But then the forward destinations should surely be both London and Oxford, in line with the approach given within the guidance?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 15:16In fairness the distinction isn't important at M40 J15. You might as well just head down the M40 and then go wherever from there.hemsl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 13:36Fair point! My mind was stuck on the first post in the thread that kicked this all off (the signing of J15 of M40).Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 13:25
Given that signs in Birmingham point to "London (N & E)" and London "(S & W)" to split traffic onto the M6/M1 or M40 as appropriate, replacing the old The SOUTH and LONDON destinations, it suggests someone used logic rather than policy wonkery. If you want to reduce stress on the M25, you might want to make sure people hit the right part of it - someone looking for SW London is therefore badly advised to use the M1.
I'm guessing the argument is it should be signed "Oxford" instead of "London", which is insane, given the M40 was built to point traffic directly into central London.
Signage Rethinks
Moderator: Site Management Team
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19250
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: Signage Rethinks
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Signage Rethinks
No, because if we apply bomag's interpretation of the rules, London falls within the Greater London list of PDs and can only be used inside the M25 as it's not Heathrow Airport.Steven wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 15:24But then the forward destinations should surely be both London and Oxford, in line with the approach given within the guidance?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 15:16In fairness the distinction isn't important at M40 J15. You might as well just head down the M40 and then go wherever from there.
I'm guessing the argument is it should be signed "Oxford" instead of "London", which is insane, given the M40 was built to point traffic directly into central London.
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
- RichardA35
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 5719
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
- Location: Dorset
Re: Signage Rethinks
OK coming at this objectively and reading the base documents (as you always should) - the difference between LTN 1/94 and TSM 2 is as stated - the note about London being an exception (along with Heathrow Airport) was removed and it should generally only now be signed within the M25.
I can see the point from both sides - it only takes a quick look at traffic counts inside and ouside the M25 to see that an awful lot of traffic (the majority on the M3) takes the M25 rather than continue along the stubs and tails of the radial motorways. The M40 and M3 have had lanes removed through the M25 junction and, whilst it appears a rather blunt instrument, I can see merit in the strategy to dissuade traffic.
However as noted it also seems a strategy of some basic binary wayfinding may need to be implemented to allow removal of London on some of the signs quite a distance away from the M25 - THE SOUTH or SOUTH EAST anyone?
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19250
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: Signage Rethinks
The SOUTH EAST isn't on the list of approved regional destinations, so that can't be used.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
- RichardA35
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 5719
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
- Location: Dorset
Re: Signage Rethinks
It was more a suggestion of what should replace "London" given a fresh strategy is apparently afoot.
If a strategy exists that would have London removed from signage over the southern half of England, then a similarly vague single destination from long range or many specific destinations at shorter range, should be proposed within that strategy. Hopefully, it will be understandable and simple.
Re: Signage Rethinks
The draft IAN 146 from 2014 said the following
3. DIRECTION SIGNING STRATEGY
Introduction
3.1. Route signing strategies are a means of developing and defining an organised approach to co-ordinate signing on a route or an area basis. These strategies form the reference for the development of a signing hierarchy which allows the designer to prioritise destinations in line with their strategic importance. It is important that any route signing strategy ties into the local authority signing strategy, in order to maintain consistency. A route signing strategy should be used when renewing or rationalising existing signing.
3.2. Careful consideration needs to be given to the preparation of a directional signing strategy to ensure that consistent and coherent guidance is provided without overloading signs with too much information or losing continuity.
3.3. This part of the guidance explains how destinations on sign faces are selected and grouped according to a hierarchy based on geographical importance and route type. The use of ‘stacking order’ (the order in which destinations appear on sign faces), target destinations, and ‘destination blocks’ (groups of destinations on sign faces) is also explained.
Destination and Route Types
3.4. Destinations on directional signs are categorised by: geographical size and importance (for example, regional, primary and local destinations); destination type (for example, tourist destinations); and route type (for example, motorway, lorry and cycle routes). The categories are as follows:
• Regional destinations - a region is the highest tier of sub-national division used by central government in England; as such regional destinations are commonly used on long distance routes throughout the country alongside primary destinations. They are displayed on signs in capitals to distinguish them from towns and cities (for example, The NORTH WEST). Regional destinations are listed in LTN 1/94 Appendix B [Ref 1].
