New Orange R-road Signage

Our man in Havana

Since when have they used a yellow patch for the road number?

Zoney

Yet another gratuitous use of motorway chopsticks too! Those should only be present if a right turn there actually brought you onto a motorway!

Cookie_Monster

maybe it's to make it stand out from all the other info there.
that setup is a bit much in fairness, combined with the cars parking infront of it, does not make it easy reading.

munchkin_utd

Zoney wrote: »

Yet another gratuitous use of motorway chopsticks too! Those should only be present if a right turn there actually brought you onto a motorway!

says who?
Is there some Irish regulation that states this?

I know in Germany....
(and possibly many neighbouring countries seeing as they copy Germany just like Ireland copies everything that the UK does)
.. you find chopsticks on signs on back roads indicating the way to get to a motorway. So the inventors of the motorway have no problem with usage of the sign offline.

So I dont think its intrinsically wrong to have chopsticks off line.
Its just not the way the British do things.

EDIT: back on topic.
That cluster of signs gives me a headache.
TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!!!!!!!

SeanW

Zoney wrote: »

Yet another gratuitous use of motorway chopsticks too! Those should only be present if a right turn there actually brought you onto a motorway!

If the right turn took you onto the motorway, (M7) would not be in brackets.

Our man in Havana

What is very strange they left the R423 as normal and made the R445 special with its yellow patch. It is roughly 12km from that sign to the M7 at J18.
The same type of signage has been installed towards Borris In Ossory also. I shall get some pictures soon of those.

Amtmann

Maybe it's to indicate the alternative route to the M7.

JustAddWater

see the problem here is that everyone is guessing and nobody knows for sure, while I think it's great we're all working on trying to find the info, we should all know this sign! We use those roads every day and it's a disgrace that we don't have the level of education we need to interpret road signs. Not the fault of anyone here I would like to point out!

These are signs that EVERYONE should know! It says it all about the education of irish drivers when the vast majority of people (me included) don't know for sure what that sign actually means

Seems the signs themselves aren't even standardised! There's even a thread on it somewhere with the same signs used in different ways. Is it any wonder we're all scratching our heads at this?

Furet

Furet wrote: »

Maybe it's to indicate the alternative route to the M7.

In the UK they use these symbols.

http://www.intensive-driving-courses-birmingham.co.uk/eco-driving/eco-diversion-routes.php

eco diversion routes shorten travel times



Eco diversion routes can help to shorten your travel time when you are diverted off a motorway or other road because of an accident or major road works.

What are eco diversion routes

Eco diversion routes are symbols that you can follow to get you back onto your route when you are diverted due to a major incident blocking your road. Following the appropriate symbol will bring you back onto your route in the shortest possible time available for the area you are in.

icdg

munchkin_utd wrote: »

says who?
Is there some Irish regulation that states this?

As I mentioned in another thread, there are no Irish regulations relating to directional signage any more.

The Principal Regulations in relation to road traffic signage are the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997-2004. (1997 regulations here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html ) These make no provision whatsoever for directional signage and the 1997 Regulations repealled all the regulations previously in place for directional signage (which referred to the original pre-1977 signs, so they were not being followed anyway).

The Traffic Signs Manual 1996 however does prescribe when chopsticks should be used. They should only appear in the same circumstances as in the UK - signs for roads inescapably leading to motorways. Once you pass the Start of Motorway Regulations sign (the one with the chopsticks and road number only) you shouldn't see another chopsticks sign until the cross-out chopsticks (End of Motorway Regulations - which can also be used with a distance to give advance warning of end of regulations).

This rules should be no surprise when you learn that the TSM 1996 is more or less a direct copy of the then edition of its UK counterpart. It isn't really being followed anymore for mainline motorway signage, particularly gantries which now look very different to what the TSM prescribes.

etchyed

JustAddWater wrote: »

see the problem here is that everyone is guessing and nobody knows for sure, while I think it's great we're all working on trying to find the info, we should all know this sign! We use those roads every day and it's a disgrace that we don't have the level of education we need to interpret road signs. Not the fault of anyone here I would like to point out!

These are signs that EVERYONE should know! It says it all about the education of irish drivers when the vast majority of people (me included) don't know for sure what that sign actually means

Seems the signs themselves aren't even standardised! There's even a thread on it somewhere with the same signs used in different ways. Is it any wonder we're all scratching our heads at this?

What are you talking about? What's your point? How can people be educated on a sign that's non-standard? Nobody knows what a yellow R-road number means because it's not supposed to exist.

Equally nobody knows what indicates the start of motorway regulations in this country because the signage used to indicate it is so inconsistent. On old motorways and some new ones we have Motorway Ahead: NO... signs, on others we don't. On some entrances to motorways, the designers of signs have stuck to the rules, and you only see chopsticks as you enter. In other places, there are chopsticks symbols all over the local roads anywhere near a motorway junction.

Munchkin, as I've said here before, the Brits have been doing this a lot longer than we have. We're a small country, it makes sense to follow someone else's system rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves. Our directional signage already broadly follows theirs. Why deviate from that system now?

alentejo

could that yellow sign warn about a low bridge in Portlaoise?

Zoney

alentejo wrote: »

could that yellow sign warn about a low bridge in Portlaoise?

It could mean there are dragons on the R445. Who knows? It's entirely arbitrary on the part of whoever designed the sign.

Given that the R445 though Portlaoise is the road affected by the low bridge (rather than the N7 on the old sign), the new sign should have incorporated the details on the old sign. Anyone who doesn't already know exactly what road the R445 is, isn't going to know that it is the route affected by the bridge even with the old sign remaining in place.

