Poor Road Signage Pictures

murphaph · 20-02-2006 09:24PM

All comments welcome MT, criticise away!

Wrt the map type directional signs combining into them the warning signs for the gates, I did think of that but I honestly can't see the LA 'getting it' and this scheme would be fairly quick and easy to implement. Currently there is ONE sign immediately before the gates approaching from the north and this has been twisted because it's too close to the carriageway.

If this was the UK this junction would have accurate map type advance direction signage.

The pointing along sign at the top right of the pic has to remain because there is a train station between the advance direction signage at the bottom of the pic and the junction, so train users (perhaps using bicycles too!) would be in 'no man's land' and need that sign to direct them along the R121 towards Clonsilla. The roads aren't just for motorists MT!

The eason I included the R121 on the flag signs was that I think in reality this is all I'll get (at best) and so without the advance direction signs these flags still 'work' pretty well. Advance direction signs of any type are NOT mandatory on an R road according to the TSM, but are left to the judgement of the designer. I don't trust this judgement so don't expect them to do one iota more than they have to (if they manage that).

I did consider the arrows being angled to 45 degrees and 135 degrees as you mentioned but the problem I saw was that in conjunction with the crossroads sign (all 90 degree angles) there might be some confusion, whereas this way you can't make a mistake, if you get me.

What should really happen with this junction is that the unclassified road approaching from the north should be closed at the junction and this 4 way crossroads becoming a T-junction, thereby making the signage and road marking (and vehicle movements) much more straightforward. The road just goes around the back of that house anyway! Closing it here does not cause anyone any problems.

I don't work in graphic design no! I'm an engineer-I knocked those up with humble MS Paint! And it's still better than some of the sh!te the LA's 'design'.

murphaph · 20-02-2006 09:30PM

Just to add, route confirmation signs are highly unlikely to be installed as they are not mandatory in the TSM for R or lower roads, so they build the R number into the flag (in theory).

MT · 21-02-2006 12:01AM

The pointing along sign at the top right of the pic has to remain because there is a train station between the advance direction signage at the bottom of the pic and the junction…

Ah, well it in that case…

The roads aren't just for motorists MT!

I realised that after several traffic jams involving sheep in Mayo.

I’m not sure what’s mandatory for secondary routes up here but there’s certainly a lot of advance and route confirmation signage on them. It’s a great pity there isn’t more on R roads down south. Having said that, the new signage that was put up in Donegal over the past number of years seems to have the three stages of signage for loads of R road signage. Indeed, it was my experience there that prompted me to mention the flags for traffic on the R121. The local authority in Donegal having done a good job of stack signage prior to junctions and confirmation after then went and made the junctions themselves somewhat needlessly confusing by placing flag signs at odd angles to ‘help’ motorists on the priority route. It was the one flaw in an otherwise reasonable overhaul.

And, yeah, I’m all for the closing of minor unclassified roads where ever possible. They’re just a waste of tarmac, or tar and chips as is usually the case, they’re often dangerous and make junctions even more so. Then they’re also the ‘drive way’ for someone’s dream one-off mansion which ruins the countryside and exacerbates the other problems.

As for that twisted warning sign (any pics?) I hope you’ll be demanding the LA mounts you’re new large versions on two posts each.

Again, it’s a pity about the lack of route confirmation/distance signs but if they ever did relent and put them up the single plate version common in the UK and used also in Australia would be a more durable option than the Republic’s current two-piece sign.

I'm an engineer-I knocked those up with humble MS Paint! And it's still better than some of the sh!te the LA's 'design'.

Too true. The current monopoly signing major road projects in the Republic don’t seem to know their arse from their elbow either when it comes to proper design! Time to send Rennicks a copy of MS Paint.

MT · 21-02-2006 01:14AM

Pic: Came across this Australian warning sign that would be perfect for signing the R121 junction. It just needs to be rotated through 90 degrees for each approach.

