AARoads Forum

I was looking for US 15 pictures, and came across this thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=277981).  It looked interesting, so I thought I'd share the link.

P.S.: Here's (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=43878518) the post with US 15 pictures.

I'm the moderator of that forum :)

That was the thread that years ago hotlinked to hundreds of our photos...  :banghead:

I used to follow that thread, as well as the US non-interstate highway thread. I ended up getting tired with the anti-American, pro-European bias shown by many of the posters (both Americans and others). Not that we have everything right - there's a lot we can learn from the rest of the world, and our roads are far from perfect. But criticizing every minute aspect - everything from green guide signs to the width of our lane lines to the color of our pavement - of American highways simply because we do things a bit differently than the Europeans doesn't make for an informative discussion IMO.

There were some interesting urban planning discussions there though, and I enjoyed getting to see the pictures from other countries in their respective threads. I just got tired of reading the ones about the US.

Quote from: AARoads on March 30, 2010, 12:12:58 PM
That was the thread that years ago hotlinked to hundreds of our photos...  :banghead:

I love how their threads go on for *years*.  Meanwhile, here a thread that is over three-or-so months old will be rediscovered only by an extremely new poster.

Our pavement is too gray.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2010, 03:31:51 PM
I love how their threads go on for *years*.  Meanwhile, here a thread that is over three-or-so months old will be rediscovered only by an extremely new poster.

It's really organized by country (or wannabe countries). However, it remains rather general, without a lot of in-depth discussions what you may find on more country-specific forums (like AAroads, SABRE, wegenforum, autobahn-online, SARA, etc.) It's mostly a place to share pictures, and to learn about each country's road projects. Especially with eastern Europe emerging, most activity is also in those threads.

The US Interstate Highway thread has over 4,300 posts, but lacks American contributors, almost 25% of the posts in that thread are by me (almost 900 posts). Some of these threads are over 5 years old and still active, but I organized the threads when I became a moderator there in 2007. Before that, it was one big mess.

A major advantage behind the SSC forums is that SSC is actually divided over dozens and dozens local forums in local languages. Highways & Autobahns is actually a gathering of people from all those local sub forums. For example, if you want to follow Polish or Serbian road updates, it's much easier on Highways & Autobahns than to try decipher the local forums with Google Translate.

I think that most of the overseas criticism of USA roads in the interstate and non-interstate (started by me!! :cool: ) threads in SSC can be boiled down to either:

A - Quality (both real and perceived) of the roadways' surfaces, especially with freeways in southern California (although a couple of video clips have just been posted to SSC's Ukraine (Highways & Autobahns) thread of rides on some Ukrainian roads that are almost from another planet they are so BAD!);

B - Using concrete vs. asphalt as the top surface on newly built/rebuilt freeways and motorways (the vast majority of new major European highways are asphalt surfaced);

C - Lack of a solid median barrier on most USA interstate and compatible highways (nearly all European motorways have a narrow median with a solid barrier);

D - The USA's stubborn resistance to using metric measures on its signs, as well as not using the 'red circle' style of speed limit sign that is used everywhere else in the World other than Canada, and/or;

E - The USA still using various text-based warning signs where Europe and some other parts of the World use non-text symbols (ie, 'high winds' and 'watch for stopped traffic').

OTOH, one thing that overseas posters seem to like in the USA, besides how extensive our highway system is and our route marking standards and signs, is the use of a yellow line to mark the leftmost edge of the lanes that are going in your direction.

I'm generally able to filter out the bluster and enjoy following those threads, and I agree, the road development progress in Eastern Europe is nothing short of astonishing - especially for someone who came of age while the Cold War was still raging!

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on March 30, 2010, 08:45:17 PM
Lack of a solid median barrier on most USA interstate and compatible highways (nearly all European motorways have a narrow median with a solid barrier)

I can see where a solid barrier would seem safer than just a buffer zone. And I can see then, where if you're used to seeing it everywhere it would be disconcerting to not see it.

Of course, that's a perception issue. Reality? Doesn't quite line up with it.

QuoteThe USA's stubborn resistance to using metric measures on its signs, as well as not using the 'red circle' style of speed limit sign that is used everywhere else in the World other than Canada,

Ah yes. "We do it differently from everyone else, therefore we're doing it wrong."

I hate this sort of thinking. :banghead:

Quote from: mgk920 on March 30, 2010, 08:45:17 PM
I think that most of the overseas criticism of USA roads in the interstate and non-interstate (started by me!! :cool: ) threads in SSC can be boiled down to either:

All valid points. My responses are below.

Quote
A - Quality (both real and perceived) of the roadways' surfaces, especially with freeways in southern California (although a couple of video clips have just been posted to SSC's Ukraine (Highways & Autobahns) thread of rides on some Ukrainian roads that are almost from another planet they are so BAD!);

I'll concede this one. We do have some absolutely crappy highways. I-95 through South Carolina comes to mind.

Quote
B - Using concrete vs. asphalt as the top surface on newly built/rebuilt freeways and motorways (the vast majority of new major European highways are asphalt surfaced);

Why is this bad? Concrete lasts significantly longer than asphalt does, and when oil prices are high, costs less. It takes longer to build, but especially for very busy roads with lots of wear, it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of construction for much longer periods of time.