• Motorways as destinations – these are shown as bracketed motorway route numbers, and can be displayed on: a motorway sign; a blue patch on all-purpose road signs; or a panel of an advance direction sign located on an all-purpose road approach to a motorway junction.
• Primary destinations - these destinations are designated by the Department for Transport (DfT). The primary route network links primary destinations. Primary place name destinations for England are listed in TSM Chapter 7 [Ref 2] with an amended updated version on the DfT website under TSM Chapter 2.
In most cases the replacement of 'London' with 'M25' fits in with both what is on DfT website and the hierarchy of signing identified in the draft IAN. For the M40 the destinations south of Banbury would be M25, Reading*, Oxford
Reading would be based on traffic flows even if it is not directly on the route. Otherwise High Wycombe or Beaconsfield could be subbed.
3. DIRECTION SIGNING STRATEGY
Introduction
3.1. Route signing strategies are a means of developing and defining an organised approach to co-ordinate signing on a route or an area basis. These strategies form the reference for the development of a signing hierarchy which allows the designer to prioritise destinations in line with their strategic importance. It is important that any route signing strategy ties into the local authority signing strategy, in order to maintain consistency. A route signing strategy should be used when renewing or rationalising existing signing.
3.2. Careful consideration needs to be given to the preparation of a directional signing strategy to ensure that consistent and coherent guidance is provided without overloading signs with too much information or losing continuity.
3.3. This part of the guidance explains how destinations on sign faces are selected and grouped according to a hierarchy based on geographical importance and route type. The use of ‘stacking order’ (the order in which destinations appear on sign faces), target destinations, and ‘destination blocks’ (groups of destinations on sign faces) is also explained.
Destination and Route Types
3.4. Destinations on directional signs are categorised by: geographical size and importance (for example, regional, primary and local destinations); destination type (for example, tourist destinations); and route type (for example, motorway, lorry and cycle routes). The categories are as follows:
• Regional destinations - a region is the highest tier of sub-national division used by central government in England; as such regional destinations are commonly used on long distance routes throughout the country alongside primary destinations. They are displayed on signs in capitals to distinguish them from towns and cities (for example, The NORTH WEST). Regional destinations are listed in LTN 1/94 Appendix B [Ref 1].
• Motorways as destinations – these are shown as bracketed motorway route numbers, and can be displayed on: a motorway sign; a blue patch on all-purpose road signs; or a panel of an advance direction sign located on an all-purpose road approach to a motorway junction.
• Primary destinations - these destinations are designated by the Department for Transport (DfT). The primary route network links primary destinations. Primary place name destinations for England are listed in TSM Chapter 7 [Ref 2] with an amended updated version on the DfT website under TSM Chapter 2.
In most cases the replacement of 'London' with 'M25' fits in with both what is on DfT website and the hierarchy of signing identified in the draft IAN. For the M40 the destinations south of Banbury would be M25, Reading*, Oxford
Reading would be based on traffic flows even if it is not directly on the route. Otherwise High Wycombe or Beaconsfield could be subbed.
Re: Signage Rethinks
That's still insane.
That's the equivalent of the French not signing Paris in favour of the A86, the Dutch not signing Amsterdam in favour of the A10, the Germans not signing Berlin in favour of their A10, the Italians not signing Rome in favour of the GRA, the Spanish not signing Madrid in favour of the M30, the Belgians not signing Brussels in favour of the R0, the Hungarians not signing Budapest in favour of the M0, the Americans not signing DC in favour of I-495, the Russians not signing Moscow in favour of the MKAD... need I go on?
Literally NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH ignores their capital city on road signs using some nebulous "but traffic isn't looking for the most important city in the country" argument, so what fruity cigarettes were being smoked when some wonk at Highways England came up with that IAN?
This is the same organisation that complained when I offered to replace ADS as part of a S278 because the 30 year old signs are just fine and dandy apparently. I'll take no lectures from an organisation so hypocrisy ridden and incompetent where sign provisions are concerned.