Pic: Another warning sign from that site. These are used in the US and Australia to warn of stop signs ahead, presumably not in every instance but just prior to overly hazardous junctions. Such an advance warning might be beneficial for the minor roads approaching the R121. Conversely the UK doesn’t use anywhere near the same number of stop signs as the Republic. Up here it’s mostly give ways. However, like the Americans, when a junction is overly hazardous advance warning is given by a blank give way triangle with a sign giving the distance to the junction mounted below. I think this is standard across much of Europe as well.

Pic: Here’s one for a yield ahead too.

Pic: New Zealand has a slight variation on this (no arrow).

daymobrew · 21-02-2006 11:06AM

murphaph wrote:

Traffic Signs Manual

In the 'correct' picture, are there advance signs for the two signs on the left and right of the picture?

A good while back I drove to Portmarnock, via M50, turning left off N32 at Clare Hall. Then there is a right turn at traffic lights (with an advance sign).
The next sign I saw was on the opposite side of the junction I needed to take (low down type as shown in the 'correct' picture above). The sign was obscured by a car coming out of the junction. In this instance the 'wrong' picture would have been more useful than the 'correct' picture - sign not hidden.

A mile further on the same thing happened again. While no car obscured the sign, I didn't see it until it was too late to make the turn (I would have been rear ended).

I wrote to Fingal County Council (with junction layout diagrams). I was told that a traffic engineer would contact me but I heard nothing. I didn't pursue it because it is so rare that I go out there, and now I know the junctions. The LA wear you down by ignoring you.

murphaph · 21-02-2006 12:41PM

daymobrew wrote:

In the 'correct' picture, are there advance signs for the two signs on the left and right of the picture?

It would depend on the road class and the individual designer who should take into account the particular requirements of the junction. The signs manual is a guide, not an all-encompassing reference manual. Higher classified roads should automatically get advance signage (and route confirmatory signage after the junction).

daymobrew wrote:

A good while back I drove to Portmarnock, via M50, turning left off N32 at Clare Hall. Then there is a right turn at traffic lights (with an advance sign).
The next sign I saw was on the opposite side of the junction I needed to take (low down type as shown in the 'correct' picture above). The sign was obscured by a car coming out of the junction. In this instance the 'wrong' picture would have been more useful than the 'correct' picture - sign not hidden.

A mile further on the same thing happened again. While no car obscured the sign, I didn't see it until it was too late to make the turn (I would have been rear ended).

I wrote to Fingal County Council (with junction layout diagrams). I was told that a traffic engineer would contact me but I heard nothing. I didn't pursue it because it is so rare that I go out there, and now I know the junctions. The LA wear you down by ignoring you.

I know how you feel Damien. I don't believe the LA's really have properly qualified/experienced engineers. If they did, we'd see some results. IT's not that there's no money to spend (the usual reason engineers don't get what they want) because we see new (incorrect) signage erected all the time.

For example, here's a BRAND NEW sign on the Clonee-Clonsilla road, installed as part of the Ongar Distributor Scheme (it's spposed to be an advance direction sign but it's an 'in-junction' type sign!).....

murphaph · 21-02-2006 12:53PM

MT wrote:

As for that twisted warning sign (any pics?) I hope you’ll be demanding the LA mounts you’re new large versions on two posts each.

Yes and already done in that order!

You can see the sign face head on on one of the pics, unfortunately that shot was taken from directly across the road from the sign, so clearly doesn't so a good job of warning oncoming road users!

The other pic is taken from behind the sign. You can see it's almost invisible as it has been twsisted parallel to the carriageway. It's a useless sign and warns of a bloody important hazard, 300 tonne trains and all that!

murphaph · 21-02-2006 04:28PM

As promised elsewhere, here's a pic of an improved gantry on the M1 northbound. The first defect with this sign is that the lane drop is not the R132, it's a spur of the M1 so R132 should be (R132). The other defect is that M1 is repeated needlessly on the panel above the mainline and that "GET IN LANE" is superfluous as it is implied by the downward arrows. It should also have been give a junction number (it is now J2 as can be seen on the fork sign behind the gantry). It should have looked more like the attached image! It's a LOT better than the SE Motorway rubbish however.
M1%20nb%202.JPG

mackerski · 21-02-2006 04:43PM

I think the brackets for the R132 are a little superfluous, since the M1 spur leads inescapably to it - there's a very fine line between spur and slip road. There is a further error in the signing used: exits should be signed with fork signs or gantries, but not both.

