Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

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

Moderator: Site Management Team

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

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by jervi »

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8372828 ... 312!8i6656

Shame there is no sign the other direction.
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26152
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Owain »

jervi wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 22:46 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8372828 ... 312!8i6656

Shame there is no sign the other direction.
As there is only one way in and one way out, they're presumably hoping that people will remember!
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by SteelCamel »

TS wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 20:55 Well we couldn't just put "½ mile" - that would be an exaggeration!

https://goo.gl/maps/MKbeY5cnZ6ixUAio7
It's also not true. 870 yards appears to be the distance to the far end of the village (where there's a matching "no footway for 870 yards" sign). But there's no footway outside the village for quite some way in either direction. And there's about 350 yards of the "no footway" section that does have a footway - it even has footways on both sides and a zebra crossing between them at one point!
TS
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 17:18
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by TS »

I spotted a '14 yds' for a school crossing patrol at Fair Oak, Eastleigh, today:

https://goo.gl/maps/rReDaLW2BW2FNsSB7
Klepsydra
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:39
Location: Market Drayton
Contact:

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Klepsydra »

22 yards in Bromley.
"I went to a planet without bilateral symmetry and all I got was this lousy F-shirt."
jnty
Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by jnty »

Not only does the "dual carriageway ending" sign on the A9 at Dalraddy show distances to the nearest 20 yards, it also shows two different distances on either side of the road to reflect that the signs aren't exactly opposite each other.

(I notice that 440 yards is suspiciously close to 400m.)
User avatar
Norfolktolancashire
Member
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
Location: Cornwall

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Norfolktolancashire »

There are a lot of half miles on this old sign in Wadebridge, North Cornwall

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5178564 ... 384!8i8192
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by solocle »

Norfolktolancashire wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 13:42 There are a lot of half miles on this old sign in Wadebridge, North Cornwall

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5178564 ... 384!8i8192
A couple in Cumbria too
AC45E090-3B60-427D-968B-B1105970C00C.jpeg
8F2EA935-8BF7-407D-89E1-030FB049DE37.jpeg
OliverH
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:52
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by OliverH »

Last edited by ManomayLR on Sun Oct 10, 2021 00:31, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed incorrectly formatted URL
Rillington
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 19:10
Location: Manchester

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Rillington »

solocle wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 17:35
Norfolktolancashire wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 13:42 There are a lot of half miles on this old sign in Wadebridge, North Cornwall

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5178564 ... 384!8i8192
A couple in Cumbria too
AC45E090-3B60-427D-968B-B1105970C00C.jpeg8F2EA935-8BF7-407D-89E1-030FB049DE37.jpeg
i think that the rule is that 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of a mile are added to signs where the distance is less than 3 miles so this would not be seen as overly precise for the distances in the two signposts shown on these two photographs.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Vierwielen »

I would have put the yellow board behind the traffic light.

BTW, 11 yards looks suspiciously like 10 metres to me.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Vierwielen »

Rillington wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 17:48
solocle wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 17:35
Norfolktolancashire wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 13:42 There are a lot of half miles on this old sign in Wadebridge, North Cornwall

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5178564 ... 384!8i8192
A couple in Cumbria too
AC45E090-3B60-427D-968B-B1105970C00C.jpeg8F2EA935-8BF7-407D-89E1-030FB049DE37.jpeg
i think that the rule is that 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of a mile are added to signs where the distance is less than 3 miles so this would not be seen as overly precise for the distances in the two signposts shown on these two photographs.
If the UK ever changed to metric roads signs, what would the appropriate rounding factors be?

I would suggest that up to 100 metres - 10 metre rounding; up to 200 metres - 20 metre rounding; up to 500 metres - 50 metre rounding; up to 1 km (or 1000 metres) - 100 metre rounding; up to 2 km (or 2000 metres) - 200 metre rounding; up to 5 km - 0.5 km rounding and about 5 km, one kilometres rounding.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by jervi »

AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11037
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by AndyB »

Vierwielen wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 22:56 If the UK ever changed to metric roads signs, what would the appropriate rounding factors be?

