Road signs and Irish Language

Therein lies a problem. The Official Languages Act 2003 has quite far reaching consequences. It was/is the sort of legislation that should have been put to a public referendum and could still be. The public were not consulted as regards it's implications, (hence the big row down in Dingle but there are many others) and it was just foisted on us.

I agree that Irish language versions of places can add much cultural value. I have no problem with obvious names like Slieveard being shown as Sliabh Aird or whatever on a road sign. But and it's a very big BUT, there are many names that have been anglicised down the years and their original form is either indeterminable or ambiguous. In these cases, there can never be a definitive Irish version and putting what amounts to a guess on a road sign does a great disservice. Yes, there is a website logainm that government officials go by in these matters but they just make up a guess as they go along, if required to give a validated version.

As I was the one who kicked this off, I’d like to make it clear that I wasn’t saying there was a problem that needed to be fixed. I made an observation that we have many instances of road-signs where the name is basically written twice: once according to the spelling rules of the Irish language, and then a second-time according to an ad-hoc system used by the Ordnance Survey in the 1850s.

The summary of my idea (so far as it went) was “I wonder could we ever try to fix the stupid misspellings that the Ordance Survey inflicted on our placenames?”. Where the two written forms are very similar, it would be interesting to see if the original name alone could be used. The law on road-signs does allow this, incidentally (the text quoted previously says “Where the spelling of a place name is similar in both languages”, not “is the same”).

That’s all. It was only placenames (the idea of making traffic-control signage monoligually Irish in a country where we mostly speak English is a pure strawman). And it was only the places whose “English” name is obviously just a bad transliteration of the original name (so relax: Dublin gets to be both Dublin and Baile Átha Cliath.. although historically these were two different places that were close to each other, just as Waterford and Port Láirge were).

I have no desire to engage in language politics. My own belief is that names might come “from” a language, but are not “in” any language, specifically, and should never be “translated”. The reason we have so many dual-named places here in Ireland isn’t because those places have two names, but rather most of them have two spellings of the same name, or a translation of the original name into a different language (this goes both ways.. “Baile Phib”, anyone?)

On a similar vein, the practice of changing children’s names into the traditional Irish equivalent of their own given name is something that really annoyed me, and I wonder if it’s another symptom of this weirdness where things need special “Irish” names. I hope the stupidity of now trying to find an “Irish version” of names like Ngozi, Fadeya or Czeslaw might finally stop it.

Was just thinking today why do we have that wierd italic font with no capitals. The above where there's just 2 different colours is much neater and easier to read.

The other problem with signs like those is that for decades we've been systematically training drivers to ignore anything on a sign in italic mixed case 😳

Yep, top right is similar to Scotland's bilingual signage, and the top left is similar to Wales'. Whereas the bottom left is similar to how our signage used to look, before it was decided to use a heavier font and put Irish into oblique type.

The Port Laoise situation is interesting, in that I'm equally confused as why it is far bigger than the other text. Even older road signs for Dún Laoghaire never used larger text.

Nowadays, it is technically meant to be the same size as other text but is supposed to take up the space as two place names would:

... which is followed in some areas (e.g. the N59 signposting Maigh Cuilinn https://goo.gl/maps/r8k2uDUnjLMB9dia7), but in newer signage on the M7 for Port Laoise, it isn't https://goo.gl/maps/njkfUZt7maaweRDZ9

Brackets on our signs can indeed be a mess, especially when the majority of signposted destinations on a route confirmatory sign are in brackets. The UK for example used to follow this practice (e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/U6wMZpFJWwL8n62R9) - nowadays they no longer use brackets in this way, but instead display the particular route's number in brackets (e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/Tn1c6hfaok5pu2mb7). This is similar to the practice followed in Germany and the Netherlands.

Portugal on the other hand does use brackets for destinations, but keep the destinations aligned (making the sign wider to accommodate for the brackets https://goo.gl/maps/wXzZDAM2gKUHai4p6).

Those Port Laoise signs are incorrect. The reason is simply that people sometimes make mistakes.

Typographically speaking, the spacing rules aren’t very pretty, but signage isn’t about prettiness. It’s about conveying a message quickly, and sometimes, “ugly” is the best way to do that.

@EthanL13 That Autobahn sign is not what you think it is. It’s an advance direction sign for an autobahn interchange. It’s telling you that at the interchange which is just ahead, staying on the the A43 will bring you toward Wuppertal and Düsseldorf, while leaving the A43 and joining the A44 will get you to Dortmund or Witten. Here’s where it is, you can follow forward to the junction and see: A43 - Google Maps. As it happens, the A43 itself does not reach either Wuppertal or Düsseldorf - you need to change onto the A46 - so the upper part of this sign would be a situation where we’d use brackets.