Dermot

murphaph · 21-02-2006 04:51PM

mackerski wrote:

I think the brackets for the R132 are a little superfluous, since the M1 spur leads inescapably to it - there's a very fine line between spur and slip road. There is a further error in the signing used: exits should be signed with fork signs or gantries, but not both.

Dermot

The second point is spot on Dermot. The fork should go. It's just needless clutter once a decent gantry is up. The first point is a fine line between me being anal and the right way to do it. I would argue that the M1 spur (albeit a short one) is a spur and not a slip road and doesn't lead inescapably to the R132 cos if you take the second exit at the M1 spur terminal roundabout you are heading into the airport, not the R132, so I reckon R132 should be in brackets. I can live with it the way it is however-it's a huuuge improvement on the stuff we've seen before.

MT · 21-02-2006 08:17PM

Comments on gantries for off-slips

This is an area where I think the Republic would be well advised to steer clear of what’s went up in the UK. This is one aspect of British signage I really deplore. I think UK gantries get it wrong in so many ways.

The huge amounts of superfluous grey panelling only increases wind impact and looks unsightly. Separate plates seem to work fine elsewhere so why not here.

The text on the signs is frequently difficult to follow due to a right to left layout in contrast to the international norm of a vertical list. Then there’s often far too many destinations given resulting in almost a paragraph of impenetrable wording.

Where a list style is used I feel the text could be given a central alignment as opposed to placing it to the left. This would improve appearance and provide a stronger visual emphasis between overhead info and the lane beneath.

Lanes on the mainline could also do with a straight on arrow each for reassurance/clarity.

Gantry signs in this part of the world could also do with lighting as in the US and the Netherlands. The lack of it here often reduces readability at night as you’re frequently driving with dipped beams. In addition, the Republic should include electronic message signs in its gantries as these are excellent for conveying lane closers, variable speed limits, etc.

Pic: Poorly laid out UK gantry

Pic: Much clearer Dutch version (big pic)

Pic: French gantries are quite unique also but again I like the vertical emphasis though the proper inclusion of route numbers would be helpful.

******************
I realise the gantry snapped on the M50 is for a lane drop but again many of the above flaws appear here also.

In total I feel they are: grey panelling, text not centrally aligned, Belfast and Swords not stacked adding confusion, repitition of M1, text appears too large for plates, lack of lighting, no junc. number, superfluous ‘get in lane’ instruction and lastly a needlessly cumbersome piece of scaffolding that passes for a gantry. Electronic lane panels would be nice too.

I’ve repeated some of what’s already been highlighted but I thought I’d stick my entire thoughts together.

As for the brackets around R132, I’m just not sure.

Pic: An American layout for a lane drop. Maybe the half-gantry displayed after the lane drop signage for Florida 13 might be a better alternative to a fork sign.

Murphaph, to attach images do they have to be hosted somewhere on the net?

Victor · 21-02-2006 09:06PM

At last, boards.ie has reached true nerdiedom.

murphaph wrote:

As promised elsewhere, here's a pic of an improved gantry on the M1 northbound. The first defect with this sign is that the lane drop is not the R132, it's a spur of the M1 so R132 should be (R132). The other defect is that M1 is repeated needlessly on the panel above the mainline and that "GET IN LANE" is superfluous as it is implied by the downward arrows. It should also have been give a junction number (it is now J2 as can be seen on the fork sign behind the gantry). It should have looked more like the attached image! It's a LOT better than the SE Motorway rubbish however.
http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10640/M1%20nb%202.JPG

I would suggest that Swords and Belfast be stacked, not side by side.