That's the equivalent of the French not signing Paris in favour of the A86, the Dutch not signing Amsterdam in favour of the A10, the Germans not signing Berlin in favour of their A10, the Italians not signing Rome in favour of the GRA, the Spanish not signing Madrid in favour of the M30, the Belgians not signing Brussels in favour of the R0, the Hungarians not signing Budapest in favour of the M0, the Americans not signing DC in favour of I-495, the Russians not signing Moscow in favour of the MKAD... need I go on?
Literally NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH ignores their capital city on road signs using some nebulous "but traffic isn't looking for the most important city in the country" argument, so what fruity cigarettes were being smoked when some wonk at Highways England came up with that IAN?
This is the same organisation that complained when I offered to replace ADS as part of a S278 because the 30 year old signs are just fine and dandy apparently. I'll take no lectures from an organisation so hypocrisy ridden and incompetent where sign provisions are concerned.
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
Re: Signage Rethinks
That's a very diplomatic way of saying they've cocked it up royally and are now doubling down when the scale of the cock up has been pointed out if I ever saw one!RichardA35 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 16:55It was more a suggestion of what should replace "London" given a fresh strategy is apparently afoot.
If a strategy exists that would have London removed from signage over the southern half of England, then a similarly vague single destination from long range or many specific destinations at shorter range, should be proposed within that strategy. Hopefully, it will be understandable and simple.
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
Re: Signage Rethinks
Or is happy to hide an ADS behind a high hedge (the A494 westbound approaching the A548)?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 17:31 This is the same organisation that complained when I offered to replace ADS as part of a S278 because the 30 year old signs are just fine and dandy apparently. I'll take no lectures from an organisation so hypocrisy ridden and incompetent where sign provisions are concerned.
Compare https://goo.gl/maps/yZaBB4cAiiAFodrXA and https://goo.gl/maps/Z5L5QRjKjJEtGyS67
Re: Signage Rethinks
Thankfully somebody has had it cut back for the last couple of years when i've passed.nowster wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 18:00Or is happy to hide an ADS behind a high hedge (the A494 westbound approaching the A548)?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 17:31 This is the same organisation that complained when I offered to replace ADS as part of a S278 because the 30 year old signs are just fine and dandy apparently. I'll take no lectures from an organisation so hypocrisy ridden and incompetent where sign provisions are concerned.
Compare https://goo.gl/maps/yZaBB4cAiiAFodrXA and https://goo.gl/maps/Z5L5QRjKjJEtGyS67
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Signage Rethinks
I am clearly among the few people who actually turn on to the Richmond-bound M3 from M25 as I did last Saturday when visiting my brother who lives in Teddington. I've honestly never known it to look busy, but if it only had 2 lanes it might be quite different.RichardA35 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 16:23OK coming at this objectively and reading the base documents (as you always should) - the difference between LTN 1/94 and TSM 2 is as stated - the note about London being an exception (along with Heathrow Airport) was removed and it should generally only now be signed within the M25.
I can see the point from both sides - it only takes a quick look at traffic counts inside and ouside the M25 to see that an awful lot of traffic (the majority on the M3) takes the M25 rather than continue along the stubs and tails of the radial motorways. The M40 and M3 have had lanes removed through the M25 junction and, whilst it appears a rather blunt instrument, I can see merit in the strategy to dissuade traffic.
However as noted it also seems a strategy of some basic binary wayfinding may need to be implemented to allow removal of London on some of the signs quite a distance away from the M25 - THE SOUTH or SOUTH EAST anyone?
“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!
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!
Re: Signage Rethinks
That'll be because I reported it! It has grown back quite a bit since, and isn't visible from car driver height any more.Rambo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 18:05Thankfully somebody has had it cut back for the last couple of years when i've passed.nowster wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 18:00 Or is happy to hide an ADS behind a high hedge (the A494 westbound approaching the A548)?
Compare https://goo.gl/maps/yZaBB4cAiiAFodrXA and https://goo.gl/maps/Z5L5QRjKjJEtGyS67
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19250
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: Signage Rethinks
No, I'm sorry, that's completely insane and I'm still not convinced it's not a wind-up.
The final destination for the M40 is London, and that's what the majority of the population will be using as a destination or waypoint so that they've comfortable they're going the right way even if they then use the M25 and a different radial to get to the right part of London.
