Rene Pöschl

The image uses pin numbers which wouldl be confusing. I suggest making a similar one but instead of 1,2,3 use T,R,S Edit: i am not so sure that f2.4 and...

Such edge cases will always be hard to work with. Your example already has a major problem as to which lib should be chosen for this part? Coming up with...

I would follow the switch naming convention as close as feasible. We might also think about a standardized naming for pins (contacts and coils) to allow for the use of...

I do not know why we have manufacturers at the start for other libs. In IC package libs it can make sense as it then clearly differentiates generic from manufacturer...

To answer your questions adressed at me: > Does coil latching matter? Isn't that more of a symbol thing than a footprint one? I don't think that affects the footprint,...

Additionally: Why is there both FormX and the pole/throw nomenclature in there. This seems silly. Lets keep it as pole/throw only as it is intuitively understandable (FormX means one needs...

The nomenclature would be quite clear if we write out the words throw and pole instead of shortening them to a single letter. Maybe this would be the way to...

Isn't that easier solved by renaming it to polarity marker? This would also more closely fit IPC nomenclature. We could then state that the polarity marker typically marks pin 1....

Asymmetrical parts get the marker for debugging reasons. This is simply how we always did it and i see no reason not do. The only parts that do not get...

Would definitely be an option. I will also ask @pointhi if it might be a good idea to put the footprint generator under the kicad group to integrate it better...