My only complaint is when the put the concrete down in blocks so there's a "thunk" every few seconds when you're driving, but not all places do it like that. I also don't like it when they use concrete and don't add black stripes to the lane lines.

Quote
C - Lack of a solid median barrier on most USA interstate and compatible highways (nearly all European motorways have a narrow median with a solid barrier);

A wide, deep median like you find in many rural areas makes center barriers less important. Now places with narrow or flat medians, those do need a barrier. Our country is getting better about this. Personally, I like it when they leave just don't clear the median and leave it forested. A wide median without a barrier actually can be safer in certain cases. If you slide off into a wide, deep median, often you'll just need a tow out and you'll be good to go. If you slide into a median barrier, you'll often total the car.

Quote
D - The USA's stubborn resistance to using metric measures on its signs, as well as not using the 'red circle' style of speed limit sign that is used everywhere else in the World other than Canada, and/or;

This is one of those cases of different, not worse. For things like science and engineering, the metric system absolutely makes sense. For roads, what does it matter? It's not worth the cost or the hassle to switch out the signs and retrain the population to think in kilometers. As for the circle speed limit signs, there actually is an American sign that uses that. We use the circle to differentiate a metric speed limit sign. They are few and far between.

Quote
E - The USA still using various text-based warning signs where Europe and some other parts of the World use non-text symbols (ie, 'high winds' and 'watch for stopped traffic').

If each state in the US had a different language (similar to how each country in Europe does), symbols would be more important. Since we're about the size of Europe and all (most) speak the same language, words work fine in many cases. If something can be represented clearly with symbols, it makes more sense to use them. For something that would be difficult to represent as a symbol (like those awful "pavement ends" symbols, or stopped traffic), words work perfectly fine here.

Quote
OTOH, one thing that overseas posters seem to like in the USA, besides how extensive our highway system is and our route marking standards and signs, is the use of a yellow line to mark the leftmost edge of the lanes that are going in your direction.

I've never understood why more countries don't do this. I do remember reading some posts though (by Americans IIRC) in one of those SSC threads about how Americans need to switch to all white lines. I think it was the same folks who also thought we need to switch our guide signs to blue.

Quote
I'm generally able to filter out the bluster and enjoy following those threads, and I agree, the road development progress in Eastern Europe is nothing short of astonishing - especially for someone who came of age while the Cold War was still raging!

Mike

I do enjoy following the threads about other countries. It's just the American ones I got tired of reading! Just as I'm bugged by the "We're America, the rest of the world can suck it!" attitude I see from many Americans, the "America's pathetic, we need to be more like those Europeans in every way" attitude gets on my nerves just as much. I enjoy a good discussion/debate like we have here (I'll even sometimes play devil's advocate just to start a debate - I learn more that way, and it forces people to think through and articulate their viewpoints). It just seemed one-sided there.

No offense intended Chris. I didn't know you were the moderator there, but I did always appreciate the fact that you tried to at least start actual discussions about the merits of different ways of doing things.

QuoteI think it was the same folks who also thought we need to switch our guide signs to blue.

I never really understood that argument from a European point of view though, since at least 18 European countries use green guide signs. Somehow there's that weird stereotype that European signage is blue all the time. 4 major countries use blue though (Germany, UK, France, Spain), maybe it's because of that.

Quote from: Chris on April 01, 2010, 10:52:48 AMSomehow there's that weird stereotype that European signage is blue all the time. 4 major countries use blue though (Germany, UK, France, Spain)

And I do believe, at least in the UK, the blue is used only on "Motorways".  I couldn't figure out the exact reasoning behind that.  Different colors relating to the sign function/information makes sense, but based on the fact a road gets granted "Motorway" status... I'm not so sure. A guide sign is a guide sign whether it's on an "M-x" or an "A-x...".
But hey... to each (country) their own.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 02, 2010, 10:10:39 AM

Quote from: Chris on April 01, 2010, 10:52:48 AMSomehow there's that weird stereotype that European signage is blue all the time. 4 major countries use blue though (Germany, UK, France, Spain)

And I do believe, at least in the UK, the blue is used only on "Motorways".  I couldn't figure out the exact reasoning behind that.  Different colors relating to the sign function/information makes sense, but based on the fact a road gets granted "Motorway" status... I'm not so sure. A guide sign is a guide sign whether it's on an "M-x" or an "A-x...".
But hey... to each (country) their own.

Blue = motorways

Dark (Worboys) green = primary routes

White = non-primary routes

The idea is to allow you to determine the value of a road to through traffic from the background color of the sign.  There are now rules on using different-colored patches (Guildford Rules) where a road of one class intersects or interchanges with another road of a different class, but these are a nicety.

Motorways have always had blue-background signs.  Primary routes and the distinction in signing between primary and non-primary routes were introduced in 1965 when the Worboys report was implemented.