Think about it for just one minute - even folk wanting the Channel Tunnel from anywhere outside the SE will head for London via whatever route is suitable for them, then go around it, then find the right exit for Folkestone. They're going to be expecting to see "London".
Perhaps maybe we should stop signing Birmingham too, and just use (M42, M5, M6) instead? It makes as much sense.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Signage Rethinks
Why sign London when from 100's miles away when almost nobody will travel there - also given how unwelcoming TfL makes it perhaps its a good thing to sign where road users want to go. This goes back to not using overseas 'best practice' where there is no justification for it in the UK. There is the argument as to how to best sign routes into central London from the home counties, but that's not my problem.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 17:31 That's still insane.
Literally NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH ignores their capital city on road signs using some nebulous "but traffic isn't looking for the most important city in the country" argument, so what fruity cigarettes were being smoked when some wonk at Highways England came up with that IAN?
You will have to explain why the signing hierarchy in the draft IAN was wrong; it doesn't mention 'London' its only when coupled with DfT policy would London not be signed as a primary destination remote from the M25, in all cases signing motorways as a destination would take priority over primary destinations, whichever ones are used.
However much people are wedded to signing 'London', the fact that it is the capitol of the UK is not relevant to signs outside the south east. In the south east region the size of 'London' is often a poor substitute for providing the best route signing to both central London as well as outer boroughs; there was the suggestion that 'London' with relevant compass points would be an acceptable as a broad way finding option at decision points (mostly using For X follow Y) but the poor geographical knowledge of greater London by road users rather put a dent in this.
Re: Signage Rethinks
Erm, London is a strategic destination, a vast proportion of our major motorways end there.
Presumably you object to signing Birmingham from London as well, or signing Glasgow from Carlisle, perhaps we should just replace all destinations with other motorways because no one ever gets out of their cars and just spends all day following motorways, but you've just said no one has any geography knowledge so how the everloving hell are they going to work out where the M42 or M9 runs to, given it... gasp, goes to two different places!
I'll say it yet again in simple terms... traffic has to go around London to get anywhere else in the south east, therefore it becomes a destination that NORMAL PEOPLE and not desk wonks who never leave Zone 1 might end up looking for before picking up something else. They are not all number nerds obsessed with the M25 and nothing else. Given the reputation of the M25 and people's desire to avoid it completely, signing only that is actually guaranteed to cause more driver stress than putting London SW (M3) on signs would.
I'd like to see your evidence that people can't work out the difference between North and South London. That sounds a very Zone 1 wonk problem as well.
No one has an issue with signing the M25 as a destination, but to ignore the largest city in Western Europe in favour of it because you have a personal vendetta against logic strikes me as incredible.
Extending this insane logic we should never sign any major city or terminal destination on a major road in case the highway authorities aren't welcoming drivers. So that's no Liverpool on the M62, best leave it as Huyton, no Manchester on the M602, best stick with Ladywell Park and Ride, no Leeds on the M621, best stick with Ikea. Your argument makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you?
Perhaps instead of doubling down you should listen to the actual road users for a change. National Highways wouldn't be in such a mess over smart motorways and their DCO process if they'd done that a bit more.
I suppose next you'll be saying we shouldn't bother putting signs on railway platforms that say "over the bridge for London" in case someone only wants to go as far as Milton Keynes?
Why bother signing anything at all?
This has to be the single worst argument ever put forth on SABRE, and I was here for the M1 to the moon and Forton Museum sagas.
Presumably you object to signing Birmingham from London as well, or signing Glasgow from Carlisle, perhaps we should just replace all destinations with other motorways because no one ever gets out of their cars and just spends all day following motorways, but you've just said no one has any geography knowledge so how the everloving hell are they going to work out where the M42 or M9 runs to, given it... gasp, goes to two different places!
I'll say it yet again in simple terms... traffic has to go around London to get anywhere else in the south east, therefore it becomes a destination that NORMAL PEOPLE and not desk wonks who never leave Zone 1 might end up looking for before picking up something else. They are not all number nerds obsessed with the M25 and nothing else. Given the reputation of the M25 and people's desire to avoid it completely, signing only that is actually guaranteed to cause more driver stress than putting London SW (M3) on signs would.
