Cén fáth a raibh Gaeilge bhaintear as an ardán Dunlaoghaire? [Read edit in 1st post]

Jayeire

Originally Posted by mickydoomsux

But what about the few asshole Gaeligoir-types who insist on wasting money on having everything translated into bog-talk?

How will they feel all smug and self satisfied if we dump this archaic nonsense from our public buildings?

Just looking at your post makes me shudder with disgust. Speaking like that about Irish speaking people and such a valid part of Irish heritage, our heritage, is extremely ignorant. I severely doubt that those Irish speaking "types" are smug or self-satisfied. In fact I assume them to be proud of their proficiency at Irish, and rightly so.

It is people like your "type" that have aided our beautiful language to fall like it has, if you can't speak Irish pick up a book.. learn it.. do something.

God forbid you might actually become fluent in your country's own language.

L1011

Jayeire wrote: »

Originally Posted by mickydoomsux



Just looking at your post makes me shudder with disgust. Speaking like that about Irish speaking people and such a valid part of Irish heritage, our heritage, is extremely ignorant. I severely doubt that those Irish speaking "types" are smug or self-satisfied. In fact I assume them to be proud of their proficiency at Irish, and rightly so.

It is people like your "type" that have aided our beautiful language to fall like it has, if you can't speak Irish pick up a book.. learn it.. do something.

God forbid you might actually become fluent in your country's own language.

If you think people born in, most likely, the 1970s or later "aided" the language to fall, you need to look back at least 100 years.

Irish was functionally dead before the Free State govt. decided to resussitate it in the late 1920s. It wasn't used for business, education or anything anywhere within the entire country.

We're still living under this legal fiction that its our official first language when its nobodies first language, and most gaeltachts are a grant-milking sham (I'm from one!).

Oh, and being proud of speaking a language few else do is generally seen as being smug by everyone else... and I'm completely fluent in my countries own first (real) language, namely English.

Stonewolf

Since this thread has clearly now descended into a general debate about Irish ...

It's a dead language, beating it so vigorously that its sympathetic twitchings provide some vague semblance of life will not change that.

The Irish lobby have this obsession with forcing Irish down our throats and that, ultimately is what's really driving the nail in. I could have done another useful subject for the leaving but no, I had to do Irish and now a lot of tax payers money is being wasted on idiotic schemes to put a dead language on signs which provides no extra information and clutters them up thus detracting from their readability.

Judgement Day

Stonewolf wrote: »

Since this thread has clearly now descended into a general debate about Irish ...

It's a dead language, beating it so vigorously that its sympathetic twitchings provide some vague semblance of life will not change that.

The Irish lobby have this obsession with forcing Irish down our throats and that, ultimately is what's really driving the nail in. I could have done another useful subject for the leaving but no, I had to do Irish and now a lot of tax payers money is being wasted on idiotic schemes to put a dead language on signs which provides no extra information and clutters them up thus detracting from their readability.

I tried to keep out of this rather pointless debate but as it's Sunday morning and I'm bored....English is my first language and I have always regarded the millions spent on the Irish language a total waste of money - even in the good times. There is room for bilingual signs and, properly, done they can add to our cultural heritage but the nonsense painted on station platforms needs to be cut out. Arguably it makes the situation more dangerous as it causes confusion. The lengthy PA announcements onboard trains is irritating in the extreme. The old days when a Board's servant blew into the pa system and announced the next station or that tea/coffee/snacks were being served in the dining car were far less intrusive.
Station names and place names in Irish are nice, especially if factually correct, and part of our collective heritage. I object to nonsense like like the IE passenger charter being in both languages - it runs to 40 pages instead of 20 as a result and is therefore a very bad use of paper and not very environmentally friendly. This can be extended to include a vast quantity of State documents which are only produced to satisfy the tokenism of the State and a few Gaelgoirs like O'Cuiv. It would be more useful if the same people devoted more attention to making sure things like road signage etc that appear in Irish are correctly spelt....anyway I feel better now and that's my contribution.

mickydoomsux

Jayeire wrote: »

God forbid you might actually become fluent in your country's own language.

English is this countries language. The only reason Irish still exists is because of a nuisance minority who won't let it die like they should.