Pic: An American layout for a lane drop. Maybe the half-gantry displayed after the lane drop signage for Florida 13 might be a better alternative to a fork sign.

Terrible layout, the sign for one lane is wider than the sign for two lanes. I had difficulty making ot the arrows from the lights.

Murphaph, to attach images do they have to be hosted somewhere on the net?

You can attach images from anywhere, only linked photos need to be on the web.

When you reply to a message, scroll down and use the "Attach Files
Valid file extensions: bmp doc gif jpe jpeg jpg kmz pdf png psd txt xls zip" section, there are reasonable limits on image size.

murphaph · 22-02-2006 02:08PM

I quite like the UK way (which is officially our way too!) when it's done properly. The problem is that oftentimes too many local destinations are included on UK signage and as well as that, the way the GB motorway network is far more dense than ours will ever be, they have many more multiple motorway junctions than we will ever have (unless our population rises to 55 million!). We can thus use the UK system quite well. In any case, they are the ones in our manual and if ony we at least had this level of signage we'd be doing well.

MT · 23-02-2006 11:32PM

Victor wrote:

At last, boards.ie has reached true nerdiedom.

Gee, I think in the rest of Europe it’s known as doing things properly and paying attention to detail. Maybe if your public servants down there took more of a nerdish attitude there’d be less need for it here. But when in Rome…

‘Jaysus boy, planning? Ye’ll never catch the like a me at that craic. Sure we just throw up whatever comes to mind at the time. Who d'ye think I am, some sorta bleedin' nerd? And this TSM malarky, what’s that? Some sorta new speed limit?’ said the head of transport planning…

Victor wrote:

You can attach images from anywhere, only linked photos need to be on the web.

Great. I think I’ll have to replace my digital camera.

Murphaph wrote:

I quite like the UK way…

I understand the logic behind it but I just find it awful to look at. As signage goes it just ain’t pleasing to the eye and the layout is often as clear as mud. I really think that when starting from fresh the Republic should have assessed gantry signage right across Europe and beyond. Had they done so – I’m assuming transport chiefs there just copied the UK – they might have realised that many countries easily surpass Britain. My own favourite is the Netherlands. Clear, simple, pleasing to the eye, it ticks all the right boxes from a good design perspective. Indeed, I think the latest gantry designs to be used in Spain closely follow the Dutch approach. Spain being a country being a country that’s started over with a new signing policy several times.

Murphaph wrote:

We can thus use the UK system quite well. In any case, they are the ones in our manual and if ony we at least had this level of signage we'd be doing well.

I’d agree that paying close attention to what the UK does couldn’t do the Republic any harm. For the most part British signage is up there with the best internationally. But as with anywhere there are flaws and I think you need to take a more outward approach than simply copying your nearest neighbour as there’s plenty of stuff abroad that the UK could do with adopting too. And I think some of the continental gantry signage is a good example. Another is the new world warning signs in the Republic – much more visible, if only they were put up right.

By all means consider what the UK does, but do so in conjunction with assessing what’s done elsewhere too.

Here endeth my weighty moralising on the need for internationalism in signage policy.

Oh, and if the Republic has to have fingerposts then it would also be worth paying attention to the Dutch approach. Their fingers can’t be rotated. Hence the popularity of clogs with no shoelaces, ho hum. Victor, I’ll just get my anorak.

MT · 24-02-2006 01:10AM

What’s with the green patching for primary routes on these Mway signs?

Pic: In addition to no green, I’d stack the two mainline destinations and centralise M4 (M5). The arrows could go inside the destination (the blue backed arrow underneath the green panel looks incongruous here) panels and the grey could be ditched. I’d put 11 in the top left hand corner and maybe include the French exit symbol.