Britain has what I call (informally) a three-step direction signing system--i.e., three different background colors are used on signs to indicate the relative importance to through traffic of various roads.  France also has a three-step system.  Spain used to, but went back to two-step signing when green was abandoned for vías rápidas.  Switzerland is three-step, but Germany is two-step (Autobahnen get blue signs, other roads get yellow signs).  The US, Canada, and the Netherlands are all one-step (just one background color used on signs).  I think Portugal is three-step; not sure about Italy.  I think the Scandinavian countries are all two-step.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2010, 11:28:51 AM
The US, Canada, and the Netherlands are all one-step (just one background color used on signs).  I think Portugal is three-step; not sure about Italy.

Well, we almost have to be one-step here in the US as Interstates are the only routes with a minimum standard with, of course, numerous exceptions.  But, 99% of the time, when you get on an Interstate you'll be traveling a freeway.

U.S Routes and most states' state routes can be anything from an Interstate Standard Freeway to a narrow two lane arterial and, in a handful of places, even an unpaved road.

Quote from: mightyace on April 02, 2010, 06:00:24 PMWell, we almost have to be one-step here in the US as Interstates are the only routes with a minimum standard with, of course, numerous exceptions.  But, 99% of the time, when you get on an Interstate you'll be traveling a freeway.

But background color does not necessarily correlate to standard of construction in countries which have multi-step direction signing.  In Britain, for example, anything ranging from a freeway-standard facility down to a two-lane road can be--and often is--a primary route with green-background signs; the relevant criterion is whether it is a logical link between two primary destinations.  France is similar.

QuoteU.S Routes and most states' state routes can be anything from an Interstate Standard Freeway to a narrow two lane arterial and, in a handful of places, even an unpaved road.

I think one reason multi-step signing doesn't come naturally to us is that it usually requires compiling a shortlist of important places and a network of links between them.  This is what the British do with primary destinations (connected by primary routes, which collectively form the primary route network), and also what the French do with pôles verts (connected by liaisons verts to form the reseau vert).  For 50 states which can't even agree on a consistent basis for choosing Interstate control cities, the coordination required is too much.

The thing about this three-step color system is though–shouldn't you know how important the road is already? If you're on a freeway, you don't need blue signs to tell you that. If you had any other doubts as to the road class, you can usually refer to the route number.

I much prefer the North American system where color tells you something about the sign's content. When I am on trips I usually don't need services or recreation sites, so I can safely ignore all blue and brown signs without reading them. If I am looking for a gas station, I can zero in on the blue signs. Or if I am looking for the best route to a certain lake, I can keep an eye out for brown. And I know to always pay heed to signs in red, yellow, and white, since those are the most urgent. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 03, 2010, 01:06:01 AM
The thing about this three-step color system is though–shouldn't you know how important the road is already? If you're on a freeway, you don't need blue signs to tell you that. If you had any other doubts as to the road class, you can usually refer to the route number.

I much prefer the North American system where color tells you something about the sign's content. When I am on trips I usually don't need services or recreation sites, so I can safely ignore all blue and brown signs without reading them. If I am looking for a gas station, I can zero in on the blue signs. Or if I am looking for the best route to a certain lake, I can keep an eye out for brown. And I know to always pay heed to signs in red, yellow, and white, since those are the most urgent.  

I agree entirely - yet I have to admit, the odd (aqua? blue?) color that the Route 73 tollway in Orange County used for a bit would serve as a nice way to differentiate toll roads/crossings from regular, free routes.  

Quote from: realjd on April 01, 2010, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on March 30, 2010, 08:45:17 PM
B - Using concrete vs. asphalt as the top surface on newly built/rebuilt freeways and motorways (the vast majority of new major European highways are asphalt surfaced);

Why is this bad? Concrete lasts significantly longer than asphalt does, and when oil prices are high, costs less. It takes longer to build, but especially for very busy roads with lots of wear, it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of construction for much longer periods of time.

My only complaint is when the put the concrete down in blocks so there's a "thunk" every few seconds when you're driving, but not all places do it like that. I also don't like it when they use concrete and don't add black stripes to the lane lines.

Generally speaking, asphalt has the shorter up-front cost but higher preventative maintenance cost over the long term, whereas cement has a much higher initial cost with relatively minor maintenance costs. This can vary as the oil prices rise and fall. Asphalt generally has the smoother ride surface.

Portland cement concrete roadways are always laid out in "blocks", such that the material can expand and contract with changing temperatures. The "thunk" sound generally comes from passing over the expansion joints...depending on construction methods, this sound isn't always present.

Quote from: realjd on April 01, 2010, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on March 30, 2010, 08:45:17 PM
D - The USA's stubborn resistance to using metric measures on its signs, as well as not using the 'red circle' style of speed limit sign that is used everywhere else in the World other than Canada, and/or;

This is one of those cases of different, not worse. For things like science and engineering, the metric system absolutely makes sense. For roads, what does it matter? It's not worth the cost or the hassle to switch out the signs and retrain the population to think in kilometers. As for the circle speed limit signs, there actually is an American sign that uses that. We use the circle to differentiate a metric speed limit sign. They are few and far between.

The stubborn resistance to metric measures on signs comes from the stubborn resistance to a broader conversion to the metric system in general.  Retraining millions of people to think metric is a bigger hassle than it's worth. A national effort to convert the US to metric started and fizzled about three decades ago. I-17 in Arizona got distances (but not speed limits) signed in metric when the conversion effort was at the forefront, but have recently been changing back to English units in sign replacements.

