Botched Roadsigns

[dave55uk]

Here's a beauty just off the Kingston Bypass.

I'm not sure how on earth it's possible to have come up with that mistake!

That's very much of a "creeps up on you" one - I was looking at the sign behind it, trying to work out what was going on and then my subconcious (which was being rather more observant than the rest of me!) seems to have latched on to the rather glaring error...

Having looked at this one, I am also mildly embarrassed that I did the same thing, and spent at least a minute looking at the sign behind.

I've looked at this link twice now, and apart from a road sign down a bit on the other side of the road, I cannot see any road signs!
So would someone please explain just what is wrong.

[Stevie D]

I've looked at this link twice now, and apart from a road sign down a bit on the other side of the road, I cannot see any road signs!
So would someone please explain just what is wrong.

The link given just gives me a map view, not a GSV view, bit I think this sign shows the one that is amiss ... specifically the "two-way traffic" sign.

[Stevie D]

A couple of gems from the Selby by-pass.

The sign on the approach from York/Hull now has a brown panel added beneath it directing traffic to the Summit leisure centre ... straight on! Which route they intend to take is anyone's guess ...

And further round on the A1041, where they have relaid the tarmac and repainted the markings, there is now one lane marked for G'OLE and one for LEEDS. Now I'm not sure how they were planning on spelling Goole, but I'm willing to bet it isn't going to take up any more space than Leeds ... so why not spell it out in full? (I'm also disappointed to see that on the southbound exit, they have marked out two lanes for all of about 5 feet, then down to one lane, then widening out to a right-turn lane for Brayton Lane ... but there isn't enough space for two lanes of traffic through the narrowest point ... this just looks like it's going to lead to confusion and conflicts).

[Chris5156]

That's very much of a "creeps up on you" one - I was looking at the sign behind it, trying to work out what was going on and then my subconcious (which was being rather more observant than the rest of me!) seems to have latched on to the rather glaring error...

Having looked at this one, I am also mildly embarrassed that I did the same thing, and spent at least a minute looking at the sign behind.

I've looked at this link twice now, and apart from a road sign down a bit on the other side of the road, I cannot see any road signs!
So would someone please explain just what is wrong.

I posted that in 2014 so it's quite likely GSV has been updated and the link no longer shows you the right thing!

If you look along the service road, Hook Rise North, you'll see a two way road warning sign where the arrows are back to front, so it appears to warn of traffic driving on the right.

[Owain]

... there is now one lane marked for G'OLE and one for LEEDS. Now I'm not sure how they were planning on spelling Goole, but I'm willing to bet it isn't going to take up any more space than Leeds ... so why not spell it out in full?

You'd have a field day on the Coleraine ring road. There are several signs that have plenty of space for each of the place names except one, which is too long to fit. That place name just happens to be Londonderry, and the sign-makers have been forced to write "L'derry" on each sign.

Now, most people in Northern Ireland quite happily call that city "Derry", irrespective of which side they are on. But in Coleraine there is a particular set who insist that it is called "Londonderry". As a result - and as if to press the point that "L'derry" is merely shorthand for "Londonderry" - all of the other place names have been abbreviated quite unnecessarily:

L'derry
B'fast
C'raine
B'mena
P'rush

It looks absolutely ridiculous.

[Paul237]

Not sure if this is classed as "botched", but it's something I notice a lot... In Wolverhampton they seem to be dead against "Wolverhampton city centre" signs - though more are creeping in.

You pass a "Welcome to The City of Wolverhampton" sign and you're quite clearly in an urban area, but then keep seeing signs for "Wolverhampton" as though you haven't entered the city yet.

Examples
Pass this welcome sign on the A454 E:
https://goo.gl/maps/wpDS8k5Q31E2

Drive a good mile or so into the city and see this:
https://goo.gl/maps/WeAazbi1vS22

Pass this route confirmatory sign telling you it's 2 miles to Wolverhampton, despite the fact you've been in it for ages:
https://goo.gl/maps/Zkt2aUMpoXK2

I've been driving along that road for years and I used to assume it was like that because the signs were really old, but they replaced them fairly recently and didn't change them to "Wolverhampton city centre" signs as they have in other parts of the city.

This is probably the worst offender:
https://goo.gl/maps/U3pab6mSgt32

It's on the A460 - right on the border of the city centre (as proven by the "Welcome to Wolverhampton City Centre" sign very shortly after). Yet it acts like you're not even in the city.

I've noticed it for years and I'm sure others on here have too, but I'm fairly new here and wanted to rant about it.

