Counterpoint - we could benefit from using the European "interchange" symbol and route numbers with a distance, so for you example you'd instead have "[X] M62/M60/M66 18". We sort of do this already where RCS will list a route number (typically only another motorway though) but making it more obvious would be nice.Osthagen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 14:55Scotch Corner shouldn't be signed at all IMO. Again, you don't see 'Dishforth' or 'Aberford' signed on the A1(M), they're not even PDs, there's ZERO need to give SC special treatment. Most maps don't even mark it anymore. '(A66)' on the gantries until you get really near does the job. Signing it as the only control destination on RCS signage going south like the do around the Darlo bypass is utterly twerpish IMO. Get Harrogate, Leeds and Donny on the signs instead.Rillington wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 16:10 I think it's the same with Boroughbridge which historically got very good coverage on road confirmation signs on the old A1 but not so on the A1M although Wetherby retained its excellent RCS coverage.
That's probably true outside of the north east and Yorkshire but Scotch Corner only has coverage on the A1(M) between the M62 and Newcastle and on the A66 heading east.
For an analogy, if I was driving west on the M62 at say Huddersfield, heading for Manchester, and I got an RCS that said:
M62
Simister Island 18
I'd be fuming.
When I lived in Gateshead and wanted the A66 (for the Lakes and the M6 South), I'd avoid SC and the A1(M) in general like a man on a mission, and you'd instead find me going A167-A688-A67-A66.
Scotch Corner has only survived due to its historical significance... as a coaching stop and turnpike junction. The fact in 2023 we still rely on this for navigation when we have supposed policy experts claiming London doesn't need to be signed just shows how little competence is applied to wayfinding in the UK.