The last few editions of the federal MUTCD even prescribed metric units with English units in parenthesis. The current version of the manual uses English units only, with a conversion chart in the appendix. This is representative of the fact that the majority of highway design in the US is done in English units (even though some agencies have had metric manuals and/or projects designed in metric units as recently as a few years ago).

As to the circle speed limit/warning signs: The US version intended for metric signs is a black circle with numbers inside. I've seen it in the MUTCD, but don't know that one of these has ever been posted. I believe these signs were removed in the 2009 MUTCD. Switching to the red circle and number might be a bit problematic, given that a red circle in the US is generally associated with something that a driver should not be doing.

Quote from: realjd on April 01, 2010, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on March 30, 2010, 08:45:17 PM
E - The USA still using various text-based warning signs where Europe and some other parts of the World use non-text symbols (ie, 'high winds' and 'watch for stopped traffic').

If each state in the US had a different language (similar to how each country in Europe does), symbols would be more important. Since we're about the size of Europe and all (most) speak the same language, words work fine in many cases. If something can be represented clearly with symbols, it makes more sense to use them. For something that would be difficult to represent as a symbol (like those awful "pavement ends" symbols, or stopped traffic), words work perfectly fine here.

And for what it's worth, there has been an increasing effort to increase symbolization of standard signs in the US. The issue is that symbols must undergo driver recognition/comprehension studies before being adopted.

Quote from: realjd on April 01, 2010, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on March 30, 2010, 08:45:17 PM
OTOH, one thing that overseas posters seem to like in the USA, besides how extensive our highway system is and our route marking standards and signs, is the use of a yellow line to mark the leftmost edge of the lanes that are going in your direction.

I've never understood why more countries don't do this. I do remember reading some posts though (by Americans IIRC) in one of those SSC threads about how Americans need to switch to all white lines. I think it was the same folks who also thought we need to switch our guide signs to blue.

Every once and a while, I come across something that suggests the US switch to an all-white road marking system. One consideration is that yellow paint in some environments is far less durable than white.  I've always been kinda curious on how other countries mark roads with only white, especially two-direction multi-lane roads. The scheme would face an uphill battle, again considering having to retrain a whole population of drivers.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 03, 2010, 01:06:01 AMThe thing about this three-step color system is though–shouldn't you know how important the road is already? If you're on a freeway, you don't need blue signs to tell you that. If you had any other doubts as to the road class, you can usually refer to the route number.

That works in the US (and North America more broadly) because we have a narrow-base road classification system.  Most states do not have more than 10% of their total road mileage on the primary state highway system, and that 10% or less forms what amounts to a reseau vert network which is easily identifiable through route marker signs.  In countries like Britain the direct equivalent of the primary state highway system in US states is the trunk road system, which is not easily identifiable through route numbers--the trunk road system is a large subset of the motorways (essentially all rural motorways) but a very small subset of the A-roads.  Green background on non-motorways is necessary in order to separate trunk A-roads (which generally function as important through routes) from other A-roads of primarily local importance.

Some urban expressway-type roads are actually administered by local authorities and so are formally "principal roads," but are part of the primary route network because of their traffic importance.  Meanwhile, some non-primary routes are on the trunk road system for administrative reasons (e.g., the local authority won't "take back" a bypassed length from the trunk road agency, which leaves the latter holding the bag) but don't get green background because they are not important to through traffic.

The initiative for designating primary destinations and primary routes rests with central government in Britain.  In France ministerial approval is required for the reseau vert.

QuoteI much prefer the North American system where color tells you something about the sign's content. When I am on trips I usually don't need services or recreation sites, so I can safely ignore all blue and brown signs without reading them. If I am looking for a gas station, I can zero in on the blue signs. Or if I am looking for the best route to a certain lake, I can keep an eye out for brown. And I know to always pay heed to signs in red, yellow, and white, since those are the most urgent.

Color is not as important in British signing as it is in North America, but it is still used in a consistent way which aids motorist navigation.  Warning and regulatory signs have red borders (the position is not like the US where regulatory and general information signs share white background).  Signs for services and non-motorized facilities have blue background, and Britain uses brown background for tourist signing, like most of the rest of the world.

Quote from: roadfro on April 03, 2010, 05:05:25 AMPortland cement concrete roadways are always laid out in "blocks", such that the material can expand and contract with changing temperatures. The "thunk" sound generally comes from passing over the expansion joints...depending on construction methods, this sound isn't always present.

There is also "whisper concrete" now.  In a way we are victims of our success--many of our concrete roads were built so well that they have lasted for over forty years and many of the complaints Europeans make are about pavements designed to 1960's standards (jointed PCCP, often unreinforced, with comparatively close joint spacing).

Europeans also tend to fixate on noise issues.  There is a greater societal expectation in Europe that transport infrastructure will be quiet, and high-type roads in Europe tend to be built on narrower rights of way while European dwellings tend to be built on smaller land parcels.  This tends to lead Europeans to think that the noise nuisance from roads in the US is greater than it usually is.