[Stevie D]

Not sure if this is classed as "botched", but it's something I notice a lot... In Wolverhampton they seem to be dead against "Wolverhampton city centre" signs - though more are creeping in.

You pass a "Welcome to The City of Wolverhampton" sign and you're quite clearly in an urban area, but then keep seeing signs for "Wolverhampton" as though you haven't entered the city yet.

'Town centre' and 'City centre' destination signs work well in single-centred towns and cities, but not so well in multi-centred conurbations. The City of Wolverhampton encompasses the towns of Wednesfield and Bilston, and similarly the neighbouring boroughs of Walsall, Sandwell and Dudley all include many town centres within a single conurbation with no obvious delineation between boroughs, let alone suburbs within them. The danger of just putting 'Town centre' or 'City centre' in such cases is that some drivers may get confused as to which town or city they are deemed to be in (OK, less likely to be an issue with Wolverhampton being a city, but the principle is the same), and including the name, as in "Wolverhampton city centre" takes up more space on the sign, which costs more and requires more processing from drivers, as well as running the risk, if it is wrapped over two lines, that they will mis-read it as two separate destinations, which will then confuse them as to which city the centre is of if not Wolverhampton.

Local authority boundaries are not the best way to determine whether you are in a particular town or city. The boundary of City of York local authority area can reach 5 miles outside the edge or the urban area – would you signpost "City centre" from there?

[Paul237]

Not sure if this is classed as "botched", but it's something I notice a lot... In Wolverhampton they seem to be dead against "Wolverhampton city centre" signs - though more are creeping in.

You pass a "Welcome to The City of Wolverhampton" sign and you're quite clearly in an urban area, but then keep seeing signs for "Wolverhampton" as though you haven't entered the city yet.

'Town centre' and 'City centre' destination signs work well in single-centred towns and cities, but not so well in multi-centred conurbations. The City of Wolverhampton encompasses the towns of Wednesfield and Bilston, and similarly the neighbouring boroughs of Walsall, Sandwell and Dudley all include many town centres within a single conurbation with no obvious delineation between boroughs, let alone suburbs within them. The danger of just putting 'Town centre' or 'City centre' in such cases is that some drivers may get confused as to which town or city they are deemed to be in (OK, less likely to be an issue with Wolverhampton being a city, but the principle is the same), and including the name, as in "Wolverhampton city centre" takes up more space on the sign, which costs more and requires more processing from drivers, as well as running the risk, if it is wrapped over two lines, that they will mis-read it as two separate destinations, which will then confuse them as to which city the centre is of if not Wolverhampton.

Local authority boundaries are not the best way to determine whether you are in a particular town or city. The boundary of City of York local authority area can reach 5 miles outside the edge or the urban area – would you signpost "City centre" from there?

Well, in the first example I posted a person driving along that road into the city will have been following signs for "Wolverhampton" for miles, so once they've passed a "Welcome to the City of Wolverhampton" sign and entered a 30mph zone with houses if they then see signs for "City centre" I struggle to think that they'd get confused as to which city the sign means.

I do agree about multiple town centres in conurbations causing possible confusion, but -- in another example I'm familiar with -- Stourbridge switches to "Stourbridge town centre" signs almost immediately upon entering Stourbridge and has done for as long as I can remember.

As a compromise they could say "W'hampton centre" or even "W'ton centre" if space was lacking on signs. Both of those abbreviations for Wolverhampton are in common usage on existing road signs.

I know it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, it's just one of those things that has always surprised me. Anyone who's familiar with Wolverhampton won't pay it a second thought, but I suppose you could get the odd person being a bit confused when they keep being directed towards a city they thought they'd been in for a good 5 - 10 mins.

[Glen]

It's worth noting that Wolverhampton has only been a city since 2000, so city centre will have only been used since then. (Although lack of city status hasn't stopped Elgin signing city centre in the past, but they seem to use town centre now.)

City unitary authorities often cover larger areas than the city themselves often including surrounding rural areas, so isn't uncommon to find directions signs with the city name well after the council boundaries.

[Paul237]

It's worth noting that Wolverhampton has only been a city since 2000, so city centre will have only been used since then. (Although lack of city status hasn't stopped Elgin signing city centre in the past, but they seem to use town centre now.)

City unitary authorities often cover larger areas than the city themselves often including surrounding rural areas, so isn't uncommon to find directions signs with the city name well after the council boundaries.

