The moves from the black Pawn to the empty squares should not be back-and-forth arrows. I consider it a bit objectionable that the forward-right slide is indicated in the presence of a black Pawn.
I must admit that I don't like this style of move diagram very much anyway. Indicating a sliding move by an arrow as well as a marker symbol in the final square is confusing. I suppose the triangles are meant to indicate that there could be a locust victim there, but the diagonal arrows now have different symbols at their point and tail, and it is not intuitively clear which one applies to them. If you want to indicate slides by an arrow, I would prefer them to be indicated by only that arrow, so that one can be sure all other symbols on or near it refer to other moves. E.g. use colors for indicating move/capture/both, and the shape of the symbol (dot, leap-arrow) for indicating motion type. It might be better to equip the sliding arrow with arrow heads on every square that is a valid destination, so you can also indicate riding.
I would indicate squares where there could be locust victims or mounts by the dashed outline of a Pawn behind all the move markers. And then use a dashed arrow going over those to possible final destinations. (Dashed, because it then doesn't entirely cover possible slides that follow the same path if the square is empty.) The color of the dashed Pawn outline could indicate whether this is a mount or a locust victim. I still think it would be clearer to just indicate the location of possible 'move activation' in a main diagram by a dashed outline piece, and then show the move when something would be there in a separate diagram (where the piece would be solidly drawn, posisbly half white and half black to indicate both colors would do).
And why do the arrows end after 3 steps? This suggests a range limitation of 3 to me.
The moves from the black Pawn to the empty squares should not be back-and-forth arrows. I consider it a bit objectionable that the forward-right slide is indicated in the presence of a black Pawn.
I must admit that I don't like this style of move diagram very much anyway. Indicating a sliding move by an arrow as well as a marker symbol in the final square is confusing. I suppose the triangles are meant to indicate that there could be a locust victim there, but the diagonal arrows now have different symbols at their point and tail, and it is not intuitively clear which one applies to them. If you want to indicate slides by an arrow, I would prefer them to be indicated by only that arrow, so that one can be sure all other symbols on or near it refer to other moves. E.g. use colors for indicating move/capture/both, and the shape of the symbol (dot, leap-arrow) for indicating motion type. It might be better to equip the sliding arrow with arrow heads on every square that is a valid destination, so you can also indicate riding.
I would indicate squares where there could be locust victims or mounts by the dashed outline of a Pawn behind all the move markers. And then use a dashed arrow going over those to possible final destinations. (Dashed, because it then doesn't entirely cover possible slides that follow the same path if the square is empty.) The color of the dashed Pawn outline could indicate whether this is a mount or a locust victim. I still think it would be clearer to just indicate the location of possible 'move activation' in a main diagram by a dashed outline piece, and then show the move when something would be there in a separate diagram (where the piece would be solidly drawn, posisbly half white and half black to indicate both colors would do).
And why do the arrows end after 3 steps? This suggests a range limitation of 3 to me.