QuoteThe stubborn resistance to metric measures on signs comes from the stubborn resistance to a broader conversion to the metric system in general.  Retraining millions of people to think metric is a bigger hassle than it's worth. A national effort to convert the US to metric started and fizzled about three decades ago. I-17 in Arizona got distances (but not speed limits) signed in metric when the conversion effort was at the forefront, but have recently been changing back to English units in sign replacements.

It is actually I-19 and the sign replacements haven't started yet--no contracts advertised, etc.  In fact Arizona DOT is having a consultation right now on how to handle "old exit" signing because I-19 has never had mileage-based exit numbers.  But, yes, in general no-one has been able to make a convincing case for paying the costs associated with switching to metric signing.

QuoteThe last few editions of the federal MUTCD even prescribed metric units with English units in parenthesis. The current version of the manual uses English units only, with a conversion chart in the appendix. This is representative of the fact that the majority of highway design in the US is done in English units (even though some agencies have had metric manuals and/or projects designed in metric units as recently as a few years ago).

Metric units on signs and metric units in design are separate but interrelated issues.  The impression I get is that there was never a perfect consensus on use of metric units in design across functional disciplines.  Metric units make traffic and roadway design messy, while bridge engineers love them because they make all their calculations dimensionally correct.  Contractors don't like them and ultimately the bridge engineers have lost in most states.

Again, the distinction between metric units on signs and metric units in design is completely lost on most Europeans (except the British, who have been fully metricated in design since the 1970's but still use English-unit expressions on signs).

QuoteAs to the circle speed limit/warning signs: The US version intended for metric signs is a black circle with numbers inside. I've seen it in the MUTCD, but don't know that one of these has ever been posted. I believe these signs were removed in the 2009 MUTCD. Switching to the red circle and number might be a bit problematic, given that a red circle in the US is generally associated with something that a driver should not be doing.

I think the circle was red on speed limit signs.  The metric designs in MUTCD 2003 are actually pretty similar to those Arizona DOT developed in 1980 when I-19 was being signed in metric for the first time.  I have been unable to find conclusive evidence that the metric speed limit signs were posted at all on I-19--they weren't cancelled in the plan sheets, and some people report having seen them up for a brief period in 1980-81, but there has been no corroboration in the form of photos etc.

QuoteAnd for what it's worth, there has been an increasing effort to increase symbolization of standard signs in the US. The issue is that symbols must undergo driver recognition/comprehension studies before being adopted.

This is another example of European insularity.  They see drawings of text-only signs in the MUTCD or whatever, and think US signing is text-heavy.  What they don't realize is that the signs we use most heavily, and which convey the most important messages, tend to have symbol designs and have had since the 1970's.  Meanwhile, they fail to take the log out of their own eyes--some standard European sign designs are very text-heavy (parking signs in Britain come to mind, as do accident blackspot signs in a lot of continental countries).  Plus lots of European countries make excursions from their own design standards (just as we ourselves do) and these tend to be text-only:  "Fin provisoire de section amenagée à 2x2 voies" is a French example that comes to mind.

QuoteEvery once and a while, I come across something that suggests the US switch to an all-white road marking system. One consideration is that yellow paint in some environments is far less durable than white.  I've always been kinda curious on how other countries mark roads with only white, especially two-direction multi-lane roads.

If we replaced the double yellow centerline with double white, we wouldn't have a problem--context is everything.  The approach I don't like is used in urban Scotland and Northern Ireland (where cities tend to have American-style undivided four-lane surface arterials) and involves a hazard line (basically, a broken line with long stripes and short gaps between the stripes) in place of the double white centerline.  The distinction between a hazard line and an ordinary lane stripe is difficult to tell, especially when the pavement markings are worn, or the road has been cut into and the markings have been reinstated poorly or not at all.

It also has to be noted that very few countries have a true one-color pavement marking system.  For instance, in Britain yellow is used quite extensively at street curbs to indicate parking restrictions.  Film production companies have to go to considerable trouble to cover the yellow markings for period dramas.

I think the red circle thing for speed limits doesn't make me think that you shouldn't be doing something - it's the circle-slash that tells you "NO". (Also why the "no parking" and "no stopping" signs in Europe are impossible to figure out.)

In Europe, yellow lines are used to denote temporary lane shifts.  Where here in the USA, we literally erase the permanent lines when temporary lines in the normal color scheme are laid down (as in a construction zone), in Europe they leave the old white lines in place and just lay down temporary yellow ones.

Mike

Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 02, 2010, 10:10:39 AM

Quote from: Chris on April 01, 2010, 10:52:48 AMSomehow there's that weird stereotype that European signage is blue all the time. 4 major countries use blue though (Germany, UK, France, Spain)

And I do believe, at least in the UK, the blue is used only on "Motorways".  I couldn't figure out the exact reasoning behind that.  Different colors relating to the sign function/information makes sense, but based on the fact a road gets granted "Motorway" status... I'm not so sure. A guide sign is a guide sign whether it's on an "M-x" or an "A-x...".
But hey... to each (country) their own.

