Botched Roadsigns
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I think I will just place this small patch sign on top of the bottom of this sign instead of replacing it. don't tell anyone what I did.
also once upon a time there was the west: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79489 ... authuser=0
also once upon a time there was the west: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79489 ... authuser=0
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I was referring to the font itself. The L's have no tails so it is not Transport or any other prescribed font. It is probably Helvetica or whether was provided with Windows 3.1 back in the day.Conekicker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:07You mean the excessive gap between "The" and "SOUTH", as well as the use of Motorway font for the route number at this location?Truvelo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 22:21 I have driven past this thousands of times and only noticed the other day that it is wrong.
https://goo.gl/maps/JNd8xRc76cUJzmE2A
This was permitted in TSM7, 2013, para 10.8 but has now changed in the 2018 edition, para 10.2.4.
10.2.4. Where flag‑type signs are to be used to direct traffic around a large roundabout or gyratory system on an all‑purpose road to an exit has motorway status, these must have a background colour appropriate to the road on which they are placed (e.g. dark green on a primary route). This is because the actual route indicated (the roundabout etc.) does not have motorway status. The motorway number, in brackets, is shown on a blue patch, together with any appropriate destination placed directly on the dark green or white background of the sign. The junction number, the motorway symbol and distances to destinations are not included on these signs. The advance direction signs on the approach to the roundabout or gyratory system will, however, show the full motorway panel with the motorway symbol when indicating the motorway exit from the roundabout or gyratory. Where the roundabout has motorway status (e.g. it forms part of a junction between two motorways), the flag‑type signs shown in Figure 10‑3 may be used to direct traffic around the circulatory carriageway.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Yes, the words Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Telford are in Helvetica, which is weird because the other lettering is in Transport. The M54 patch is also wrongly positioned and missing brackets. What a strange way to get it wrong.Truvelo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 17:02I was referring to the font itself. The L's have no tails so it is not Transport or any other prescribed font. It is probably Helvetica or whether was provided with Windows 3.1 back in the day.Conekicker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:07You mean the excessive gap between "The" and "SOUTH", as well as the use of Motorway font for the route number at this location?Truvelo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 22:21 I have driven past this thousands of times and only noticed the other day that it is wrong.
https://goo.gl/maps/JNd8xRc76cUJzmE2A
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- Skermington
- Member
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
- Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle
-
- Member
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Yes, it's technically correct. There's a very short bit of S2 between the longabout-ish junction and the dual carriageway proper, and the signage for the start of the dual carriageway is just after that. Really not sure it needs an advance warning though.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
And such signs are not needed on roundabouts anyway. Go further around and they've used stack type ADS at the A460 exit. All in all, a shambles.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 17:39Yes, the words Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Telford are in Helvetica, which is weird because the other lettering is in Transport. The M54 patch is also wrongly positioned and missing brackets. What a strange way to get it wrong.Truvelo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 17:02I was referring to the font itself. The L's have no tails so it is not Transport or any other prescribed font. It is probably Helvetica or whether was provided with Windows 3.1 back in the day.Conekicker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:07 You mean the excessive gap between "The" and "SOUTH", as well as the use of Motorway font for the route number at this location?
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
- 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.
- Beardy5632
- Member
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 16:45
- Location: Forest of Dean
Re: Botched Roadsigns
There's an even worse botch from the B1322.
And one that's local to me, another silly error on a new sign but where the sign it replaced was correct.
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
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Along a similar theme.. more advance flag signs https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.21594 ... 312!8i6656
Re: Botched Roadsigns
The roadworks have a temporary elderly/infirm sign. Never seen that before...
144 High St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4u1eFuSfWykFkWec6
144 High St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4u1eFuSfWykFkWec6
- MotorwayGuy
- Member
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
- Location: S.E. London
Re: Botched Roadsigns
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.34349 ... 384!8i8192
This flag sign directs you down a cul-de-sac instead of the intended route and is missing brackets.
This flag sign directs you down a cul-de-sac instead of the intended route and is missing brackets.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2482
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Botched Roadsigns
This isn't the M62 so M62 should be in brackets. Also the positioning is pants because it incorrectly implies that you will use the M62s to get to Normanton.
At the same junction this sign fails to mention that this road is the A645?
And nearby more patching without good cause: A638 may be primary but there's a few miles of non-primary A645 first.
At the same junction this sign fails to mention that this road is the A645?
And nearby more patching without good cause: A638 may be primary but there's a few miles of non-primary A645 first.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
There may be a case for Featherstone RLFC to be a brown patch too.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 13:23 This isn't the M62 so M62 should be in brackets. Also the positioning is pants because it incorrectly implies that you will use the M62s to get to Normanton.
At the same junction this sign fails to mention that this road is the A645?
And nearby more patching without good cause: A638 may be primary but there's a few miles of non-primary A645 first.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1456852 ... 384!8i8192
For some reason the weight limit roundel is between the start of the road name and the end of the road name. It should say "Weight limit at Perimeter Road South".