The italic type does not always indicate an Irish name. As the rule states, where the name is identical in both the Irish and English spellings, it is displayed in that italic script. The reason why it’s identical does not come into the decision, so for instance, there are signs on the Cork South Ring Road with “Wilton” on them, in italics (e.g.: R641 - Google Maps ).

I think the idea of putting desitinations not reachable on the main route is fine - I just think our signage does it poorly. The sign should indicate all mainline destinations first and then put the other destination below with an indication of what road your looking for. I came up with this idea a long while back. It's not using standard fonts as I couldn't find the Transport font at the time but it's definitely clearer than the current sign.

Current

My thoughts

@Jayuu - that sign is no longer there, this is the new one:

I agree the brackets are not good, but I don't like the idea of breaking the order of destinations. All other signs list destinations from furthest to nearest, so I'd suggest something like this instead:

"Furthest to nearest" is why. All of these route-confirmation signs list the furthest-away place first. On motorways, it’s slightly different: furthest exit to nearest, but the distances given are still always to the final destination.

The brackets were added as way of resolving that confusion between the ordering and the distance figures: for example, while Waterford might be 216 km away from where you are right now, you will need to make a decision to go there before you get to Portlaoise.

Nearest = bottom, furthest = top. On the M7 heading southbound (to Limerick), you first arrive at J11 (M9), then J16-18 (Port Laoise), followed by J19 (M8) and finally J28-J30 (Limerick) where the M7 terminates.

Now, for roundabout signs:

Same changes as above (Transport Heavy is used for dark text on light backgrounds here, as was the intended use of the typeface), plus major changes to the roundabout diagram. I have used the No Entry sign instead of the red bar (which would seem to imply a dead end/no through road), as it is done in the UK. However, I did keep the diagram all the same width (in the UK, the width of the roundabout arms depends on the classification on the route).

OK I get the ordering now, finally 😊

Distance needs to be the actual distance to destination - if you're wondering whether you need to refuel (or recharge) there's not much point telling you how far it is until the road number you're on changes, while keeping you wondering whether you'll get to destination or not without stopping.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s really of any useto know that there’s a motorway junction in 67 km, because motorway-to-motorway junctions aren’t special in any way: you just leave the motorway you’re on, and follow the signage for your destination to join the new road, no different to any other junction, really.

We have a "USE [xxx] FOR" advance signs in some places before major interchanges, but I’m not keen on their design. I think gantries work much better for this purpose, because at major interchanges you are going to have to form lanes anyway.

Doing that elevates the route-number to be the primary “hook” for navigation: places are emphasised because they’re on the current route, rather than because they’re major destinations. That is a huge - and breaking - change to the mental model behind our signage system, so it’s not something to be done lightly.

Out of interest, though, how would you apply your rule to this sign (Tullamore is on N52):

Okay.. I wanted to see whether you were proposing this for motorway-only destinations or all indirect ones. At least you’re consistent.

But doing what you suggest hides a very important piece of information: the sequence of exits. On the original M7 pic, read from the bottom and you will learn that it’s WATERFORD, then Port Laoise, then CORK. If you split those divergent routes into their own pane, you now have no idea where, for example, the exit for CORK is except that it’s after the exit for WATERFORD.

Basically splitting these destinations out, you are messing with the rule that underpins the signage. You mightn‘t be aware of this rule, but it’s there, and it’s applied consistently enough that drivers gain additional information from the placement of destinations on signs: on every one of these route-confirmation signboards, the endpoint of this road is at the top, then a list of major destinations in the reverse order that you will reach their junctions: furthest first, nearest last. National routes use the exact same rule.

There is no need for a “reach by another route” panel at all, because the Irish and UK signage systems use desitinations as the primary routing “hook”- every direction sign either tells you that you’re on the right road for a place, or which way to turn to reach that place. That is different to the German Autobahn system which emphasises the route numbers: there, every direction sign tells you that you’re on the right route for a place, or what road number you will need to take to reach a destination, and it’s a form of “next hop” routing, as the signed road numbers often do not terminate at those destinations.

This sounds like a trivial difference, but it’s fundamental to how each type of direction signage system operates. If you try to mix and match these concepts, you will create a confusing mess, as drivers will have to deal with another decision (“is this the destination I need to head for, or do I need to watch for an intermediate route number for my next hop?”)

I'd vote for bottom right style for most of the country - both forms there but contrast between blue and white text allows familiar anglicised versions to catch the eye first.

For Gaeltacht areas, middle right -though not many motorways there.

I'd have reservations about Irish versions of anglicised names where the original is obscure or ambiguous. I understand the desire to have an Irish form of every name but where doubt exists, I think a whole new name should be decided up as Gaeilge, otherwise it's just guesswork.