Road signs and Irish Language
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
@EthanL13 Thanks for the link!
Regarding the whitespace, my mistake - I was still thinking of one of the earlier signboard designs on the thread.
"Route numbers on the other hand - I think we'll have to agree to disagree. To me it's the best way of highlighting them, it grabs the attention of the reader and it distinguishes them from the destinations."
That’s kind of the problem. It grabs the attention, but the colouring scheme you’ve used means that regional routes grab more attention than national primary routes, because a white block with black text drawn on dark blue is more distinctive than a green block with yellow text. That visual appearance is at odds with the true hierarchy, where N roads are more important than R-roads.
"You'd just have to hope that people will know that N roads are the main roads and R roads are not."
... and that’s precisely the problem that you avoid when you take colour away. Our roads are numbered with the most important routes given a low number. That pattern of low-numbers being important is well understood from all areas of life, so seeing "N12" or "R201" as options, without any colour-coding, or knowledge of the Irish road network you will guess correctly that N12 is a more significant route nationally than R201, because 12 is a lower number than 201.
The ship diagram is better, but the waves are extraneous detail: if it looks like a boat, it does not require “water” underneath - just like there’s no need to put a cloud beside the plane diagram. Fine detail like this just does not work on a road-sign, which has to be read quickly often in bad weather. Simple, recognisable, shapes work best, and sometimes you have to give up real-world accuracy for intelligibility (this is why the speed-camera looks like a bellows, why we have steam-trains on signs and why services show a fork-and-spoon not fork-and-knife).
You’ve also removed a useful piece of information from that ship diagram: the truck and car indicates that the destination is a Roll-on-Roll-off ferry service that takes both freight lorries and cars. Without any vehicles shown, it’s a direction to a bulk port, as here:
(Note how L34141 jumps out on this sign - it should be on a white patch with the name of that neighbourhood on it. Although in this specific case, where the road is literally for local access to about 10 houses, I think this is is where the old “Local Access” destination should be used)
"But in my opinion, it's pointless in redesigning our signs if they're going to remain almost identical as they are currently. There are clear attempts on the current signage to move away from the UK design, such as more European gantries, the (awful) chevrons on roundabout diagrams and the use of grey backboards on flag signs."
I understand that the use of the chevrons was a deficiency of the equipment originally used to make these signs, but as it is now how the signs look, it has to stay. We have avoided the big diagrammatic signs used in the UK, largely because they’re expensive, but also because they are a kind of information overload, especially on relatively simple junctions that really only offer a left or right turn. For most junctions, our simpler "left for these places, right for these places" advance signage does the same job without the space or fuss. Ironically, the one place where diagrammatic signs do help, in cities, is the one place where they look ugly and oversized.
Grey backgrounds on flag signs makes the signs cheaper and more durable (the point is very weak on a fully cut pointer flag, so they usually require a turned lip for strength, which is more expensive to manufacture) and also more legible, as you can use the backing plate to obscure other signage that might be the same field of view. It also makes the stacking of flag signs simpler and less irregular. I see that as an improvement over British practice, not a deficiency. (the design of the flags themselves can be poor sometimes, but that’s a different issue, and would happen with or without the backgrounds).
"If all the signs are to be replaced you may as well come up with a unique design, like I've done (though it's clearly not perfect), or at the very least replace the arrows with something better and use only one font for all signs."
But a clean-sheet design is not practical: we have thousands of kilometres of roads with the current signage installed. The general design of any new signage must be consistent with what else is in use, otherwise you’re just confusing people.
These aren’t designs, they’re the products of a design system, and that system has rules that people pick up without ever seeing them written down (e.g., distances are always to the right of place-names; an arrow tells you what turn is coming up, a fingerpost flag tells you where the turn is)
A design like yours that re-writes the basic principles of the system could never be applied without wholesale replacement of all signage, which would create needless confusion. When we moved to this system, we had no widely-applied systematic design for signage, so there was no loss; now that we do, adopting any completely new system would be a disaster.
2 -
It grabs the attention, but the colouring scheme you’ve used means that regional routes grab more attention than national primary routes, because a white block with black text drawn on dark blue is more distinctive than a green block with yellow text. That visual appearance is at odds with the true hierarchy, where N roads are more important than R-roads.
This solves this route number issue, now all route numbers stand out. But it's too colourful now.
Our roads are numbered with the most important routes given a low number. That pattern of low-numbers being important is well understood from all areas of life, so seeing "N12" or "R201" as options, without any colour-coding, or knowledge of the Irish road network you will guess correctly that N12 is a more significant route nationally than R201, because 12 is a lower number than 201.
The vast majority of European countries follow this system too. So there shouldn't really be confusion in the first place.
The ship diagram is better, but the waves are extraneous detail
The ferry diagram is German, it isn't something I've made myself.
You’ve also removed a useful piece of information from that ship diagram: the truck and car indicates that the destination is a Roll-on-Roll-off ferry service that takes both freight lorries and cars. Without any vehicles shown, it’s a direction to a bulk port
Perhaps an anchor symbol (for example) would suffice to differentiate between the two ports?