Sponge Bob

Ach cé a scroíbh an seafóid lochtach sin ar an árdán úd .....agus ná cur i mo leithse nach bhfuil aon chumas cumarsáide trí bhéarla agam ???

-Chris-

-Chris- wrote: »

Hopefully not, or I'll move it to the Gaeilge forum... :cool:

OK, some ground rules before this thread continues.

This thread shouldn't become a thread about whether Irish is a dead language, whether it's wasting taxpayers' money, whether it's correct to make it an official language of the EU etc. etc.
It's certainly not the place for "you should be embarrassed you can't speak your own mother tongue" or "sure, why would I want to speak bog-talk?"...

This is the Commuting and Transport forum and any discussion should be in the context of this - e.g. is it a safety issue to have instructions in Irish when a decent proportion of the users don't understand it?

Also, I firmly believe this discussion should be in English. I realise it's about the use of Irish in public transport, but the primary language of this website is English and there are many readers who will be excluded (me included) if you're not posting in English.

I hope that makes sense. Thanks

Transportuser09

Judgement Day wrote: »

I tried to keep out of this rather pointless debate but as it's Sunday morning and I'm bored....English is my first language and I have always regarded the millions spent on the Irish language a total waste of money - even in the good times. There is room for bilingual signs and, properly, done they can add to our cultural heritage but the nonsense painted on station platforms needs to be cut out. Arguably it makes the situation more dangerous as it causes confusion. The lengthy PA announcements onboard trains is irritating in the extreme. The old days when a Board's servant blew into the pa system and announced the next station or that tea/coffee/snacks were being served in the dining car were far less intrusive.

I disagree about the signs being dangerous - as long as the message is clearly displayed in English there shouldn't be a problem. It's not like people are going to mistake the Irish statement for English - it's quite clear that it's the same statement in a different language, even if they don't understand it. A lot of products come with multilingual instructions but people seem to cope just fine as long as there are English instructions included.

I see what you mean about the announcements though - some of them are too long in English to start with!

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Ok back on topic, Why have CIE wiped out the Irish translation of a platform warning on Dunlaoghaire Station?

Because no-one cares, and the majority of the travelling public do not understand it either

-Chris- wrote: »

Hopefully not, or I'll move it to the Gaeilge forum... :cool:

please do

dowlingm

It looks like Ireland lifted a lot of its thinking in terms of bilingualism from the Government of Canada. I know Canada's official languages commissioner testified before the Oireachtas committee studying the Official Languages Act. In Canada, most federally regulated airlines and the federal train company provide bilingual service to at least some degree. Even the automatic people mover at Toronto Pearson airport between the terminal and the carpark has auto announcements (video/audio) in English and French even though in Toronto French is dwarfed by south and east Asian languages.

Personally I don't see what the fuss is about. The cost is minor in the scheme of things and it makes a difference to people who care about it and it is the first language of this country as specified in the constitution.

How does Swiss Railways do it? They have several languages to handle there.

Sponge Bob

-Chris- wrote: »

OK, some ground rules before this thread continues.
Also, I firmly believe this discussion should be in English. I realise it's about
I hope that makes sense. Thanks

Ach níor scríobh mise ariamh ach faoin gcomtharaíocht ar an árdán féin !!!! Is soiléar gur saineolaí ar a leithéid de chúrsaí mise i gcomparáid le formhór iad siúd a dhfreagair.

Níl tada sna rialacha thart anseo faoi theanga.

Foghlaim cén chaoi Google Translate a úsáid in ainm dé .

-Chris-

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ach níor scríobh mise ariamh ach faoin gcomtharaíocht ar an árdán féin !!!! Is soiléar gur saineolaí ar a leithéid de chúrsaí mise i gcomparáid le formhór iad siúd a dhfreagair.

Níl tada sna rialacha thart anseo faoi theanga.

Foghlaim cén chaoi Google Translate a úsáid in ainm dé .

Infraction given to Sponge Bob for ignoring on-thread request/warning.

dlofnep

Nvm, it's not worth the hassle.

Sponge Bob

-Chris- wrote: »

Infraction given to Sponge Bob for ignoring on-thread request/warning.