I would suggest that up to 100 metres - 10 metre rounding; up to 200 metres - 20 metre rounding; up to 500 metres - 50 metre rounding; up to 1 km (or 1000 metres) - 100 metre rounding; up to 2 km (or 2000 metres) - 200 metre rounding; up to 5 km - 0.5 km rounding and about 5 km, one kilometres rounding.
Current rules (Schedule 18, Part 3) are 10 yard rounding up to 880 yards, although we know that's actually rounded to metres, 1/4 miles up to 3, and then whole miles.

If it were to change, I'd suggest 10m rounding up to 500m, then 50m rounding up to 1km, 500m rounding up to 5km (close to 3 miles) and then whole km.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3321
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by ManomayLR »

AndyB wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 19:15
Vierwielen wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 22:56 If the UK ever changed to metric roads signs, what would the appropriate rounding factors be?

I would suggest that up to 100 metres - 10 metre rounding; up to 200 metres - 20 metre rounding; up to 500 metres - 50 metre rounding; up to 1 km (or 1000 metres) - 100 metre rounding; up to 2 km (or 2000 metres) - 200 metre rounding; up to 5 km - 0.5 km rounding and about 5 km, one kilometres rounding.
Current rules (Schedule 18, Part 3) are 10 yard rounding up to 880 yards, although we know that's actually rounded to metres, 1/4 miles up to 3, and then whole miles.

If it were to change, I'd suggest 10m rounding up to 500m, then 50m rounding up to 1km, 500m rounding up to 5km (close to 3 miles) and then whole km.
If it was me I'd do something which has been needed for a long time, and convert everything to metric.
It's really silly that all our designs are metric but direction signs are based on (often inaccurate) imperial measures.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11037
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by AndyB »

Correct, but politically impossible.
Jonathan24
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:45

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Jonathan24 »

AndyB wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:43 Correct, but politically impossible.
Especially when it seems that one of the big sticking points with the NI Protocol which has just arisen is the UK government's insistence that imperial measures have to be used in NI. For anyone under 50, anywhere in the UK, do they actually use imperial measures anymore, unless they absolutely have to? Metric just seems to make so much more sense, otherwise why don't we go back to using pounds, shillings and pence again? :confused:
John McAdam
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 15:57

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by John McAdam »

Jonathan24 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 19:15 ... For anyone under 50, anywhere in the UK, do they actually use imperial measures anymore, unless they absolutely have to? Metric just seems to make so much more sense, otherwise why don't we go back to using pounds, shillings and pence again? :confused:
As I often hear in the pub: "Yes please, 568 millilitres of beer, thanks" ...

Quite agree with your underlying point though!
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Vierwielen »

John McAdam wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 20:00
Jonathan24 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 19:15 ... For anyone under 50, anywhere in the UK, do they actually use imperial measures anymore, unless they absolutely have to? Metric just seems to make so much more sense, otherwise why don't we go back to using pounds, shillings and pence again? :confused:
As I often hear in the pub: "Yes please, 568 millilitres of beer, thanks" ...

Quite agree with your underlying point though!
But if you are watching your alcohol intake, buying beer by the half litre makes alcohol unit counting easier - you half the ABV figure - thus a half a litre of 5.2% beer contain 2.6 units. The "proof" of this is quite simple - one unit of alcohol is 10 ml of pure alcohol (at the presecribed temperature for the pedants). SInce 10 ml is 1% of one litre, the number of units of alcohol in litre is numerically equal to the percentage alcohol by volume.

Likewise, a standard tot (25 ml) of 40% spirits also contains one unit (40% of 25 ml is 10 ml).
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15721
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Chris Bertram »

John McAdam wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 20:00
Jonathan24 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 19:15 ... For anyone under 50, anywhere in the UK, do they actually use imperial measures anymore, unless they absolutely have to? Metric just seems to make so much more sense, otherwise why don't we go back to using pounds, shillings and pence again? :confused:
As I often hear in the pub: "Yes please, 568 millilitres of beer, thanks" ...

Quite agree with your underlying point though!
Exception is made for draught beer dispense. And Ireland still uses the pint for beer in pubs.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Post Reply