Botched Roadsigns

[Johnathan404]

I think there are a few more cities which could do with the regional destination "De South"!

[Worcestershire Wolf]

Which way do you go if you want to head west?

Just keep going till you drive into the sea I guess!

[c2R]

Are you allowed to reverse the direction of the vehicle in prohibition signs like that? There's no mention in the "permitted variants" in the TSRGD for that particular sign.

I hadn't even noticed that - no, you're not! The google link shows that this was also the case on the old sign!

[Andy33gmail]

I hadn't even noticed that - no, you're not! The google link shows that this was also the case on the old sign!

Well, if it ain’t broke...

Maybe the restriction is specific to the direction the vehicle is facing. So, you can reverse in a larger vehicle if you like

[Bfivethousand]

Are you allowed to reverse the direction of the vehicle in prohibition signs like that? There's no mention in the "permitted variants" in the TSRGD for that particular sign.

I hadn't even noticed that - no, you're not! The google link shows that this was also the case on the old sign!

Oh, but you can!! You may be looking at diag. 622.1A in Schedule 3 Part 2 Item 13. This is the free-standing environmental weight limit sign which, you are correct in saying, cannot be reversed as a permitted variant.

However, venture on to page 330 of TSRGD. You will find the reversed version as part of Schedule 12 Part 20. Part 20 includes all warning and regulatory signs which may be used on direction signs and shows a reversed version of every sign which may be displayed in that manner.

Very thoughtful to include it in the new sign design. Shame the more obvious error went unnoticed.

[Chris Bertram]

Are you allowed to reverse the direction of the vehicle in prohibition signs like that? There's no mention in the "permitted variants" in the TSRGD for that particular sign.

I hadn't even noticed that - no, you're not! The google link shows that this was also the case on the old sign!

Oh, but you can!! You may be looking at diag. 622.1A in Schedule 3 Part 2 Item 13. This is the free-standing environmental weight limit sign which, you are correct in saying, cannot be reversed as a permitted variant.

However, venture on to page 330 of TSRGD. You will find the reversed version as part of Schedule 12 Part 20. Part 20 includes all warning and regulatory signs which may be used on direction signs and shows a reversed version of every sign which may be displayed in that manner.

Very thoughtful to include it in the new sign design. Shame the more obvious error went unnoticed.

So, it should show a roundabout. But is A642 primary or not? Landranger says it is, larger scale maps say not.

[Stevie D]

So, it should show a roundabout. But is A642 primary or not? Landranger says it is, larger scale maps say not.

It always used to be, prior to the M1 Yorkshire Link being built ... but since the motorway was completed, the A642 now shadows the motorway and doesn't serve anywhere that merits a primary route, so it does appear to have been downgraded. As far as I can tell, all signs between the M1 and the M62 now show it as non-primary.

[nodnirG kraM]

I've had a scour through but can't see this chappy mentioned here before, but it always makes me grin whenever I use the A3. How this sign got through design, manufacture and installation without it being spotted is almost as remarkable as the fact it's been here at least 20 years warning drivers oncoming vehicles will be using the wrong side of the road! Its friend on the other side is doing its job properly at least.

[Robert Kilcoyne]

I've had a scour through but can't see this chappy mentioned here before, but it always makes me grin whenever I use the A3. How this sign got through design, manufacture and installation without it being spotted is almost as remarkable as the fact it's been here at least 20 years warning drivers oncoming vehicles will be using the wrong side of the road! Its friend on the other side is doing its job properly at least.

The fork sign behind it is also wrong; the (A232) should be in yellow.

And the triangle would appear to obscure a significant part of the fork sign.

[jgharston]

Next time I'm out on my bike I think I'll go visit the picturesque village of Rejoin Carriageway.

When I was touring Ireland last summer I passed through lots of villages called Crioch End.

[bart]

Are you allowed to reverse the direction of the vehicle in prohibition signs like that? There's no mention in the "permitted variants" in the TSRGD for that particular sign.

