Is there, or can there be, an option to not allow a ‘+’ (4-way/cross) line connection. I was employed in an engineering environment where ‘dots’ were not used at all on schematics. when two lines crossed each other, that was not considered a connection (for the reason, see the note below*). Therefore, for it to be a ‘connection’ it had to be a ‘T’ on the schematic. A ‘X’ (cross) was just two separate signals (paths). Is there an option where a ‘cross’ doesn’t connect nets (generates a single net), or that connects ‘different’ nets as a warning/error?
Hi, @esilky Welcome to the forum!
I wish I could see your “note below” describing the reason…
Some years ago I was dissuaded from cross connections. Now I avoid it like “the plague”.
Why is it necessary for KiCad to refuse to do that? Do you work with some engineers who insist or who are forgetful?
It is possible to set the dot size very small.
Sorry… I forgot to include the reason before I posted.
The reason was that, at that time, schematics, for reproduction, were done on film, with tape and schematic ‘decals’, and ‘dots’ didn’t stick too well. Therefore, the ‘dots’ could fall off of the sheet (and the connection would be lost). In addition, ‘dots’ cost money (you had to buy sheets of them to put on the schematic). So, ‘dots’ were simply not used. When two lines abutted, it was a connection. When they crossed, it was two separate signals/nets. Therefore, in my professional career, I never used ‘dots’. I have grown to ‘accent’ them, but I don’t ‘rely’ on them. However, I occasionally end up with them (accidentally). I would like an option that doesn’t make a connection, if I bring two lines together into another that forms a ‘X’.
It’s been discussed before and it won’t happen. Make your dots prominent so you can see them better.
It’s not really a matter of ‘seeing them better’. It is a design practice of lot allowing an ‘x’ connection on the schematic.
An option for ‘no dots on connections’ actually makes a dense schematic much more readable. But, to allow for that, you need to not be able to make an ‘X’ connections.
Hey you are inviting a third re-run of my oversized dot that obliterated the schematic! 
BTW; seriously the other related question is the one about “hop overs” which has been brought up multiple times. That also is not going to happen. But I like to do it when hand drawing a schematic.
This discussion is endless and similar to that of the projection method of technical drawings.
In mechanical engineering, the solution was simple:
A small drawing (usually in the lower right of the sheet) that clarifies.
I didn’t mean to bring up an endless discussion… Just an option that abides by the conventions that I spent decades using. Our company was a beta tester for PADS-PCB in the early 80’s, and this was one of the options we asked for… No dots, connections are ‘T’ and separate nets are ‘X’ crossings.
I think there’s an ERC check for this. It doesn’t prevent creating a wrong kind of connection.
1 Like
@esilky - but on the other hand - back in the days when you use a film you didn’t have anything to check cross connections for you and prevent you to do that. So now it should be a habit which you can just follow the same way as you did in a past (without anything preventing you to actually make the connection).
This discussion brings back memories of my first years out of engineering school. We drew our production schematics on vellum with India ink and used electronics stencils to create the various component figures. We also used the ‘T’ method to signify a connection. We did PCB layout on Applicon workstations which were just entering the market in 1981. Applicon also produced CNC output for our Execellon drillers and artwork for our Gerber plotters. We were vertically integrated all the way from design to assembled and tested systems including our own PCB shop.