Pic: More green. I don’t like those the use of those French style arrows for confirming a split. For this scenario and advance slip road signage I’d much prefer arrows pointing top left. As with Dutch practice these provide a greater visual differentiation with the straight ahead arrows. This then allows the Dutch to use the French type for signalling the ending/merging of one lane into another.

Pic: A patch for the N32? Again there should be stacking, centralisation, arrows included and so on. If speed limits had to be put up they could’ve been placed in a larger blue plate. Not sure about ‘prepare to stop’ on a gantry. And there’s enough grey sheeting there to make goodness knows how many warning signs!

Pic: Agree with your comments, Murphaph. I’d just add that the duplication on the rightmost panel is pointless. This recurring fault might stem from the policy of aligning text to the left as only one ‘city centre’ displayed here would look equally confusing. However, if the centralisation used by the Dutch was employed one destination for both lanes would look fine.

Is it just me or is the text smaller/ panels larger on this gantry than the other one you snapped, Murphaph? The use of space looks better here as a result.

Dutch gantries have a superior layout than the UK/Irish variety IMO.

MT · 24-02-2006 01:21AM

The A1-A10 Watergraafsmeer interchange about two thirds down that page looks pretty much like what the M50/M1 junction will do when upgraded. Except there'll still be the roundabout leading to the N32 in the middle.

murphaph · 24-02-2006 08:03AM

The TSM is currently being reviewed by the NRA (according to correspondance I've had from 'em anyway) but until such time as a new edition is written, we have to stay within the constraints of the current one. The designers aren't clever enough to use good judgement IMO so they have to be kept under control with the manual, lacking as it may be in some quarters.

We're working on a website atm, will keep you informed when it goes live.

daymobrew · 24-02-2006 10:18AM

MT wrote:

Pic: More green. I don’t like those the use of those French style arrows for confirming a split. For this scenario and advance slip road signage I’d much prefer arrows pointing top left.

The biggest issue I have with this sign is that it is after the junction. Although the sign might be visible before the junction, it would only be after a point where it is safe to change lanes.

I've seen a few people reversing along the shoulder on the M7 south to turn onto the M9 south. If our motorways had more junctions people would be able to double back at the next junction. Obviously better signage would help a lot.
In California I was never too concerned if I missed an exit because the next one was never more than a mile further on.

MT · 24-02-2006 01:22PM

The biggest issue I have with this sign is that it is after the junction.

That sign is really just a reassurance or route confirmation sign. They have them in the UK too. Because of the design of a motorway with traffic leaving the carriageway at speed on slip roads there can’t be any such thing as proper at-the-junction signage – you have to commit to a route change in advance of the junction unlike an ordinary road. There’s no slowing down and turning off.

Many countries just place an ‘Exit’ sign at the gore so the route confirmation you get in UK/Ireland is a bonus. Drivers in the Republic simply need to become more adept at reading advance signage. But then with fingerposts and little advance directions about they don’t get much practise!

It’s unfortunate that the Republic has decided to follow the UK’s approach to gantry signage. More poor examples:

Pic: I understand the logic here but this gantry doesn’t half look ridiculous. Instant clarity isn’t its strong point.

Pic: Aha, they’ve got the centralised directions here but it looks like the needless repetition on the Republic’s gantries was inspired by the UK too - no need for M1 and the South twice.

Pic: They’ve got rid of the repetition here so maybe the Republic can do likewise.

MT · 24-02-2006 03:13PM

Pic: This Canadian gantry signing an off slip ahead seems to have almost been designed in response to the flaws Victor highlighted with the Florida gantry. The panel widths properly correspond to the number of lanes and the lights have been attached at the top – so there’s no confusion with the arrows. It is a bit cramped though.

A rare turn up for the books – the UK gets it wrong and the Republic gets it right! The Scots have used the wrong form of the verb, conduisez as opposed to the correct conduire. And I thought the Scottish were supposed to have had an ancient alliance with the French.

