Signage Rethinks

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

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Signage Rethinks

Post by danfw194 »

Just spotted this curiosity on GSV:

June 2015

October 2020

Looks like there was a rethink and swap around in the placement of the lane sign and roundabout sign here. The information on both respective signs has slightly changed too.

Any other examples of similar situations where the road layout is unchanged, but the signage has been amended after a rethink.

*I am pretty sure the road layout here did not change in any way between these two time periods, but if you know better, please correct me. And if it has changed, then this example is completely defunct!*
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

The 2015 shot has the signs the wrong way round and has a lack on consistency and continuity. The replacement signs are the right way round and the 1st is now better placed and is on passive safe posts.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bfivethousand »

Still not consistent though, there's no notification of the weight limit entering Warwick as per the southbound A46 approach, also the lane sign on the newer imagery forgets to mention Cirencester...

Other than that, the new signing is an improvement, not least for removing a chunk of unnecessary information from the map ADS although I'm a little surprised that London was also removed.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

Bfivethousand wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 19:59 ... although I'm a little surprised that London was also removed.
London should only be signed from the M25, otherwise its the regional prefix.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Chris5156 »

Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 00:05
Bfivethousand wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 19:59 ... although I'm a little surprised that London was also removed.
London should only be signed from the M25, otherwise its the regional prefix.
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bfivethousand »

My understanding was that the only relevance of the M25 in terms of London was that local London primary destinations (your Ealings, Hounslows, Uxbridges etc...) should only usually be signed within its confines. I acknowledge that Heathrow Airport is stated as an exemption to the Greater London / M25 rule in the DfT's list of primary destinations but for "London" itself not to be exempted, well, that's a little bit ridiculous frankly...

I'd still think London as a destination at M40 junction 15 would still be perfectly fine, even underneath The SOUTH which I'd personally associate more with the A34 corridor to Southampton at that point.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

Chris5156 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:08
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 00:05
Bfivethousand wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 19:59 ... although I'm a little surprised that London was also removed.
London should only be signed from the M25, otherwise its the regional prefix.
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:08
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 00:05

London should only be signed from the M25, otherwise its the regional prefix.
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice. It comes down to the choice between super primary destinations or regions. Since the policy is regions then London should not be treated as a super primary. With the current policy by TfL perhaps all signs on the approach to the M25 should be patched to 'Local traffic only' instead of London.
AlexBr967
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:08

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by AlexBr967 »

Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:08
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 00:05

London should only be signed from the M25, otherwise its the regional prefix.
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
What about here? The M1 is signed as the route to London because the A1 is inadequate to deal with London traffic from the North. However, the A1 still leads to the south.
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by MotorwayGuy »

Pretty much everywhere in the South East signs London, Including the M20, M2 .etc. "London" is rarely signed inside the M25, usually it's prefixed with Central, West .etc.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by WHBM »

Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15 The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
Let us not confuse "current policy" with "best practice" :)
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bfivethousand »

MotorwayGuy wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 19:44 Pretty much everywhere in the South East signs London, Including the M20, M2 .etc. "London" is rarely signed inside the M25, usually it's prefixed with Central, West .etc.
Exactly.

There are several primary destinations available on the current list (located on the DfT Traffic Signs Manual portal under "Chapter 2") to guide drivers to the central areas ("The City" / "Central London" / "West End") in place of plain old "London".

In view of that, if London is not usually supposed to be used as a primary destination outside the M25 (as appears to be indicated by the Chapter 2 list which supersedes the list in LTN 1/94), where exactly is it supposed to be used? It'd be a nonsense - and hugely unhelpful - not to see it on signs approaching from the likes of Gatwick / Stansted / Luton, the Channel Tunnel, Channel Ports etc...

One other thing from up-thread... The SOUTH EAST isn't listed within the Regional Destinations list in LTN 1/94 - is that the only addition to the regional list? I only ask since (forgive my Partridgesque leanings) links to EAST ANGLIA are now markedly better than they were 30 years ago and I think the region would certainly now be worthy of consideration.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

AlexBr967 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 19:32
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:08
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
What about here? The M1 is signed as the route to London because the A1 is inadequate to deal with London traffic from the North. However, the A1 still leads to the south.
No, the M1 is signed as London to get the majority of traffic onto the DBFO. When the signs were put up the M1 to the junction with the M18 had congestion more of the time than via the A1. The original sign design had London on both plates. In the end the A1 got The South as it was better for Dartford and Kent traffic.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Chris5156 »

Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:08
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 00:05London should only be signed from the M25, otherwise its the regional prefix.
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
That can't possibly be right. It sounds bonkers to me. London is no longer a super primary destination, so it should no longer appear on signs as "LONDON", but it can still appear as "London".

