Botched Roadsigns

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
pjr10th
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 23:35

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by pjr10th »

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
It annoys me that the two NSL signs are at different angles. :x
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17456
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Truvelo »

pjr10th wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 19:22
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
It annoys me that the two NSL signs are at different angles. :x
Not as bad as when the two NSL signs are a mirror image of each other like this.
Attachments
nsl.jpg
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker »

Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bfivethousand »

16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
User avatar
Beardy5632
Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 16:45
Location: Forest of Dean

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Beardy5632 »

British & Irish cities driven in - 48/75
England - 36/52, Scotland - 7/7, Wales - 5/6, NI - 0/5, RoI - 0/5
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3198
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Patrick Harper »

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This and this aren't wrong but they are out of date by 26 years.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.
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

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?
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!
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

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.
M23 J7 isn't just better either.
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
User avatar
Nathan_A_RF
Member
Posts: 719
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:53
Location: East Sussex/Southampton
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Nathan_A_RF »

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.
User avatar
Skermington
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Skermington »

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"
Rambo
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rambo »

Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Al__S »

Oh you need to stay away from the new A14 junctions, especially Bar Hill, then.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bfivethousand »

16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
User avatar
Skermington
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Skermington »

Rambo wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 20:42 Another arrow in a patch https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4066103 ... 384!8i8192
And just further along from that, we have this :?.
User avatar
Peter350
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 20:20
Location: Southampton

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Peter350 »

User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SouthWest Philip »

"Lincoln Central & N'th" could be more elegantly presented too. Maybe "Lincoln (N & C)"?
delinquentwoody
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:32

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by delinquentwoody »

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
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker »

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
The ability to spell barbeque is beyond them as well.

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.
User avatar
multiraider2
Member
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 17:42
Location: London, SE

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by multiraider2 »

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
User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11075
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by ForestChav »

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
The A610 between A6 and M1 has similar identity crises over whether it's primary or not. (I don't think it is)

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.
Post Reply