Germany only uses blue guide signs on their fully marked autobahns (equivalent to full interstates in the USA).  'Gelbe' (non A-route) autobahns and national roads (equivalent to 'US' and major state highways in the USA) use yellow guide signs and local roads use white signs.

Mike

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 03, 2010, 06:58:16 AM
"Fin provisoire de section amenagée à 2x2 voies"

end of limited-access dual carriage way?  maybe?

I'm sure I'd figure it out by seeing how the road configuration changed.

"Non-permanent ending of 2x2-converted stretch."

In Germany you would read "Ende Ausbaustrecke"

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Quote from: aswnl on April 03, 2010, 12:57:37 PM
"Non-permanent ending of 2x2-converted stretch."

In Germany you would read "Ende Ausbaustrecke"

"Divided highway ends", basically.
Hey, we actually have a symbol for that!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg101.imageshack.us%2Fimg101%2F4057%2Fdividedhighwayends.png&hash=d133c1d16a7411c2c2a7f7338d561552204c6403)

Quote from: deanej on April 03, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

An American route shield, yes. Europe seems to always use rectangles for route markers, so the conflict isn't present.

If we replaced the double yellow centerline with double white, we wouldn't have a problem--context is everything.

Sorry to disagree.  For at least 50 years double yellow lines, or in some states double yellow lines with a white broken line in between were used to separate opposing traffic.

It is understood I think by most conscious drivers that the yellow line on the left means there is, with a few exceptions opposing traffic to the left of that.

Quote from: deanej on April 03, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

OTOH, some USA states' route shields look a LOT like speed limit signs.  For example, it is not unusual for Chicago city cops to stop vehicles for speeding on Cicero Ave "Isn't the limit '50'?".  It's posted limit is '35', but it is Illinois state route 50.

:spin:

BTW, the only USA state that has a red circle on its route marker is New Mexico (a Zia 'Sun' symbol).

Mike

Quote from: sammack on April 03, 2010, 09:05:58 PMSorry to disagree.  For at least 50 years double yellow lines, or in some states double yellow lines with a white broken line in between were used to separate opposing traffic.

That doesn't mean a different system wouldn't also work.  Double white solid lines already have the meaning "do not cross."  If the line already says "do not cross" and it is clearly in the middle of the road, then it is easy to recognize as a centerline.  This is how such stripes work in Europe, including in many countries which have lower fatality rates per unit distance travelled (on both motorways and ordinary roads) than the US.  Double white solid is not easy to misinterpret; the real problem, as I noted, comes with hazard lines when they are used as centerlines on multilane undivided roads.

Before 1978, many states successfully used white (broken) centerlines to indicate passing zones.

Quote from: deanej on April 03, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

From my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

QuoteFrom my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

Taken in context, this is important in Europe because you have several different countries and languages within a relatively small area.  Traffic notwithstanding, it's quite easy to pass through a few different countries (each with its own language) within a 1 day travel span.

However, we don't have that particular situation on this side of the Atlantic.  Not when you have two of the four largest countries in the world (including one with the 3rd largest population) that share a common border and (officially at least) a common language.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 04, 2010, 03:57:06 AM

Before 1978, many states successfully used white (broken) centerlines to indicate passing zones.

Interestingly, I'd interpret that (here in the US) as a one-way street, which would cause nasty dissonance on a very two-way two lane highway.

Quote from: aswnl on April 04, 2010, 06:06:05 AM

Quote from: deanej on April 03, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

From my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

Actually, I would expect that if I were driving in Poland or the Czech Republic that I would understand the basics of their language enough to understand what the sign says.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2010, 09:20:42 PM
Actually, I would expect that if I were driving in Poland or the Czech Republic that I would understand the basics of their language enough to understand what the sign says.

I can barely understand them, and I grew up in a neighboring country!  Most Slavic languages tend not to baffle me quite so badly as those translations for "speed limit", though.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 04, 2010, 03:57:06 AM

Quote from: sammack on April 03, 2010, 09:05:58 PMSorry to disagree.  For at least 50 years double yellow lines, or in some states double yellow lines with a white broken line in between were used to separate opposing traffic.

That doesn't mean a different system wouldn't also work.  Double white solid lines already have the meaning "do not cross."  If the line already says "do not cross" and it is clearly in the middle of the road, then it is easy to recognize as a centerline.

Except that nobody actually obeys the rule that you're not supposed to cross a solid white line. At least not around here.
Starting to use it to separate oncoming traffic would cause accidents. As a system it would work, but retraining drivers to get used to it would be a huge problem. As would changeover. Do you have any idea how much new paint that would require?

Quote from: aswnl on April 04, 2010, 06:06:05 AM

Quote from: deanej on April 03, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

If the sign were in the same style, I'd think I'd easily be able to recognize it as a speed limit sign, regardless of the language. The trickier part would be remembering that it's in metric!
Also, don't assume that it would necessarily be translated into the local language. Stop signs in Italy say "STOP", in English. Not "SMETTA", "CESSA", or any other Italian word you could translate as "Stop". I would thus think it not entirely outlandish that even in a non-English speaking country, speed limit signs made in the North American style might just read "SPEED LIMIT". 
On the other hand, the Quebeçois have their stop signs saying "ARRÊT", so... it could go either way.