There is a rule that primary destinations within the M25, other than "London" and "Heathrow Airport", should only be used on signs within the M25. That covers the likes of Croydon, Hammersmith and Bromley. But London itself is an exception to that list - it has to be, otherwise you couldn't erect a sign pointing towards the capital city if you weren't already in it.

Are you telling me, with a straight face, that the sign here is wrong and should have a forward destination of either The SOUTH or The SOUTH EAST? You are, at this point, deep within both the south and the south east of England and facing north.

Equally, what would you put here instead of London? Or here?
Last edited by Chris5156 on Sun Dec 19, 2021 21:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7500
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Big L »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 21:29
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:08
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
That can't possibly be right. It sounds bonkers to me.

Are you telling me, with a straight face, that the sign here is wrong and should have a forward destination of either The SOUTH or The SOUTH EAST? You are, at this point, deep within both the south and the south east of England and facing north.

What would be the correct destination to use on the sign here instead of London? Or what about this one?
...or this...
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Al__S »

at the junction of the A14 & A1, recently equipped with all-new signs due to the rebuild, drivers are given the choice of "London (E)" or "London (C & W)". At Swavesey, Bar Hill & Girton the route to "London" is then signed (along the A14 and onto the M11)
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 21:29
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:08
What’s the regional prefix? London is signed from a great many places that are not the M25.
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
That can't possibly be right. It sounds bonkers to me. London is no longer a super primary destination, so it should no longer appear on signs as "LONDON", but it can still appear as "London".

There is a rule that primary destinations within the M25, other than "London" and "Heathrow Airport", should only be used on signs within the M25. That covers the likes of Croydon, Hammersmith and Bromley. But London itself is an exception to that list - it has to be, otherwise you couldn't erect a sign pointing towards the capital city if you weren't already in it.

Are you telling me, with a straight face, that the sign here is wrong and should have a forward destination of either The SOUTH or The SOUTH EAST? You are, at this point, deep within both the south and the south east of England and facing north.

Equally, what would you put here instead of London? Or here?
However much you may not wish it that is national policy. In terms of strategic traffic the M25 is the major destination for traffic on many primary roads in the south east. Its much better to have the nearest one or two primary destinations and the M25 than 'London'.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Chris5156 »

Bomag wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 00:58
Chris5156 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 21:29
Bomag wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 15:15
The SOUTH, or the SOUTH EAST, in this case. The fact that London is signed outside the M25 is either a legacy on very old signs or due to a designer not knowing current policy / best practice.
That can't possibly be right. It sounds bonkers to me. London is no longer a super primary destination, so it should no longer appear on signs as "LONDON", but it can still appear as "London".

There is a rule that primary destinations within the M25, other than "London" and "Heathrow Airport", should only be used on signs within the M25. That covers the likes of Croydon, Hammersmith and Bromley. But London itself is an exception to that list - it has to be, otherwise you couldn't erect a sign pointing towards the capital city if you weren't already in it.

Are you telling me, with a straight face, that the sign here is wrong and should have a forward destination of either The SOUTH or The SOUTH EAST? You are, at this point, deep within both the south and the south east of England and facing north.

Equally, what would you put here instead of London? Or here?
However much you may not wish it that is national policy. In terms of strategic traffic the M25 is the major destination for traffic on many primary roads in the south east. Its much better to have the nearest one or two primary destinations and the M25 than 'London'.
Can you point to a reference for this policy? Is there a DfT circular that sets it out? It's not one any highway authority is following, and thank god for that.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bfivethousand »

Bomag wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 00:58
However much you may not wish it that is national policy. In terms of strategic traffic the M25 is the major destination for traffic on many primary roads in the south east.
Such logic would surely also apply to the M60 for example. Should Manchester also be removed from signs on the M62 over the Pennines?

In any case I'd have thought the M25 was nobody's destination. Maybe a conduit to their destination (quite probably in Greater London).
Its much better to have the nearest one or two primary destinations and the M25 than 'London'.
So, whilst Paris is routinely signed from hundreds of kilometres away on the Autoroute network, we are required not to stick 'London' on a sign on the M40 at Beaconsfield or the M1 at Hemel Hempstead?