Empire o de Sun

It's a guessing game. I remember calling the Dep of Transport (or was it DoEHLG at the time) in 2006, and they said it was due to be published in 6 months.

Allot in my opinion has been made up. Even "Port Laoise" is the wrong size. Whoever makes signs in the midlands always makes "Port Laoise" bigger. This doesn't happen anywhere else.

Jayuu

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

Allot in my opinion has been made up. Even "Port Laoise" is the wrong size. Whoever makes signs in the midlands always makes "Port Laoise" bigger. This doesn't happen anywhere else.

I've seen that on a lot of signs as far as I can recall. Its because they don't have an English version of "Port Laoise" (because officially "Portlaoise" is not the translation - why I don't know!) they have to make it bigger than the standard Irish language name so as to make it look correct. Otherwise it would just look as if a name was missing.

Empire o de Sun

Jayuu wrote: »

I've seen that on a lot of signs as far as I can recall. Its because they don't have an English version of "Port Laoise" (because officially "Portlaoise" is not the translation - why I don't know!) they have to make it bigger than the standard Irish language name so as to make it look correct. Otherwise it would just look as if a name was missing.

I can see your point, but this is not done for Dún Laoghaire or place names in the Gaeltacht. And in the 1996 TSM it is stated the text should be the same size in both languages. 8s/w high

Empire o de Sun

It's not that hard to get signs right, I don't have access to the TSM anymore, but going from memory this is how it should be.

L1011

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

I can see your point, but this is not done for Dún Laoghaire or place names in the Gaeltacht. And in the 1996 TSM it is stated the text should be the same size in both languages. 8s/w high

It is done from time to time for Dun Laoghaire, and also surreally English-only names like "Belgard" in Tallaght (that one also has an occasionally surfacing, totally made up Irish name).

Most of the Gaeltacht area signs predate the OLA and have just had the English painted out; replacement signs use the double-height Irish.

It IS inconsistant (Don't think "Baile Chlair" is double height on the M6 signs for instance) but its meant to be double height.

Empire o de Sun

MYOB wrote: »

It is done from time to time for Dun Laoghaire, and also surreally English-only names like "Belgard" in Tallaght (that one also has an occasionally surfacing, totally made up Irish name).

Most of the Gaeltacht area signs predate the OLA and have just had the English painted out; replacement signs use the double-height Irish.

It IS inconsistant (Don't think "Baile Chlair" is double height on the M6 signs for instance) but its meant to be double height.

this is how signs are wrong. people assuming stuff, on what size the text should be and not reading the book.

If a place name has only one form, be it irish or english, then it should be written in the mixed case alphabet, so Belgard should be written as "Belgard"

If both the irish and english name are simular or the same spelling, then the english is to be omitted.

Danno

I see the R639 is also done in a yellow box on a sign in Durrow. It's on the fingerposts at the junction of Chapel Street and Patrick Street. Strangely enough, no other signs around the town have been changed since the M8 opened last May.

marmurr1916

Danno wrote: »

I see the R639 is also done in a yellow box on a sign in Durrow. It's on the fingerposts at the junction of Chapel Street and Patrick Street. Strangely enough, no other signs around the town have been changed since the M8 opened last May.

It seems that they're signposting the old national routes, using their new regional road numbers, with yellow to make them stand out from other regional roads.

I presume this is because they'll be the obvious alternative routes in case of motorway closures.

etchyed

marmurr1916 wrote: »

It seems that they're signposting the old national routes, using their new regional road numbers, with yellow to make them stand out from other regional roads.

I presume this is because they'll be the obvious alternative routes in case of motorway closures.

Quite a plausible theory, but that's still not very useful to the average driver. The R-number gives no clue as to the route's former N-number.

Empire o de Sun

etchyed wrote: »

Quite a plausible theory, but that's still not very useful to the average driver. The R-number gives no clue as to the route's former N-number.

This could have been solved when they rolled out the R numbers originally and reserved the first 100 for N numbers,

So
R101 replaces the N1
R102 Replaces the N2

It's too late for that now but they can still overcome this problem. and just sign the R445 as the R7, Officially the road will be still R445 but signed at the R7

Daft thing is, they didn't need to rename the roads at all - all the new roads are Motorways! M numbers the existing N numbers could have remained!

Politics :rolleyes:

Empire o de Sun

They used to do that, I remember it on the Airport motorway, the Bray bypass and the Naas bypas, but stopped that practice in the mid 90's.

Our man in Havana

Legally the motorways are really N roads hence the renaming.

Haddockman

Haddockman wrote: »

Legally the motorways are really N roads hence the renaming.

True, but they could have given them different nunbers!

nordydan

R001 to R099 would do the job

Zoney

Deleted User wrote: »

Daft thing is, they didn't need to rename the roads at all - all the new roads are Motorways! M numbers the existing N numbers could have remained!

Politics :rolleyes:

But the old roads *are* regional now rather than routes of national importance. So it would not have made sense to keep the N numbers for the old roads and have M number separate.

The only issue really is a failure in the regional road numbering to determine importance - just as with national roads being primary (1-33) and secondary (>50), regional roads should also be divided into primary and secondary. As suggested already, the 100 series would make sense for more primary regional roads.

It isn't only old N roads that this problem applies to - the numbering system means there are other pretty busy and essential R road links (including urban arterial routes) that are placed on parity with quiet country roads filling in a gap in the map of R roads (a reasonable role for R roads, but more secondary).

Amtmann

I saw this today at the under-construction M18 junction for Crusheen:

L1011

I think we've discovered yet another bit of the NRA's new super-sekrit TSM...