Botched Roadsigns

[Jam35]

Two dreadful signs in Cardiff. The car parks one is fairly self-explanatory, if the repetition of HEATH PARK / PARC Y MYNYDD BYCHAN (with inconsistent line breaks) makes it totally unwieldy. The smaller sign is not instructing traffic to the North to go the wrong way around the roundabout; rather cryptically, it actually just means that that is the point at which King George V Drive North becomes King George V Drive East.

[kit]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.68410 ... 56!6m1!1e1

This. Ugh. It replaced a slightly botched sign with a missing bracket and inexplicably (A411) in brackets. This just looks plain ugly without gold road numbers.

[Bfivethousand]

Even without the excessive greenery, I think you'd be forgiven for missing this ADS even if you were on the top deck of a double decker.

Maybe, it's not as bad as this one though

[Jeni]

Maybe, it's not as bad as this one though

I've driven through there so many times and never spotted that!

[AndyB]

That's awful. Plenty of room on the overbridge for a two panel advance sign.

[urbanfox]

Maybe, it's not as bad as this one though

I've driven through there so many times and never spotted that!

Yeah, same here!

Not sure if it existed then, but I lived up there and used that bit of road several times a week between 2009 and 2012 and don't think I'd ever spotted that

[Big L]

These signs were probably accurate a few years ago.

[Bryn666]

I hope those signs never vanish, they're the best set in Coventry.

[A303Chris]

These signs were probably accurate a few years ago.

The road markings are not consistent with the signs. The "All through Traffic" states lanes one and two, while the marking in lane one says turn left!

[Alderpoint]

Despite the roadmarks, the signs where fine when they were installed. The left lane used to also go straight on, but then they decided that this flyover wasn't wide/strong enough for two lanes so the left lane was hatched off.

[Big L]

Despite the roadmarks, the signs where fine when they were installed. The left lane used to also go straight on, but then they decided that this flyover wasn't wide/strong enough for two lanes so the left lane was hatched off.

...hence my point that the sign was accurate a few years ago.

[DavidNW9]

1) What is the warning for? 2) Why is it located in someone's garden? and 3) Why has it been hand painted? East Peckham, Kent

[Johnathan404]

4) Which member of SABRE lives in East Peckham?

[MotorwayGuy]

Never seen one of these before. The sign underneath it a bit redundant too.

[Beardy5632]

This is the first time on a RCS that I've seen this on there too.

[DavidNW9]

4) Which member of SABRE lives in East Peckham?

My first guess is for a dangerous dog.

[AndyB]

This is the first time on a RCS that I've seen this on there too.

I've seen mileages on an ADS before (it was old), but of course the route number was under the destination.

[WHBM]

Even without the excessive greenery, I think you'd be forgiven for missing this ADS even if you were on the top deck of a double decker.

An even more substantial crane of the neck is this rather more important height restriction.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.51055 ... 312!8i6656

[FurryBoots]

These are not really quite worthy of this thread but I'd like to hear the thoughts of the experts.

A new road is to open in Aberdeen this week and over the past few days signs have been erected in preparation. On the A90, this sign has been erected.

The road is a trunk road so it should be white on green but will be detrunked in a couple of years so I'm not sure whether the council have been clever and left themselves a simple patch to apply or this is a mistake. In any case, isn't the layout a bit congested? Wouldn't the destinations normally be above the the diagram for the second exit or is this an OK way to minimise sign size and cost?

Similarly, at the junction represented by this sign, the A978 goes straight ahead through the junction but I (albeit stupidly) thought it went to the left when I first glanced at this.

image.jpeg (28.68 KiB) Viewed 950 times

There's probably nothing wrong with these but there's just something about them that doesn't seem right.

[Conekicker]

These are not really quite worthy of this thread but I'd like to hear the thoughts of the experts.

A new road is to open in Aberdeen this week and over the past few days signs have been erected in preparation. On the A90, this sign has been erected.image.jpegThe road is a trunk road so it should be white on green but will be detrunked in a couple of years so I'm not sure whether the council have been clever and left themselves a simple patch to apply or this is a mistake. In any case, isn't the layout a bit congested? Wouldn't the destinations normally be above the the diagram for the second exit or is this an OK way to minimise sign size and cost?

Similarly, at the junction represented by this sign, the A978 goes straight ahead through the junction but I (albeit stupidly) thought it went to the left when I first glanced at this.image.jpegThere's probably nothing wrong with these but there's just something about them that doesn't seem right.

Both are very badly designed. I'll pass no comment on whether the signs should be green or white background, not knowing the area.

The top sign:
The ahead destinations should be over the ahead arm, not to the side of it.
Even if they'd been placed so that the ahead arm butted into the space to the side of the lower bracketed route number, that route number should be 12 stroke widths above the horizontal arm.
City centre, not City Centre.
Since when has a university been primarily a tourist attraction?
The right turn arm should be a stub, given that there are no destinations associated with it.

The bottom sign would have been better as a stack type.
(A90(N)) not (A90N)

On both signs "University of Aberdeen" should be centre justified not left justified. There again, if these signs are in Aberdeen, why not just "University"?