Cé'n fath gur ghlac Calina, duine den bhainistíocht thart anseo buíochas liom ar an gcéad lá ariamh nuair a scríobhas seo ????

Please to right to clicky clicky clicky englishee speeking person >>>>>>>> NÍL AON RUD SA NA RIALACHA MAIDIR LE CÚRSAí TEANGA .

-Chris-

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Cé'n fath gur ghlac Calina, duine den bhainistíocht thart anseo buíochas liom ar an gcéad lá ariamh nuair a scríobhas seo ????

Please to right to clicky clicky clicky englishee speeking person >>>>>>>> NÍL AON RUD SA NA RIALACHA MAIDIR LE CÚRSAí TEANGA .

Sponge Bob banned for 3 days for ignoring on-thread request/warning.

That username is already in use.

This is not exclusive to Ireland. There are many places around Europe which also use minority languages on transport signage and announcements.

To name a few: Wales, Brittany, Scotland, Valencia, Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque Country.

Their respective native languages are a minority (less so with Catalan) but there are regulations in place, just like in Ireland, for bilingual signage and recorded announcements on public transport.

The Irish language is the first offical language of the State, and as a citizen of Ireland, I feel that it is my right to be able to communicate with all State bodies in Irish, and at least be able to read public signage or listen to announcements in the official language of my choice.

----

Regarding the OLA, there is a loophole in the regulations.


For example, the signage currently in place in most of Irish Rail´s stations go against the recommened guildlines.

a) The text in Irish shall appear first.
b) The text in Irish shall be as prominent, visible and legible as the
text in English.

As you can see on the sign below


(orange text and sodium lighting = barely readable Irish, also, the English comes first)


However, the regulations also state:

d. For signs placed on any site that comply with the Regulations (a, b) except the text in Irish is less prominent, visible or legible than the text in English ... [Must be rectified by 1 January 2026]

This means that signage could theoretically be erected with English is huge font and Irish in unreadable font, and it wouldn´t have to be changed until 2026.

So far, from what I´ve seen, most government bodies are not using this loophole, eg. the signage for RPA (Luas) and the DAA (Dub Airport) have followed the regulations (a, b), and Irish comes first and in the same font as the English.

DAA:




RPA:




However, Dublin City Council are using this loophole. A lot of their recent signage has English in larger font.

eg. signage erected by DCC over the past month that go against the OLA guidelines:

New way finding signage in the city:
*
Signage in DCC Leisure


Should be interesting to see if other government bodies discover this loophole and start using it.

New IE signage, such as on the WRC and Midleton lines, has the Irish appearing first. But the vast majority don't.

foggy_lad

I would have thought they were not allowed do this as the regulations are in place and the 2026 date applies to older signage that may be costly to replace sooner?

That username is already in use. wrote: »

This is not exclusive to Ireland. There are many places around Europe which also use minority languages on transport signage and announcements.

To name a few: Wales, Brittany, Scotland, Valencia, Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque Country.

Their respective native languages are a minority (less so with Catalan) but there are regulations in place, just like in Ireland, for bilingual signage and recorded announcements on public transport.

The Irish language is the first offical language of the State, and as a citizen of Ireland, I feel that it is my right to be able to communicate with all State bodies in Irish, and at least be able to read public signage or listen to announcements in the official language of my choice.

----

Regarding the OLA, there is a loophole in the regulations.


For example, the signage currently in place in most of Irish Rail´s stations go against the recommened guildlines.

a) The text in Irish shall appear first.
b) The text in Irish shall be as prominent, visible and legible as the
text in English.

As you can see on the sign below


(orange text and sodium lighting = barely readable Irish, also, the English comes first)


However, the regulations also state:

d. For signs placed on any site that comply with the Regulations (a, b) except the text in Irish is less prominent, visible or legible than the text in English ... [Must be rectified by 1 January 2026]

This means that signage could theoretically be erected with English is huge font and Irish in unreadable font, and it wouldn´t have to be changed until 2026.

So far, from what I´ve seen, most government bodies are not using this loophole, eg. the signage for RPA (Luas) and the DAA (Dub Airport) have followed the regulations (a, b), and Irish comes first and in the same font as the English.