I'd like to see your evidence that people can't work out the difference between North and South London. That sounds a very Zone 1 wonk problem as well.
No one has an issue with signing the M25 as a destination, but to ignore the largest city in Western Europe in favour of it because you have a personal vendetta against logic strikes me as incredible.
Extending this insane logic we should never sign any major city or terminal destination on a major road in case the highway authorities aren't welcoming drivers. So that's no Liverpool on the M62, best leave it as Huyton, no Manchester on the M602, best stick with Ladywell Park and Ride, no Leeds on the M621, best stick with Ikea. Your argument makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you?
Perhaps instead of doubling down you should listen to the actual road users for a change. National Highways wouldn't be in such a mess over smart motorways and their DCO process if they'd done that a bit more.
I suppose next you'll be saying we shouldn't bother putting signs on railway platforms that say "over the bridge for London" in case someone only wants to go as far as Milton Keynes?
Why bother signing anything at all?
This has to be the single worst argument ever put forth on SABRE, and I was here for the M1 to the moon and Forton Museum sagas.
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
Re: Signage Rethinks
This is also the stupid logic that resulted in nowheres like Scotch Corner and Wetherby being signposted all the way down the A1 when places of actual value like Leeds or Doncaster don't get a look in until you're right next to them. What are more people looking for as destinations?
Local traffic knows where it is going. Designing a national signing strategy around this kind of travel is insane and serves no purpose to anyone. It's the kind of logic that sees the M65 have signs pointing to Nelson but not Blackburn, yet still signposting Manchester from Colne. It's the kind of logic that implies the M5 only goes as far as West Bromwich.
It's interesting this nonsense didn't exist when the predecessor to LTN 1/94 was still applicable. It's look at us innovation wonders wonkery since Highways National England Agency came around.
The M1 was signposted ahead to "Birmingham" on opening day and "London" in the opposite direction despite going to neither of those places in 1959. Why? Because motorways are STRATEGIC LONG DISTANCE CORRIDORS, where the bulk of traffic is heading to a strategic destination.
Presumably London's internal signing schemes pre TfL that listed regional destinations were all wrong too, no one at Bank was driving to Pembrokeshire but it didn't stop the A40 being signposted to South Wales did it. No one was driving to Carlisle either from Stockport but it doesn't stop the A6 having a fingerpost there with it on.
International practice also often signposts the terminal point of a road.
The only reason we are not following international practice is because we are in the era of the dumb Brexiteer where we have to do things differently out of spite. It's as if someone has given signing policy to Dominic Cummings.
Local traffic knows where it is going. Designing a national signing strategy around this kind of travel is insane and serves no purpose to anyone. It's the kind of logic that sees the M65 have signs pointing to Nelson but not Blackburn, yet still signposting Manchester from Colne. It's the kind of logic that implies the M5 only goes as far as West Bromwich.
It's interesting this nonsense didn't exist when the predecessor to LTN 1/94 was still applicable. It's look at us innovation wonders wonkery since Highways National England Agency came around.
The M1 was signposted ahead to "Birmingham" on opening day and "London" in the opposite direction despite going to neither of those places in 1959. Why? Because motorways are STRATEGIC LONG DISTANCE CORRIDORS, where the bulk of traffic is heading to a strategic destination.
Presumably London's internal signing schemes pre TfL that listed regional destinations were all wrong too, no one at Bank was driving to Pembrokeshire but it didn't stop the A40 being signposted to South Wales did it. No one was driving to Carlisle either from Stockport but it doesn't stop the A6 having a fingerpost there with it on.
International practice also often signposts the terminal point of a road.
The only reason we are not following international practice is because we are in the era of the dumb Brexiteer where we have to do things differently out of spite. It's as if someone has given signing policy to Dominic Cummings.
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
Re: Signage Rethinks
No, because it should be (A67).
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
- Bfivethousand
- Member
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
- Location: Derbyshire
Re: Signage Rethinks
Interesting you should mention the place. It appears as an apparent primary destination all over the shop in County Durham yet is listed neither in Chapter 2 nor 1/94.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
followed immediately by Batman