The European speed limit signs are smaller and those signs don't really need the SPEED LIMIT (or equivalent in the local language) bit on them - what other signs are just numbers? If you know that red circles prohibit and blue, filled, circles means "manditory", then working it out isn't hard - remembering that the UK is mph, and everywhere else (hire cars would probably be metric-only on the speedo) is km/h is the difficult bit, but even that's a doddle.

That said, American vs European signage is like left-handedness and right-handedness - neither is better than the other, they are just different.

STOP signs don't need the letters, given that all over the world they are the same red octagon. The letters just make sure - I'm surprised that (the French especially) it's STOP throughout Western (latin alphabet) Europe, rather than whatever the native languages say. I've heard the Irish gaelic lobby want bilingual STOP signs, which I'd say "let them, if they pay for those outside the Gaeltacht. Give Way (Yield) signs also have a unique shape across Europe (triangle pointing down), and the Welsh have it bilingual (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.772301,-3.41692&spn=0,359.922838&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.772428,-3.416994&panoid=cms72LZAXa42IIwVmGhqZA&cbp=12,303.16,,2,3.57). The French don't bother with words. The Irish have "yield" or the Gaelic equivalent.

The Republic of Ireland, in one of their many "we're not British" drives, decided to go with new world signage - Warning signs are yellow diamonds, rather than red triangles. Still pictoral, just different (I like their no parking sign as it's far more intuitive, likewise no entry, which is basically "no straight on")

Quote from: froggie on April 04, 2010, 08:34:20 AMTaken in context, this is important in Europe because you have several different countries and languages within a relatively small area.  Traffic notwithstanding, it's quite easy to pass through a few different countries (each with its own language) within a 1 day travel span.

However, we don't have that particular situation on this side of the Atlantic.  Not when you have two of the four largest countries in the world (including one with the 3rd largest population) that share a common border and (officially at least) a common language.

This explains why having text-only speed limit signs does not inconvenience natives of the US and Canada.  I would just add that the inconvenience to foreign tourists (including those who are not fluent in English) is also minimal, because the legend and appearance of speed limit signs is highly standardized across the US.  A foreign tourist needs only to learn the words "SPEED LIMIT" to have some understanding of nearly all speed limit signs in all states, and except for outliers like Illinois SR 50, any white-background sign with two large digits and small writing over the digits is relatively easy to recognize as a speed limit sign.  (Even SR 50 is a dubious counterexample--the route marker sign is square while speed limits are uniformly on rectangular blanks.)

In continental Europe, by contrast, the need to understand the local language is somewhat less for speed limit and STOP signs but greater for signs indicating highly specific restrictions, like parking, "home zones," and the like.  Despite Vienna and its focus on symbolism, an American monoglot is arguably more disadvantaged in Europe than an European monoglot is in the US.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 05, 2010, 12:36:23 AMAs a system it would work, but retraining drivers to get used to it would be a huge problem. As would changeover. Do you have any idea how much new paint that would require?

I am not advocating a change to white centerlines (mainly because I don't think the benefits in terms of cheaper pavement marking material justify the various switching costs), but I don't think a changeover has to be expensive or logistically complicated.  The standardized yellow centerline system we have had for the past 32 years is actually an anomaly.  In the preceding 40 years there were multiple marking systems in use in different states, and even now there is an extra-wide gap between the two solid yellow lines in Oregon as a legacy of the former three-line marking system.  The changeover to the present system was fairly gradual and people dealt with it by "reading the road," as we do now in Mexico--Mexico has been in the middle of a changeover from white to yellow for some time now and it is not uncommon to be driving on a rural two-lane and see the center stripe change from yellow to white to back again, or to see a yellow stripe crudely traced over an older white stripe.

As to the total mileage involved, I'd estimate (roughly) that no more than one million miles of the three million miles of public road in the US carry enough traffic to warrant a marked centerline of whatever color.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 05, 2010, 12:36:23 AMIf the sign were in the same style, I'd think I'd easily be able to recognize it as a speed limit sign, regardless of the language.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What if the vast majority of countries in the world would arrange that circle signs with a red edge would mean "prohibited". Then you wouldn't be bothered by learning criptic texts in difficult languages, and you could drive safely on their roads even if you're just on holiday, because time for intepretation of those signs while driving is quite dangerous.

What if you would come to my country, and you would be driving at approx. 50 mph, and you would read the following texts in a yellow diamond - would you understand within a few seconds ? (And beware that Dutch is still part of the Germanic language family just like English - it can be much worse relating to other language families... !)
"slecht wegdek"
"beweegbare brug"
"scherpe bocht naar rechts"
"overweg"
"gevaarlijke kruising"
"zij- en rukwinden"
"uitholling overdwars"
"let op plotseling overstekende kinderen"
"wegversmalling rechterzijde rijbaan"
etcetera.

Not the whole world speaks English, and being able to drive safely abroad and knowing that foreigners will drive more safely in your own country, should be just the trigger to arrange more unity in signs and abolish text-signs as much as possible. Pleading in favour of textsigns is just shortminded in my point of view. Just my two cents...