DAA:




RPA:




However, Dublin City Council are using this loophole. A lot of their recent signage has English in larger font.

eg. signage erected by DCC over the past month that go against the OLA guidelines:

New way finding signage in the city:
*
Signage in DCC Leisure


Should be interesting to see if other government bodies discover this loophole and start using it.

Victor

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What gets me is that for the last century and a half there was nothing but granite flagstones at the edge of the platform. There was no written warnings telling people not to step beond lines, "not to fall off the edge" or "get too close" :rolleyes:

In those days it was worse, you were likely to get a clobber from an opening door on a Parkroyal or Craven. .

Have people become so stupid in the last decade that they now have to be told not to step too close to the edge of the platform?

Its not just about safety, a clear platform edge means the train / tram can approach the platform faster. I imagine the drivers don't relish clipping someone at the edge of the platform.

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

Its not just about safety, a clear platform edge means the train / tram can approach the platform faster. I imagine the drivers don't relish clipping someone at the edge of the platform.

see, thats the angle they should push. it makes it faster, everybody loves faster, safer be damned...

dowlingm

they should use the Youtube of the spotter in the UK who was so busy photographing a train on the far track he nearly got taken out by a train passing him on the near one.

Riskymove

That username is already in use. wrote: »

----
However, Dublin City Council are using this loophole. A lot of their recent signage has English in larger font.

actually I think the font is the same size but simply in bold for the english

That username is already in use.

Riskymove wrote: »

actually I think the font is the same size but simply in bold for the english

foggy_lad wrote: »

I would have thought they were not allowed do this as the regulations are in place and the 2026 date applies to older signage that may be costly to replace sooner?

OLA:
b) The text in Irish shall be as prominent, visible and legible as the text in English.
c) The letters in the text in Irish shall not be smaller in size than the letters in the text in English.



So..
b. The English is in bold, which makes the Irish less prominent.
c. The letters in English are larger than the letters in Irish.

..which means it does not comply with the regulations, but, the OLA regulations state:

"For signs placed on any site that comply with the Regulations except the text in Irish is less prominent, visible or legible than the text in English or the letters in the text in Irish are smaller in size than the letters in the text in English. [must be rectified by 1 January 2026]"

Basically, for all new signs, as long as the Irish comes first, it doesn´t matter what size it is. It could be completely illegible compared to English and wouldn´t have to be corrected until 2026. This, as I see it, is a loophole.

You can download the OLA Guidebook here.


Back to Run to da Hills OP



The above "sign" was in breach of the regulations because:

OLA - Signs already erected prior to 1 March 2009



..which would seem to explain it´s recent removal. The Irish version will have to repainted onto the platform by 2012.

Breezer

That username is already in use. wrote: »

If signs with incorrect Irish spellings on them are all going to have to be replaced by 2012, the various authorities are going to have their work cut out.

I'd love to know why the wording on the platforms was changed when it had previously been correct.

That username is already in use.

Breezer wrote: »

If signs with incorrect Irish spellings on them are all going to have to be replaced by 2012, the various authorities are going to have their work cut out.

Just a reminder:

The OLA Regulations do NOT apply to traffic signs. Traffic signs are covered under the Traffic Signs Manual.

---

I have received clarification from An Coimisinéir Teanga regarding the suspected loophole.

An Coimisin&#233 wrote: »

The statement at (D) in the Guidebook to the Official Languages Act published by this Office refers only to signage which was erected prior to the 1 March 2009. Any sign which is erected after that date and is found not to be in compliance with the legislation must be corrected immediately (within a reasonable time-frame, allowing for ordering, making and erecting the sign).

In relation to the DCC signage

An Coimisin&#233 wrote: »

As regards the signage referred to in the post, it would appear, at first glance, that these are not compliant, as the English language version is more prominent.

As far as I know, those new signs around the city were erected by jcDecaux as part of the Dublin Bikes/Advertising scheme. The OLA regulations clearly state that

A public body has a duty to ensure that signs placed by it or on its behalf within or outside the State are in Irish or bilingual.

So, the new DCC signage is in breach of the regulations and will have to be replaced ASAP.