I hadn't even noticed that - no, you're not! The google link shows that this was also the case on the old sign!

Oh, but you can!! You may be looking at diag. 622.1A in Schedule 3 Part 2 Item 13. This is the free-standing environmental weight limit sign which, you are correct in saying, cannot be reversed as a permitted variant.

However, venture on to page 330 of TSRGD. You will find the reversed version as part of Schedule 12 Part 20. Part 20 includes all warning and regulatory signs which may be used on direction signs and shows a reversed version of every sign which may be displayed in that manner.

Very thoughtful to include it in the new sign design. Shame the more obvious error went unnoticed.

I was wondering if there might be somewhere else in the document that listed reversible signs but I figured life is too short for me to try to find it and somebody else would know. Thanks!

[Worcestershire Wolf]

Presumably this is a like for like replacement from when the A38 actually used to run through the centre of Bromsgrove.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33726 ... 312!8i6656

But if not actually botched it's definitely confusing in the Worcester direction as at the next junction the road is shown correctly as the B4091 with no mention here of the A38:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33364 ... 312!8i6656

[Truvelo]

Presumably this is a like for like replacement from when the A38 actually used to run through the centre of Bromsgrove.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33726 ... 312!8i6656

But if not actually botched it's definitely confusing in the Worcester direction as at the next junction the road is shown correctly as the B4091 with no mention here of the A38:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33364 ... 312!8i6656

The first one is definitely botched as the middle panel has two A road numbers with neither in brackets. Such a multiplex in the UK must have one number take precedence and of course there is no multiplex here with the A38 bypass. Both A38's on that sign should be in brackets.

[Alderpoint]

.. a multiplex in the UK must have one number take precedence

Can the number which take precedences change between sings?

A46 (A45), but next sign is (A46) A45.

[jgharston]

That sign is telling me that the road through those traffic lights multiplexes with the M5.

[Bryn666]

.. a multiplex in the UK must have one number take precedence

Can the number which take precedences change between sings?

A46 (A45), but next sign is (A46) A45.

That's the least of Tollbar and the associated tie in works' problems where signage is concerned.

[Johnathan404]

I started to explore that junction on Street View but lost the will to live with the number of 'botched' signs!

[DuckDuckGo]

Check this out![url][https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Sho ... 0303a2/url] It has been like this for about 5 years. Is this done on purpose? It looks like the sign has ‘collasped’ - maybe the sign is out of use?

[bart]

.. a multiplex in the UK must have one number take precedence

Can the number which take precedences change between sings?

A46 (A45), but next sign is (A46) A45.

That's the least of Tollbar and the associated tie in works' problems where signage is concerned.

But those signs are correct, aren't they? The first one advertises the slip road at the TOTSO, so the slip road is still the A46 and hence the sign is telling you that you're still travelling on the A46 and about to go onto the A45, which has precedence on the multiplex. The next sign tells you that the exit from the roundabout takes you onto the multiplex, with the A45 taking priority.

[Chris5156]

But those signs are correct, aren't they? The first one advertises the slip road at the TOTSO, so the slip road is still the A46 and hence the sign is telling you that you're still travelling on the A46 and about to go onto the A45, which has precedence on the multiplex. The next sign tells you that the exit from the roundabout takes you onto the multiplex, with the A45 taking priority.

No, I don't think so. Both signs are telling you what you'll find if you take the sliproad. The first is over the sliproad, and states "A46 (A45)". The second is next to the sliproad, with an arrow pointing up it, and states "A45 (A46)". They both refer to the same sliproad and both can't be right.

In the UK we do not strictly have multiplexes at all, and one road can only have one number. So a sign reading "A45 (A46)" means this is the A45 leading to the A46; a sign reading "A46 (A45)" means the A46 leading to the A45.

Signs pointing towards an exit sliproad, like these, tell you which road (or roads) the sliproad will allow you to join. Given that the road you can join if you take this sliproad is the A45 to both left and right, you can't join the A46 here, so the sliproad can't be signposted "A46" except in brackets.