We have avoided the big diagrammatic signs used in the UK, largely because they’re expensive, but also because they are a kind of information overload, especially on relatively simple junctions that really only offer a left or right turn. For most junctions, our simpler "left for these places, right for these places" advance signage does the same job without the space or fuss.
The change to chevrons on roundabout diagrams was unnecessary though. If we kept the "British" style of ADS forks, why didn't we do the same for roundabouts too? But yes, definitely prefer our ADS signs over the British diagram signs. Maybe to develop on this, all diagram signs (with the obvious exception of roundabout signs) should be replaced in the same way? Sweden for example does not use forks on their ADS signs. But just a random idea, forks probably explain the situation better.
Grey backgrounds on flag signs makes the signs cheaper and more durable (the point is very weak on a fully cut pointer flag, so they usually require a turned lip for strength, which is more expensive to manufacture) and also more legible, as you can use the backing plate to obscure other signage that might be the same field of view. It also makes the stacking of flag signs simpler and less irregular. I see that as an improvement over British practice, not a deficiency. (the design of the flags themselves can be poor sometimes, but that’s a different issue, and would happen with or without the backgrounds).
It's definitely better in most cases, but I think it can be a bit over-excessive at times.
But a clean-sheet design is not practical: we have thousands of kilometres of roads with the current signage installed. The general design of any new signage must be consistent with what else is in use, otherwise you’re just confusing people.
I don't know, it still seems kind of pointless to me if the design is going to remain exactly the same with the exception of the text. Otherwise, you could keep the signs as they are and just follow the current practice of "replacing" text (generally for when there's spelling mistakes), just you're replacing every single instance of text.
Post edited by EthanL13 on0 -
-
The change to chevrons on roundabout diagrams was unnecessary though. If we kept the "British" style of ADS forks, why didn't we do the same for roundabouts too? But yes, definitely prefer our ADS signs over the British diagram signs. Maybe to develop on this, all diagram signs (with the obvious exception of roundabout signs) should be replaced in the same way?
As I said, I heard that the chevrons change was down to a cost reasons initially, and then the design stuck.
We only kept the fork signs on or around divided roads, and I think they work very well there. Plus, the design doesn’t use much extra space. It’s certainly much better than other alternatives. Of the other junction types, only roundabouts really need a diagram, and for some, presenting the actual layout makes it harder to figure out, for example this beauty, Hangar Lane on London’s North Circular Road:
This junction functions like a large roundabout, that is really all you need to know about it to navigate it: you turn left to enter, turn left to exit, and check your lanes while on it. Showing it on the advance sign like this makes it needlessly complicated for drivers.
Sweden for example does not use forks on their ADS signs. But just a random idea, forks probably explain the situation better.
Definitely: That sign doesn’t really work for me at all. I think it really needs a second arrow, pointing upward, to the left of the road-numbers on the upper panel. Then it becomes something very much like our general-purpose advance direction signage.
seems kind of pointless to me if the design is going to remain exactly the same with the exception of the text.
For me, the text is one area that isn’t good on our current signage. Everything else is either better than the alternatives, or just a matter of taste. I do consider Kinnear and Calvert’s designs for the UK to be the benchmark in the field (Calvert’s pictograms in particular are by far the clearest set in use anywhere, although we always seem to pick and choose between her designs and the old Vienna set over here) - a reminder that there was a time when our next-door neighbour actually did things right. But the designs were done after most countries had already settled into their own signage, and it’s hard to replace good-enough with a-bit-better, even without considering national pride.
We still haven’t got gantries right, and some of the earlier designs have ug-leeee text placement. They do, however, function as required. And even speaking as a designer, I would prefer functional over pretty every single time.
@Piollaire Thank you for that link! I thought the change had been made in the 1970s. Just shows how little signage there was in the 1980s. There are a couple still in Cork, if you know where to look. These are near Turner’s Cross: I think they date to the time of the South City Link Road.
(Just noticed the small t in "Cionn tSaile"!)
Post edited by KrisW1001 on3 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I think you’re trying to cram too much information onto one sign, and there are still far too many lines on the surface. Why separate the top from the bottom? That design might suggests that maybe J7 is coming up, but the list below it is on the mainline. The placement of the R406 boxout makes it ambiguous about whether only R406 leads to Naas, or to all of the destinations (which is the truth).
Remember for something like this, you only have around a half a second of the driver’s attention. Don’t make them work too hard.
There’s also too many destinations on it for an ADS for a motorway junction. The real sign (at 1km) omits Straffan, as you can see here:
Here’s how I’d improve that layout, but without throwing everything away.
In principle, this sign serves the same purpose as a fork sign, so I’ve tried to keep the item placement as close as possible to that design, which is very familiar to drivers.
- arrow to bottom left adopts the the same pattern as seen on the roadside fork sign
- Angle of the arrow changed to match that on forks.
- the route number becomes part of the destinations list, but drawn larger (again, echoing the pattern seen in fork signs).
- Junction number moves to the top, where it is on fork signs (albeit at top-left, not top-right)
I think it’s better than what’s there (not hard), without needing to forget everything you’ve learned by driving here for years. It can also coexist with older versions of the same sign.
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