And in relation to signage erected by Iarnród Éireann

An Coimisin&#233 wrote: »

..there is further legislation on signage in the case of Iarnród Éireann in the Transport Act 1950, which states that all permanent signage must be bilingual. This would take precedence over the requirement in the Official Language Act which gives a lead in time to correct signs erected prior to 1 March 2009 – there is no such lead in time in the case of the Transport Act, and non-compliant signage should be corrected as soon as it is identified.

-Chris-

I accept there are regulations etc. and that these signs should have been produced in line with these regulations.

I hate the idea, however, that JCDecaux will have to spend €x,000 replacing the signs and may use this as a reason to invest less on the bikes themselves. €x,000 could be used to buy a good few bikes or otherwise be put to good use.

Cookie_Monster

Will they* not just use the excuse that there is no money to replace these signs to get around the legislation. It is a monumental and stupid waste of money to replace massive numbers of perfectly good signs to something that will require more reading and hence cause more confusion than necessary, especially for tourists


*government, city & county councils, JCD etc

devnull

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Will they* not just use the excuse that there is no money to replace these signs to get around the legislation. It is a monumental and stupid waste of money to replace massive numbers of perfectly good signs to something that will require more reading and hence cause more confusion than necessary, especially for tourists

I agree, it would be a complete waste of money, at the end of the day I don't see any problem with the sins, it's not as if they are inaccurate, there are far more important things to spend money on.

If it's just a spelling mistake or incorrect word, it's just a simple task of patching the sign, just look at all the road signs that were patched last year when they decided that HQDC's were really motorways after all!

That username is already in use.

I have seen numerous examples of signage that was erected by DCC after March 2009 that is clearly in breach of the regulations, yet nothing has been done about it.

17 months later, and the people in charge of managing the implementation and design of these signs are either unaware of the regulations or are deliberately contravening them.

What´s the point of having these OLA signage regulations if they are not enforced? DCC should be setting an example and strictly following the regulations, but they are not.

The wayfinding signage should be replaced immediately, along with the other illegal signage erected by DCC around the city. Otherwise, the regulations are redundant, and government bodies will continue to ignore them.

If that becomes the case, and the regulations are not enforced; remove them from the OLA altogether, or continue to contravene the regulations and then waste money replacing signs later.

Those wayfinding signs were only erected last week, and the regulations have been in place for almost two years now. DCC should know better.


edit: Ah, now I can thank posts!

Stonewolf

That username is already in use. wrote: »

I have seen numerous examples of signage that was erected by DCC after March 2009 that is clearly in breach of the regulations, yet nothing has been done about it.

17 months later, and the people in charge of managing the implementation and design of these signs are either unaware of the regulations or are deliberately contravening them.

What´s the point of having these OLA signage regulations if they are not enforced? DCC should be setting an example and strictly following the regulations, but they are not.

The wayfinding signage should be replaced immediately, along with the other illegal signage erected by DCC around the city. Otherwise, the regulations are redundant, and government bodies will continue to ignore them.

If that becomes the case, and the regulations are not enforced; remove them from the OLA altogether, or continue to contravene the regulations and then waste money replacing signs later.

Those wayfinding signs were only erected last week, and the regulations have been in place for almost two years now. DCC should know better.


edit: Ah, now I can thank posts!

We need all the money to pay for Anglo instead, what does it matter if the Irish is a bit smaller, people can read the English on it and that's what matters.

That username is already in use.

Stonewolf wrote: »

What does it matter if the Irish is a bit smaller, people can read the English on it and that's what matters.

I suggest that you contact your local TD and An Coimisinéir Teanga and request that the guidelines "B" and "C" be removed from the Official Languages Act.

Until then, if government bodies continue to ignore the regulations, the price for the replacement of the illegal signage will be out of your own pocket.

Breezer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Will they* not just use the excuse that there is no money to replace these signs to get around the legislation. It is a monumental and stupid waste of money to replace massive numbers of perfectly good signs to something that will require more reading and hence cause more confusion than necessary, especially for tourists


*government, city & county councils, JCD etc

The debate about whether or not money should be spent on Irish language signage is a valid one. However, I don't believe the idea that having bilingual signage is confusing for tourists to be so. I've been to Belgium and coped just fine with French/Flemish signs, and similarly French/German in Switzerland. I've managed similarly well in airports, which often have trilingual signage. I don't believe I'm any more gifted in languages I don't speak than the average tourist who doesn't speak Irish, so I really can't see the problem.