The Republic’s drive-on-the-left sign is also much clearer with the addition of a symbol and altogether more eye catching. Pity the inevitable advertising fingers have found their way onto it.:rolleyes:

This thread from archiseek with pics of Smithfield Market shows that the Republic really should come up with smaller and less obtrusive clearway signs in urban areas. These mini versions are used in the UK. This also applies to parking/restrictions signs – too big vs. mini. Having said this, the south’s clearway sign has a much better contrast with white and red than the difficult to distinguish European version.

Pic: Even locals are concerned with the growth in signs at a junction in Mayo.

MT · 24-02-2006 09:43PM

Pic: Outside urban areas the full size clearway sign is used in the UK. But the contrast between blue and red is terrible – much prefer the Republic’s version. Pity the full size is often used in urban spaces.

MT · 24-02-2006 10:44PM

Here’s the post on traffic lights I never got around to posting a while back:

These shots: pic, pic and pic show the metal studs used to mark out pedestrian crossings in the UK. I believe the thinking behind this is that the studs are clear from pedestrian eye level but blend into the road from a driver’s position and so eliminate any confusion over where the stop line is. In addition they’re a useful guide for the build as the raised studs provide a tactile boundary. In contrast the markings on a crossing in the Republic are less clear due to the use of solid white lines. Oh, and that rusty, old and overgrown sign really should be updated. And it’s amazing that yet again someone managed to get the zebra stripes wrong – why bother to start with?

The other thing I can’t understand is why so many traffic lights down there are not fitted out with white rimmed backing boards. Outside of London this is standard practice across the UK and it helps make junctions more visible – example. I mean there’d be some logic if there was a policy of no backing boards at all in the Republic but like striped posts some lights have them while others don’t. What about consistency? And I just love the way a workman has taken great care to mount that sign in the foreground horizontally: obviously straightening posts isn’t in the job description.

This junction encompasses both failings. From the seated position of a car driver all three white lines would look very similar reducing the certainty of where to stop. Studs/broken lines for the crossing would alleviate this problem – as with the dashed white lines on this German crossing. The junction itself would be more visible had backing boards been used on the lights. Pedestrians lives would also be made easier were this a pelican crossing they could operate.

I’ve never seen thislook right marking done free hand in NI. Stencils are used here. Maybe this one had been touched up but I think they always use the stencils again to fully redo road markings up here? But I’m not sure about this.

cormthechippy · 25-02-2006 12:45AM

MT wrote:

What’s with the green patching for primary routes on these Mway signs?

Pic:
Pic: More green. I don’t like those the use of those French style arrows for confirming a split. For this scenario and advance slip road signage I’d much prefer arrows pointing top left. As with Dutch practice these provide a greater visual differentiation with the straight ahead arrows. This then allows the Dutch to use the French type for signalling the ending/merging of one lane into another.

Whats wrong with the arrows? Oh you don't like them? Theres far greater problems with signage in Ireland or lack thereof. Who cares if you don't like these arrows? They still do the job. I don't see most of your arguments.

MT · 25-02-2006 03:07PM

Hang on Corm, I think you’ll find that that post focused on much more than the French style arrows. Its main focus was on the green patching that doesn’t comply with the TSM. Lack of compliance with this manual is one of the main themes running through this thread. I then went on the make some general comments about the layout of the gantries – this being important as sign face layout greatly effects the speed and extent to which the info displayed can be understood.

Again, as you see from reading this thread many of these criticisms are subjective as matters of style and visual appearance can only ever be. Yes, I don’t like those arrows. I feel they don’t differentiate as clearly from the straight ahead versions as the exit arrows used in the Netherlands and most other countries do. I also think their use could have been reserved for a further purpose leaving more future options open. However, this is only one minor criticism in a post dedicated to much else besides, most of all the erroneous use of green patching.

In addition I’ve made a fairly extensive contribution here of many flaws in the Republic’s signage. It’s only inevitable that having covered some of the more obvious failings that I’d reach more minor and less crucial ones. That’s only to be expected when you try to cover a system comprehensively.