And then the stack sign below it should be non-primary with a primary patch for (A23)...
The other direction at-least got the top bit right... https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1459395 ... 312!8i6656
Also this must be one of a few mini-roundabouts that have a u-turn destination. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1450095 ... 384!8i8192
Edit:
Just released that physical panels that make up the first sign were put onto the poles in the wrong order, face palm.
For some reason the weight limit roundel is between the start of the road name and the end of the road name. It should say "Weight limit at Perimeter Road South".
And then the stack sign below it should be non-primary with a primary patch for (A23)...
The other direction at-least got the top bit right... https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1459395 ... 312!8i6656
Also this must be one of a few mini-roundabouts that have a u-turn destination. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1450095 ... 384!8i8192
Edit:
Just released that physical panels that make up the first sign were put onto the poles in the wrong order, face palm.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Have only ever seen the bottom sign typically at the end of the dual carriageway. So clutching at straws here as the road is already very narrow.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Full green patch and recently erected near Rowton hall near Chester. This is along a single track road about 1/3 mile from the A41 itself.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.90084 ... 384!8i8192
Saw this a few days ago. What made it even worse is that the no motor vehicle sign was directly facing the main road rather than the turning loop. Plus trying to read what the sign said at 40mph wasn't possible, I thought it said "except vehicles under 4.4m" (for the ahead road) which is just the same as the co-located max height sign.
Also trying to find a solo motorcycle over 4.4m would be quite tricky!
Saw this a few days ago. What made it even worse is that the no motor vehicle sign was directly facing the main road rather than the turning loop. Plus trying to read what the sign said at 40mph wasn't possible, I thought it said "except vehicles under 4.4m" (for the ahead road) which is just the same as the co-located max height sign.
Also trying to find a solo motorcycle over 4.4m would be quite tricky!
-
- Member
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46
Re: Botched Roadsigns
It's even more botched than it appears. First of all, what's the point in restricting the turning loop to begin with? I can't see many vehicles wanting to turn here apart from ones that don't fit under the bridge. And it's already got double yellow lines to stop parking in it.jervi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:48 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.90084 ... 384!8i8192
Saw this a few days ago. What made it even worse is that the no motor vehicle sign was directly facing the main road rather than the turning loop. Plus trying to read what the sign said at 40mph wasn't possible, I thought it said "except vehicles under 4.4m" (for the ahead road) which is just the same as the co-located max height sign.
Also trying to find a solo motorcycle over 4.4m would be quite tricky!
Secondly, the conversion on the sign isn't exact, so it's unclear whether vehicles between 4.4m and 14ft 6in are allowed to use the loop, pass under the bridge, both, or neither.
Thirdly, the intention is clearly that the over-height vehicles go round the loop and turn right to double back and avoid the bridge. However, the way it's signed means that it's legal to enter the loop (thus going around the restriction signs), and turn left towards the bridge. OK, there's another restriction sign on the bridge itself, but then you're stuck with a large vehicle turning in the road, negating the point of the loop.
Going the other way is even stranger. The height restriction is clearly signed at the roundabout, so over-height vehicles have no reason to be on the road anyway. But apparently there are so many that they have to warn you about all the over-height vehicles turning round. And the loop is restricted to over-height vehicles - and permit holders, as there's a field gate half way round. Which presumably means that someone needs to issue the farmers with permits so they can use the gate without getting ticketed for misusing the loop. All to stop the presumably vast numbers of people who want to drive out here just so they can turn round for no good reason. Though I did note that this one doesn't allow you to sneak around the restriction signs.
- Gareth Thomas
- Member
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 13:43
- Location: Temple Ewell, Kent
- Contact:
Re: Botched Roadsigns
This one at the A2/A256 interchange. "A2" should be in brackets, as this is not the A2 but the road leading towards it; and the blank space underneath the sign that presumably was there ready for "Retail Park" or something but never got it.
This one at the A256/A257 roundabout. The "11" mileage is placed between "Canterbury" and "A257", in a similar way to how it would be placed between "Cardiff" and "Caerdydd" on a Welsh sign.
This one on the A258. Not only does it suggest the upcoming A257 is primary, but it forgets to mention what road this actually is or its next destination (Sandwich).
Finally this one, which whilst it does correctly have "Sandwich A258", it suggests the A258 is primary - which it never has been.
This one at the A256/A257 roundabout. The "11" mileage is placed between "Canterbury" and "A257", in a similar way to how it would be placed between "Cardiff" and "Caerdydd" on a Welsh sign.
This one on the A258. Not only does it suggest the upcoming A257 is primary, but it forgets to mention what road this actually is or its next destination (Sandwich).
Finally this one, which whilst it does correctly have "Sandwich A258", it suggests the A258 is primary - which it never has been.
My journey with testicular cancer!
https://garethishalfnuts.wordpress.com/
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads..."
-Dr Emmett Brown
https://garethishalfnuts.wordpress.com/
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads..."
-Dr Emmett Brown
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I must go and get a picture but this horror has only got worse with the re-routing of the A14