Victor

Stonewolf wrote: »

We need all the money to pay for Anglo instead, what does it matter if the Irish is a bit smaller, people can read the English on it and that's what matters.

Do you mean like "Anglo Irish Bank"? :pac:

Cookie_Monster

Breezer wrote: »

The debate about whether or not money should be spent on Irish language signage is a valid one. However, I don't believe the idea that having bilingual signage is confusing for tourists to be so. I've been to Belgium and coped just fine with French/Flemish signs, and similarly French/German in Switzerland. I've managed similarly well in airports, which often have trilingual signage. I don't believe I'm any more gifted in languages I don't speak than the average tourist who doesn't speak Irish, so I really can't see the problem.

if you are doing 120 past a road sign, the last thing you want is to be trying to figure the Irish from the English, if you don't speak either too well.

The main point is the waste of money in changing. I'd imagine DCC are perfectly aware that the signs aren't correct but simply don't care as they realise nobody really cares about the Irish on signs, and display English more prominently. For every 1 person who complains about Irish not on signs, I'm sure you have 5-10 giving out about Irish being ON signs.

markpb

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The main point is the waste of money in changing. I'd imagine DCC are perfectly aware that the signs aren't correct but simply don't care as they realise nobody really cares about the Irish on signs, and display English more prominently

+1

They probably should have done it properly for new signs but making them replace all the old signs is a giant waste of money with absolutely no benefit at all. The Irish is there, people can read it, who cares?

Victor wrote: »

Do you mean like "Anglo Irish Bank"? :pac:

mickydoomsux

markpb wrote: »

+1

They probably should have done it properly for new signs but making them replace all the old signs is a giant waste of money with absolutely no benefit at all. The Irish is there, people can read it, who cares?

The usual suspects, the same people who are keeping Irish on the cirriculum as a mandatory subject even though it's utterly useless and the majority of students don't enjoy studying it.

Transportuser09

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The usual suspects, the same people who are keeping Irish on the cirriculum as a mandatory subject even though it's utterly useless and the majority of students don't enjoy studying it.

What has that got to with commuting and transport?

Cookie_Monster

Transportuser09 wrote: »

What has that got to with commuting and transport?

what has any of this thread?

Infrastructure or Irish forum

Empire o de Sun

Well for road signs Dublin City Council is ok.

They just don't bother with them

mackerski

So far nobody seems to have mentioned Dublin Bus online and bus stop timetables. The route descriptions on these timetables have no English at all, which is inexcusable in a city where most people can't speak Irish.

Victor

mackerski wrote: »

So far nobody seems to have mentioned Dublin Bus online and bus stop timetables. The route descriptions on these timetables have no English at all, which is inexcusable in a city where most people can't speak Irish.

They do have English. Then they have the full list of fare stages in English.

Breezer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

if you are doing 120 past a road sign, the last thing you want is to be trying to figure the Irish from the English, if you don't speak either too well.

Hold on, there are likely to be several places listed on a sign. If you know to watch out for "Galway" I don't see how also having "Gaillimh" on the sign is any more confusing than also having "Castlebar" and "Sligo" on it. You're still going to look for "Galway" and it doesn't matter whether or not you speak the language well enough to pronounce it or use it in a grammatically correct sentence. If you can't manage that at 120km/h (the same limit as exists in Belgium and Switzerland) then you shouldn't be driving on a motorway.

Now, a different colour for the Irish would help, provided it was used consistently and was equally legible. There was a thread either here or in Motors a few months ago with mock-ups of signs using yellow for Irish and white for English, in the same 'Transport' font used in the UK. No all-caps, no italics, just consistent use of one colour per language. Most people agreed it would work extremely well, even at 120km/h.

IE has nearly gotten this right, as it happens. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the orange used for Irish is illegible at night, and the languages are on the wrong side of each other. The only time I've ever seen a tourist confused about Irish on signs was actually an English woman on the DART. Her problem? She kept reading the Irish on the signs, and not noticing the English, because she had spent time in Wales, and had trained herself to simply ignore the Welsh, which is always placed above the English (as Irish usually is here).