I agree re council boundaries and, as the previous poster pointed out, it would be silly to have "City centre" signs in the middle of the country just because you're technically within the York city council boundaries.

However, I think the examples I posted are different, because they're all clearly within the urban zone of Wolverhampton and I don't know any towns/cities that are quite the same.

As an aside, they do just use "City centre" signs in some places, rather than "Wolverhampton city centre". Example below taken from the A454 as you drive further into the city:
https://goo.gl/maps/v3qv8QnAwRw

[Stevie D]

Well, in the first example I posted a person driving along that road into the city will have been following signs for "Wolverhampton" for miles, so once they've passed a "Welcome to the City of Wolverhampton" sign and entered a 30mph zone with houses if they then see signs for "City centre" I struggle to think that they'd get confused as to which city the sign means.
...
As a compromise they could say "W'hampton centre" or even "W'ton centre" if space was lacking on signs. Both of those abbreviations for Wolverhampton are in common usage on existing road signs.

You might be surprised (and disappointed) by the number of people who would think that the city centre was Birmingham! Sometimes it gets worse ... if you're driving along the Mancunian Way, following signs to Salford, you will enter the City of Salford and then come across this sign: http://goo.gl/maps/2Rsdbo4dDhr, which tells you to turn right for "City centre" ... but guess what, that's Manchester city centre, not Salford. In fact, I'm struggling to find any consistent signs to where the centre of Salford actually is. It seems like once you're inside the borough, it pretty much disappears, there are any number of signs to Manchester and Manchester city centre but that's about it...

And no, please not more abbreviations – awful things, usually completely unnecessary, and often confusing for drivers not familiar with the road who will take longer to process the information, as well as it being slower to read in the first place because it doesn't conform to the word shape that drivers will be expecting to see.

[vlad]

It might have something to do with the fact I live in an area with no natural centre - but I find this sort of signing perfectly logical. Wolverhampton itself is that bit near the A4150 which happens to have given its name to the local authority. Other signs are, say, in Wightwick or Oxley or Bilston, which are different settlements.

I'd class a sign saying "city centre" as being a bit vague, even if you do know which city you're in.

[RichieGraham]

Likewise, not botched, but on the topic of 'town/city centre' signage, this pair of signs usually make me giggle.

These ones, though, are botched. On the top one, A377 should be green patched, and the layout doesn't look right, although it does look tidier than some correct signage! The bottom one I didn't fully notice until looking up the streetview sign, but shouldn't be centred. This one, too, has wrong centering on it, is a (relatively!) new sign (<10 years), strangely though, the one at the junction itself is correct.

(I must admit, I'm not a fan of the way that signs do centring; it does work though as a concept, but I think it just looks messy!)

[Paul237]

It might have something to do with the fact I live in an area with no natural centre - but I find this sort of signing perfectly logical. Wolverhampton itself is that bit near the A4150 which happens to have given its name to the local authority. Other signs are, say, in Wightwick or Oxley or Bilston, which are different settlements.

I'd class a sign saying "city centre" as being a bit vague, even if you do know which city you're in.

Hmm, see, I partly disagree there. To me, when people talk about Wolverhampton they don't just mean the area inside the inner ring road (A4150).

I know larger areas of cities are referred to by name but they're still in the city. For example, Selly Oak is an area in its own right, but it's still in Birmingham and there are plenty of "City Centre" signs within Selly Oak.

[ais523]

This sign at Almondsbury looks sensible enough, right? It's a fairly common merge pattern for a 2+2 into 3 merge. We even get the same sign from the other road's point of view.

The problem is, that's not how the merge actually works; it's using the other common pattern for a 2+2 into 3 merge. This is fairly dangerous, as a couple of lanes merge together that are signed as remaining independent, and so vehicles won't have been looking for gaps to merge into.

[Conekicker]

Leaving aside the fact that this is not, nor has ever been, a prescribed way of defining a distance, would it not be better to quote "1 mile" as the distance?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.39219 ... 6656?hl=en

[DavidB]

I spotted this on my travels today:

https://goo.gl/maps/y54RG75uZER2

A primary B-road in a village in a far corner of Surrey? I don't think so!

[RJDG14]

Are there any real road signs as bad as this one (which I created)? The main errors are the positioning of the name, the stylisation of "M4, the wrong roundabout design, and the wrong font.

[Klepsydra]

Some road signs use the correct font.

Some road signs use almost the correct font.

Some road signs use fonts which could be mistaken for the correct font if you squint a bit.

And then there's this one...

[irrelevant]

What's a No Entry Zone ?