Thank you for your feedback. I have made some changes.
- Removed
inverted lane modeIf we still need it, you can restore it by reverting commit number 3d0c4a63a0c7205229756f6498388ab0ae2ee138.
- Prevented changing the overtaking mode of roads owned by other player
- Players cannot change the overtaking mode of a non-destructible public or without adequate diversionary routes road.
Previously, one-way signs had similar rules. However, THLeaderH added a specification that ignored that specification. First of all, the existing sign and overtaking modes exist independently, which is somewhat difficult. Now the change to One-way mode will be subject to the same rules as one-way sign placement.
(As a known issue resulting from this issue of my patch, the road arrow and one way sign are not currently linked correctly.)
I tried to display an error when setting the overtaking mode failed, but it was too annoying and the implementation is postponed. (´・ω・`)
Next, another new issue:
I noticed the following GUI display.

It is a check button of "Left" "Right" at the bottom. 
I delved into the behavior of this. As I guessed, this is obviously an unfinished work and just a papier-mache.
The lane_affinity flag of the sign is only called in
here, there is no actual condition and there is only a comment.
// If there is one-way sign, calc lane_affinity. This should not be calculated in can_enter_tile().
if( roadsign_t* rs = gr->find<roadsign_t>() ) {
if( rs->get_desc()->is_single_way() ) {
if( cnv->calc_lane_affinity(rs->get_lane_affinity()) ) {
// write debug code here.
}
}
}
Some variables may be rewritten in calc_lane_affinity, but at least for the moment I haven't seen this working.
calc_lane_affinity() is also used here only, but I'm wondering if it's working properly.
From the commit history, it seems difficult to identify only the part related to this. So I'm not sure how much such a thing exists, but I would appreciate any comments on this.
About review of system design:
I suspect the intersection may not need restrictions and arrows. The display of the arrow and tile coloring at the intersection is somewhat incorrect.
Coloring the intersection has no meaning. Convoy can't stop there in parallel, and of course overtaking.
- Two-way mode does currently allow overtaking at bus stops, subject to the usual overtaking conditions.
Then I can't understand why
Overtake stationary only existed. (´・ω・`)
I think the features that players expect are the ones in "Road stop improvements"
here.
At first I thought that the width of the road was wide enough to reproduce a bus stop with a side road.
- I don't think realism concerning road width and bus doors are relevant, because the road can be any arbitrary width, 125m in 128.britain.
Yes, lining up two roads means occupying 250m, destroying a large number of houses, driving out residents, and occupying the city.
Regarding door issues, I just wanted to know if inverted mode makes sense.
- Overtaking conditions should be as simple and generous as possible, because of this limitation.
I agree. It is very unrealistic to be able to overtake unless there are only two cars on a few tiles, a few hundred meters oncoming cars, and only a few hundred meters. There is a horse running in the opposite direction 375m ahead, then we cannot overtake the slow horse in front. So I think the current overtaking constraint is too strict even on intercity roads. Especially in the age of carriages. There are many intersections in the city and it is almost impossible to overtaking. And as mentioned above, a four-lane road requires a great deal of sacrifice.
The colors needs to be established somewhere, though, and I think just coloring the very tiny letter (which is easily oversighted) is not enough. I would suggest that you create a color square (like you have done in the factory window), so that the player is always looking at the colors when choosing which mode to build.
For the letters and colors - just show them next to the check box like:
the very tiny letter (which is easily oversighted) is not enough - yes. It's just better than nothing. I don't like the one-letter English display. It is hard to understand the meaning. As I said before, it's not good for Japanese people, it's not universal design. (I think there are many such languages, Simutrans supports multiple languages...)
As I have already pointed out, there is a flaw in that when you select it in shortcut mode it is not visible. So displaying colored boxes there is likewise pointless. Therefore, the display is for associating the color with the display and is not always displayed and is not important. However the current characters aren't good, so I think it's a good idea to replace them with something other than characters. It may be good to have a dedicated symbol.
So I suggested showing it in preview or
cursor. I have successfully added only the preview arrow.
Unfortunately, there are currently no prospects for anything else. Coloring the tiles in the preview messes up the preview because its looks is hard to see.
Displaying symbols is a burden for pakset authors. Note that the tile
cursor size depends on the pakset size. Note that the symbol for GUI is not available on the cursor or main game screen. It is best for the GUI to be close to the character size. The appropriate size of the main game screen changes depending on the zoom ratio. The tile has a width of 256px at 256size.
I think parallel stop mode can be abolished from this list because it is a bus stop mode only. It works as a one-way street only for tiles other than bus stops. So it can be moved to the bus stop icon. In that case, the mode is reduced to three - default/one way/overtaking prohibited. Then, all we need is to solve the overtaking prohibited mode display issue.
In that case, preparing a overtaking prohibited
cursor may not be so difficult. For example, in Japan, the sign of overtaking prohibited is like this.

I'm sure most countries have something similar. So we add one such picture to
this.Also note that it is necessary to add a mode other than the above three that does not overwrite the mode. When laying a new one, lay it in two ways. This should be the default.
I do not agree with the concerns that the coloring of ways would clash with the reservation coloring, as these two display modes should not be used at the same time! Already the color red is used in multiple modes (block reservations, schedule stops, factories), so this should be no problem IMO.
At least red should not be used. Because it's used in the schedule as you point out.

I believe competing for it only creates a problem and has no advantage.
I often check this red display to see where the bus line is set to use on the bus terminal. When checking it, it is more convenient to be able to check at the same time what restrictions are set on the bus terminal.
Therefore I agree that there preferably should be *something* that tells us wether we have the correct orientation, and I do have a slight experimental suggestion which features only the colors and no icons:
I think you may be misunderstanding my opinion. I don't recommend erasing arrows from directional ones.
However, as already pointed out some issues, there are issues with the existing arrows, also does not match the somewhat new spec, so I am considering redesign. I'll post about this later.