The languages used shouldn't cause any problem. People can learn a system. Like everything else on Irish roads, rail or whatever, it's the inconsistent application of that system that causes problems.

devnull

Victor wrote: »

They do have English. Then they have the full list of fare stages in English.

In a lot of cases on a lot of timetables the stop info at the top circle is different from that at the bottom circle, it is not a translation.

In addition the older style timetables which 90% of the stops in the city have apart from the city centre, include only Irish.

foggy_lad

I just noticed today that the main platform in Carlow station does not have bilingual signs while the other waterford bound platform has both Irish and English along the yellow line.

That username is already in use.

Breezer wrote: »

There was a thread either here or in Motors a few months ago with mock-ups of signs using yellow for Irish and white for English, in the same 'Transport' font used in the UK. No all-caps, no italics, just consistent use of one colour per language. Most people agreed it would work extremely well, even at 120km/h.

Garrett Reil did some research on traffic signage. Very interesting read. link.



..and "signs showing the effects of ‘halation’ ":

Breezer wrote: »

IE has nearly gotten this right, as it happens. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the orange used for Irish is illegible at night, and the languages are on the wrong side of each other.

IÉ have been completely lost over the past 3 years in relation to signage and the regulations.

At first, they rolled out these signs (2006/7 ?):



a. Irish should come first
b. Irish is barely legible under sodium lighting.


(really, they could not have picked a worse colour)

And for some strange reason, at Pearse Station, they erected these signs:



..and then ripped them all down shortly after and replaced them with these:



..which are still in breach of the regulations because:

a. wrong spelling in Irish (missing fada)
b. Irish is not as prominent as English (italics).


Then, it seems that IÉ swapped the language order around in 2009 to comply with the regulations. Examples:





Which are still in breach of the regulations because of the sodium lighting issue.

Regarding the sodium lighting issue, I have not had any answer from IÉ, however, it would appear that they are aware of it and are no longer using orange text on new signage. Also, from ACT:

An Coimisin&#233 wrote: »

The question you have raised of the effect of artificial lighting on the relative visibility of the Irish text in orange in comparison with the darker coloured text in English on signs erected by Iarnród Éireann, does appear to be worthy of consideration, given the evidence of the photograph you drew our attention to.

Finally, it seems that IÉ have eventually started to follow the regulations correctly for new signage errected in 2010. The new Clongriffin DART station for example:





But not quite. The station entrance signage does not follow the regulations:



AGAIN:
a. wrong spelling in Irish (should be Stáisiún Chluain Ghrífín)
b. Irish is not as prominent as English (italics).

Whatever about the italics, the spelling errors are inexcusable. This sign should be replaced immediately.

Has anyone seen any other new signage erected by IÉ this year that does follow the regulations?

Stonewolf

Again, all of those signs are perfectly legible, they do not need to have money wasted replacing them.

That username is already in use.

Stonewolf wrote: »

they do not need to have money wasted replacing them.

You have misunderstood.

I am not suggesting that they all be replaced. The sodium lighting issue and the incorrect order of both languages is unfortunate, but nobody could expect IÉ to replace hundreds of signs because of that. It would indeed be a complete waste of money and resources.

I am, however, raising this issue for the attention of IÉ for future signage, and for people on this forum that are interested in public signage and the regulations applied to them.

Stonewolf wrote: »

Again, all of those signs are perfectly legible

The signs with incorrect Irish spellings are not "perfectly legible". These signs must be replaced as per the regulations, and I will see to it.

markpb

That username is already in use. wrote: »

The signs with incorrect Irish spellings are not "perfectly legible". These signs must be replaced as per the regulations, and I will see to it.

A missing fada is not going to stop someone knowing where they are. I might not agree with these regulations but even if I did, you're being excessively pedantic.

mackerski

That username is already in use. wrote: »

The signs with incorrect Irish spellings are not "perfectly legible". These signs must be replaced as per the regulations, and I will see to it.

Sure, good idea. We don't mind paying, do we lads? Eh, lads????