@Piotr I agree that it’s a good idea to make clearances wider if there is room to reduce capacitive coupling. I’ve been experimenting a bit with custom rules to do this.
First, I created a simple rule area and gave it the name “narrow1” and nchecked all basic rules.
Then in the board setup, I created a custom rule:
Or, in text:
(version 1)
(rule clearance_mod
( constraint clearance (min 0.4mm))
( condition "A.intersectsArea('narrow*')")
)
And on itself this works. I can now set a narrow clearance to be able to reach the pads, and the track segments that intersect the rule area do get a wider clearance.
But in practice, it does not really work. This rule area interferes with the interactive router. As you can see from the screenshot, it says there is a DRC violation, but if I force that location with [Ctrl], and then do a DRC check, there is no violation. On itself, the concept is useful enough to try to make it work but I am encountering too many difficulties with it at the moment.
Maybe I should report this on gitlab, but I have very little experience with custom rules.
You can also make a custom rule to modify the clearance when you are inside the courtyard of a particular IC. These custom rules are quite powerful things (Assuming you can make them work as intended).
Also, in your example:
You can use here 0.18mm tracks and 0.22mm clearance (Sum is also 0.4mm) if you use a custom rule to reduce the clearance inside the couryard. This prevents the pads from thowing clearance violations, while still being able to increase the clearance for the tracks a bit.