It annoys me that the two NSL signs are at different angles.aj444 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 22:20 Are there supposed to be two no entry signs here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.8825177 ... 312!8i6656
Botched Roadsigns
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Not as bad as when the two NSL signs are a mirror image of each other like this.pjr10th wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 19:22It annoys me that the two NSL signs are at different angles.aj444 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 22:20 Are there supposed to be two no entry signs here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.8825177 ... 312!8i6656
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
- Bfivethousand
- Member
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
- Location: Derbyshire
- Beardy5632
- Member
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 16:45
- Location: Forest of Dean
Re: Botched Roadsigns
British & Irish cities driven in - 48/75
England - 36/52, Scotland - 7/7, Wales - 5/6, NI - 0/5, RoI - 0/5
England - 36/52, Scotland - 7/7, Wales - 5/6, NI - 0/5, RoI - 0/5
- Patrick Harper
- Member
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
- Location: Wiltshire
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I could have a field day with most of the merge signs at Merstham.
This is needless expense, the Diagram 509.1 sign would do just fine here. Ditto for these except the replacements would be Diagram 508.1 this time.
These are plain wrong, two lanes merge from left, not one, one of which feeds into the lane from which traffic are being informed here.
This and this aren't wrong but they are out of date by 26 years. If they are original to the interchange then it's impressive they have lasted so long.
This is wrong and completely unnecessary as two ADSes further south do much more besides the same job.
There are two issues here, the sign(s) on the left should be based on Diagram 872.1, and the sign(s) on the right shouldn't be there at all.
Finally, somewhere at this point there should be a traffic merging from the right sign based on Diagram 874. It seems to be missing.
This is needless expense, the Diagram 509.1 sign would do just fine here. Ditto for these except the replacements would be Diagram 508.1 this time.
These are plain wrong, two lanes merge from left, not one, one of which feeds into the lane from which traffic are being informed here.
This and this aren't wrong but they are out of date by 26 years. If they are original to the interchange then it's impressive they have lasted so long.
This is wrong and completely unnecessary as two ADSes further south do much more besides the same job.
There are two issues here, the sign(s) on the left should be based on Diagram 872.1, and the sign(s) on the right shouldn't be there at all.
Finally, somewhere at this point there should be a traffic merging from the right sign based on Diagram 874. It seems to be missing.
-
- Member
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I was more confused by the direction sign giving "(A452) avoiding low bridge" as the only destination. Do none of the other roads go anywhere? What if I don't need to avoid the low bridge?Bfivethousand wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 20:24 It annoys me when terminal speed limit signs are offset a good 25 metres apart from each other
Though after a bit more exploring I figured out that it's saying "if you followed the 'avoiding low bridge' sign at the last junction, turn right here to get back to the main road".
I think this one is a botch, though. If you were driving a high vehicle north on the A452 and heading for the A454 west, you'd turn off the A452 to avoid the low bridge. Then right at the roundabout. Then you get here, and it's telling you to turn right - not mentioning that this is the A454, so you actually need to turn left!
Re: Botched Roadsigns
M23 J7 isn't just better either.Patrick Harper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 22:25 I could have a field day with most of the merge signs at Merstham.
This is needless expense, the Diagram 509.1 sign would do just fine here. Ditto for these except the replacements would be Diagram 508.1 this time.
These are plain wrong, two lanes merge from left, not one, one of which feeds into the lane from which traffic are being informed here.
This and this aren't wrong but they are out of date by 26 years. If they are original to the interchange then it's impressive they have lasted so long.
This is wrong and completely unnecessary as two ADSes further south do much more besides the same job.
There are two issues here, the sign(s) on the left should be based on Diagram 872.1, and the sign(s) on the right shouldn't be there at all.
Finally, somewhere at this point there should be a traffic merging from the right sign based on Diagram 874. It seems to be missing.
End of dual carriageway? - more like end of lane/road narrows. Plus the lane merge sign should just be a 509.1
This should be a 508.1
No warning of end of dual carriageway when the dual carriageway actually ends. Although there are warning signs of two-way traffic
- Nathan_A_RF
- Member
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:53
- Location: East Sussex/Southampton
- Contact:
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Those lane merge signs are now not prescribed now but I do have working drawings for them that I got sent along with a bunch of others a while ago. They may have been experimental? Bryn may know.
- Skermington
- Member
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
- Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Could have cross-posted to Manky Roadsigns too, but this trumps it.
"Have we got any blank Warning Triangles?"
"Nah, just GIVE WAY"
"Can we not peel the letters off?"
"A GIVE WAY's a GIVE WAY, it'll be fine"
"Shall we clean or replace the panel too?"
"No need now, it says GIVE WAY in the triangle"
"Have we got any blank Warning Triangles?"
"Nah, just GIVE WAY"
"Can we not peel the letters off?"
"A GIVE WAY's a GIVE WAY, it'll be fine"
"Shall we clean or replace the panel too?"
"No need now, it says GIVE WAY in the triangle"
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Another arrow in a patch https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4066103 ... 384!8i8192
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Oh you need to stay away from the new A14 junctions, especially Bar Hill, then.Bfivethousand wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 20:24 It annoys me when terminal speed limit signs are offset a good 25 metres apart from each other
- Bfivethousand
- Member
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
- Location: Derbyshire
- Skermington
- Member
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
- Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle
Re: Botched Roadsigns
And just further along from that, we have this .Rambo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 20:42 Another arrow in a patch https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4066103 ... 384!8i8192
- SouthWest Philip
- Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
- Location: Evesham, Worcestershire
Re: Botched Roadsigns
"Lincoln Central & N'th" could be more elegantly presented too. Maybe "Lincoln (N & C)"?Peter350 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 14:54 Saxibily
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-56662310
-
- Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:32
Re: Botched Roadsigns
New signs been put up this week on Beverley Westwood
Motor vehicles prohibited but parking is at owner's risk...
Motor vehicles prohibited but parking is at owner's risk...
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: Botched Roadsigns
The ability to spell barbeque is beyond them as well.delinquentwoody wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 21:11 New signs been put up this week on Beverley Westwood
Motor vehicles prohibited but parking is at owner's risk...
Screenshot_20210407-155855_Facebook.jpg
On the plus side, due to the presence of the yellow and blue background signs at the bottom of the assembly, the sign will only be there for 6 months, TSRGD 2016 Schedule 13, General Direction 16 refers.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
- multiraider2
- Member
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 17:42
- Location: London, SE
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I posted it in the gallery years ago and on another thread but I don't think in here. Taken down at one point and put back up, the lovely, never been primary/never will A222
- ForestChav
- SABRE Developer
- Posts: 11123
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
- Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
- Contact:
Re: Botched Roadsigns
The A610 between A6 and M1 has similar identity crises over whether it's primary or not. (I don't think it is)multiraider2 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 22:05 I posted it in the gallery years ago and on another thread but I don't think in here. Taken down at one point and put back up, the lovely, never been primary/never will A222
Just take a look on Streetview, there are plenty of examples of it swapping green and white signs.
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.
Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.