By that reckoning, why is 'London' even listed in Chapter 2 as a primary destination at all any more? As previously mentioned, there are very few locations within the M25 where it's use would make much sense.
Chris5156 wrote:Can you point to a reference for this policy? Is there a DfT circular that sets it out? It's not one any highway authority is following, and thank god for that.
Chris, it's as per the current Chapter 2 list of primary destinations listed here . It differs from the list issued in LTN 1/94 in that in the latter, 'London' was also listed alongside 'Heathrow Airport' for general use outside the M25. I'm unaware of any other method by which this change had been made generally known to signing practitioners.
Last edited by Bfivethousand on Mon Dec 20, 2021 08:52, edited 1 time in total.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Chris5156 »

Bfivethousand wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 02:08
Bomag wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 00:58However much you may not wish it that is national policy. In terms of strategic traffic the M25 is the major destination for traffic on many primary roads in the south east.
Such logic would surely also apply to the M60 for example. Should Manchester also be removed from signs on the M62 over the Pennines?
If you extend the same logic nationwide then you can signpost nowhere from anywhere unless you're already there.
Chris5156 wrote:Can you point to a reference for this policy? Is there a DfT circular that sets it out? It's not one any highway authority is following, and thank god for that.
Chris, it's as per the current Chapter 2 list of primary destinations listed here. It differs from the list issued in LTN 1/94 in that in the latter, 'London' was also listed alongside 'Heathrow Airport' for general use outside the M25. I'm unaware of any other method by which this change had been made generally known to signing practitioners.
Thank you, that's really helpful.

The relevant sentence in that document reads as either a stupid decision or a sensible decision that has been very badly and ambiguously worded. I apologise for banging on about this but I find it really interesting.

First: if the advice really is, literally, that outside the M25, the only primary destination located inside the M25 that can ever appear on signs is "Heathrow Airport", then the policy makes no sense, for all the reasons listed above. Take the A24 as a random example. Travelling northbound, there is no regional destination for this road - not unusual. As you travel north, the first primary destination is Horsham; when you pass that, the next is Dorking. When you pass Dorking, the next primary destination lies inside the M25 - in fact it's Central London because there are no others on the A24. But that cannot be signposted until the M25 has been crossed. What, then, are you left with? Following this advice to the strictest interpretation... nothing. You can't signpost anything, other than the local destinations of Leatherhead and Epsom. There is no primary destination north of Dorking, even though the road leads directly into a whacking great city of seven million people. Or, just perhaps, you use the only primary destination in London that it does permit, which is Heathrow Airport - a choice that would be wilfully misleading. If that is, genuinely, the intent of the wording in Chapter 2 then it is patently stupid advice, and I would like to see anyone who can construct an argument that says otherwise.

Second, then: what if it's just been badly worded? The sentence in question reads "Primary destinations in Greater London, other than Heathrow Airport, are usually only signed within the boundary of the M25". I have a bit of a problem with the idea that "London" could be described as being "in Greater London". All the other primary destinations in the Greater London list are districts of London, and if you are already within the urban area they point to another part of the urban area. I can be in London, and see a sign for Lewisham, and that makes sense. But the destination "London" is different - it doesn't refer to any specific district of the urban area - not even the centre, which are amply covered by Central London, Westminster and The City. So what is it for if it isn't a destination that represents the conurbation as a whole? Why would it appear in the list?

You also have to consider why this advice is being given. The point (which is slightly easier to work out from the better-worded version in LTN 1/94) is that, from afar, you shouldn't be individually signposting Uxbridge, Harrow, Ealing and Acton along the M40, because all those places are districts of the one big city that you're aiming for. Navigation is easier if you simply signpost the conurbation as a whole until you're inside it. So you signpost London until you have crossed the boundary and entered London, and from there the destinations become more granular. That is a logical and sensible signage strategy, and one you can see in use on the ground across the south east of England. Failing to use "London" on signs outside the M25 blows that to pieces and leaves you with nothing to put on signs pointing towards the biggest city in Europe. Rather than being a logical and self-evidently helpful strategy it becomes a complete nonsense. The fact that this advice offers no suggestion what else should appear on signs in its place is another pointer that omitting London from signs is not the intention.

Finally, I think it's appropriate to ask whether this advice is being followed. As far as I can tell it is not. I don't see evidence that any highway authority in the south east of England is avoiding use of "London" on signs outside the M25. In fact, I see that highway authorities across the south east of England at all tiers, including National Highways themselves, are consistently using "London" as a destination. So if that really is the intention, none of the people to whom this advice is targeted are interpreting it that way.

So, having seen the source for this, I still don't buy it. It looks to me like either a mistake, or a very poorly worded statement written by someone who thought it was obvious that "London" could be signposted outside the M25. No other explanation is plausible. If it's taken at face value you end up with a policy that is totally unrealistic and unworkable. And if you assume that taking it at face value is somehow correct, you then have to find a way to account for the fact that nobody who is actually responsible for producing and installing signs in the south east of England has reached the same conclusion.
Post Reply