like voting at all, how about starting a new poll in the Genereal OpenTTD forum, with the choiches of "Path Signals", "Block Signals" and "Path Reserving Signals"? Since in the General Forum, we probably reach many more players, and having only 3 possibilities to vote should give a better impression about how the general opinion is (best would probably be to allow up to three votes, so that you can select all or none, or one or two of the votes - that said all possibilities you like and wouldn't mind to see ingame, this way we get the highest satisfaction with the new name imho).

[Eddi]

IMHO the poll result is already clear, i see no sense in holding a second poll. it's now entirely up to the developers to implement the poll results

[FooBar]

I think we should hold a poll for these options then:

• Rename old signals to "block signals"
• Don't rename old signals
• Rename advanced signals to "path signals"
• ...to "pbs signals"
• ...to "path reserving signals"
• ...don't rename

And let people pick two options. Obviously one from the first two, and the other one from the other options.

The reason that I again included "don't rename advanced signals" is because the people who voted for a different option than listed here, might actually not like those options at all and rather stick to the current.