I don't see most of your arguments.

Fair enough. But why not use this thread to make some of your own observations? The more people that contribute the better, I say, and this thread will become even more comprehensive as a result.:)

joolsveer · 25-02-2006 03:56PM

murphaph wrote:

All comments welcome MT, criticise away!

Wrt the map type directional signs combining into them the warning signs for the gates, I did think of that but I honestly can't see the LA 'getting it' and this scheme would be fairly quick and easy to implement. Currently there is ONE sign immediately before the gates approaching from the north and this has been twisted because it's too close to the carriageway.

If this was the UK this junction would have accurate map type advance direction signage.

The pointing along sign at the top right of the pic has to remain because there is a train station between the advance direction signage at the bottom of the pic and the junction, so train users (perhaps using bicycles too!) would be in 'no man's land' and need that sign to direct them along the R121 towards Clonsilla. The roads aren't just for motorists MT!

The eason I included the R121 on the flag signs was that I think in reality this is all I'll get (at best) and so without the advance direction signs these flags still 'work' pretty well. Advance direction signs of any type are NOT mandatory on an R road according to the TSM, but are left to the judgement of the designer. I don't trust this judgement so don't expect them to do one iota more than they have to (if they manage that).

I did consider the arrows being angled to 45 degrees and 135 degrees as you mentioned but the problem I saw was that in conjunction with the crossroads sign (all 90 degree angles) there might be some confusion, whereas this way you can't make a mistake, if you get me.

What should really happen with this junction is that the unclassified road approaching from the north should be closed at the junction and this 4 way crossroads becoming a T-junction, thereby making the signage and road marking (and vehicle movements) much more straightforward. The road just goes around the back of that house anyway! Closing it here does not cause anyone any problems.

I don't work in graphic design no! I'm an engineer-I knocked those up with humble MS Paint! And it's still better than some of the sh!te the LA's 'design'.

In the last week or so I saw a couple of men working on the Clonsilla signage. I took this photo this afternoon. The signs for Clonsilla etc. are now pointing into a row of houses! Some improvement!

murphaph · 25-02-2006 05:08PM

wrt Clonsill, my presentations were forwarded to the Traffic and roads depts. of the council and I got feedback from a few politicians about it, blah blah stuff. I'll keep hassling them. It's a joke atm.

I've also had to contact them about further errors on the Ongar Distributor scheme (nemerous errors). The consultants have been informed. I'd expect action faster on that as the contractor is still liable to rectify any mistakes.

Victor · 27-02-2006 07:02PM

This guy has a photo blog on all sort of things (from music to riots)

http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5485946/
http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5486255/
http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5486075/

http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5835259/ <---- possibly at Farmleigh
http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5835743/

daymobrew · 28-02-2006 12:25PM

Victor wrote:

http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5835259/ <---- possibly at Farmleigh

Certainly looks like White's Gate Road.
The 'Cattle bridge' photo is from Strawberry Beds, near enough to Strawberry Hall pub and the M50 bridge. A few planks and one could toll it, make a mint!

I wonder where the pointless pedestrian crossing is?

murphaph · 28-02-2006 12:45PM

daymobrew wrote:

I wonder where the pointless pedestrian crossing is?

I think it's the Nangor Road Realignment near the Happy Brig (Polly Hops) on the Peamount Road between Newcastle and Lucan. It's in that area anyway, you can tell from the mountains to the south.

icdg · 28-02-2006 08:47PM

murphaph wrote:

wrt Clonsill, my presentations were forwarded to the Traffic and roads depts. of the council and I got feedback from a few politicians about it, blah blah stuff. I'll keep hassling them. It's a joke atm.

On the other side of that level crossings, the start of urban area signs for Cluain Saileach/Clonsilla are in N-road colours. Not the first time I've seen the wrong colours used though, there's a sign on the R148 in Leixlip also in N-road colours (although the actual "R148" on it is patched in white).