Aswnl, many of your examples are for conditions for which only text signs are available in much of Europe.  I will leave your legends untranslated and just describe what I know of the usages in the US and various European countries I have visited.

*  "slecht wegdek"--in Germany the generic "!" warning triangle is used for this with a supplementary plate reading "Strassenschaden."

*  "beweegbare brug"--these are fairly rare in the US and are generally contextually obvious because there is generally a bridge tender's house near one abutment and provision for bringing traffic to a halt using light signals.

*  "scherpe bocht naar rechts"--a symbolic sign for this condition has been in use since the late 1920's.

*  "overweg"--again, a symbolic sign is available for this condition, and has been since the 1970's at least (I rather think since the 1930's, but I haven't checked).  "HIGHWAY INTERSECTION XXX FT" is a Texan peculiarity, for which I will agree there is no firm defense.

*  "gevaarlijke kruising"--Not a good idea to use this sign without actually addressing what is wrong with the intersection.  I admit "HILL BLOCKS VIEW" (a common cause of intersection hazards) is not universally comprehensible, but symbol signs are being experimented with in New Mexico.  Lots of European countries use incomprehensible "accident black spot" signs for this class of hazard (except the countries whose traffic engineers have the nous to realize it is better to diagnose the hazard and fix it than to put up signs for it).

*  "zij- en rukwinden"--Don't have a symbol sign for this, I admit, but the value of signing this condition is IMO questionable--arguably, it makes more sense to educate drivers of conditions where high wind shear is likely, e.g. coming out of cuttings.

*  "uitholling overdwars"--What exactly does this translate?  We have symbol signs for dropoffs.

*  "let op plotseling overstekende kinderen"--We also have symbol signs for this, as well as provision (otherwise absent in Europe) for reduced speeds near schools when children are going to and from school.  This sign is commonly used with supplementary plates in Europe ("School" and "Playground" being possible legends in Britain).

*  "wegversmalling rechterzijde rijbaan"--Again, a symbol sign is available for this condition.

QuoteNot the whole world speaks English, and being able to drive safely abroad and knowing that foreigners will drive more safely in your own country, should be just the trigger to arrange more unity in signs and abolish text-signs as much as possible. Pleading in favour of textsigns is just shortminded in my point of view. Just my two cents...

It is important to have signs that can be understood by the majority of the driving population.  This will imply somewhat differing emphasis on use of text and symbol signs in different locations.  In the US, the vast majority of drivers will understand English, and the minority that don't will still be cued by the general color and form of the signs to watch out for changed conditions--in short, to "read the road."  Symbol signs have very good recognizability at distance but there have historically been problems with drivers not being able to attribute the correct meanings to particular symbol signs.  This was observed in Britain with the changeover from pre-Worboys (mixed symbols and text) signs to Worboys signs (generally symbol-only signs):  road user comprehension of common signs, as measured by the Road Research Laboratory, actually dropped after the Worboys signs were introduced.  This of course is not a complete argument against introducing the Worboys signs, and I believe they had benefits which outweighed this particular problem, but it does illustrate that conversion to symbol signs is not an unmixed blessing.

Speaking as an American who has lived in Europe for a number of years, and visited about eight European countries, I tend to smell hypocrisy when a native European lectures us about our text-only signs, and I then turn to pictures of that European's country's roads, and I see lots of text-only signs.  What does "Uitgezonderd" mean?  (I know I can look it up using Google Translate, but as you pointed out, I can't do that on the road at 80 km/h . . .)

Quote from: english si on April 05, 2010, 06:24:12 AM
and the Welsh have it bilingual (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.772301,-3.41692&spn=0,359.922838&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.772428,-3.416994&panoid=cms72LZAXa42IIwVmGhqZA&cbp=12,303.16,,2,3.57).

I'm not sure if I was actually at the posted example... but if not I was darned close.  The week I was in Wales with my family, we were pretty much in that area of the country.  (We stayed with relatives not too far away in the Rhondda valley in Maerdy).  I know we were on the A-470 fairly often, but not sure if I was in that exact spot.

And pretty much everything in Wales is bi-lingual.

Quote from: froggie on April 04, 2010, 08:34:20 AM

QuoteFrom my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

Taken in context, this is important in Europe because you have several different countries and languages within a relatively small area.  Traffic notwithstanding, it's quite easy to pass through a few different countries (each with its own language) within a 1 day travel span.

However, we don't have that particular situation on this side of the Atlantic.  Not when you have two of the four largest countries in the world (including one with the 3rd largest population) that share a common border and (officially at least) a common language.

USA and Mexico?

 :sombrero:

BTW, Mexico uses the 'red circle' style of speed limit sign, with 'km/h' below the number.

Mike

Quote from: Duke87 on April 05, 2010, 12:36:23 AM

Quote from: aswnl on April 04, 2010, 06:06:05 AM

Quote from: deanej on April 03, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

If the sign were in the same style, I'd think I'd easily be able to recognize it as a speed limit sign, regardless of the language. The trickier part would be remembering that it's in metric!
Also, don't assume that it would necessarily be translated into the local language. Stop signs in Italy say "STOP", in English. Not "SMETTA", "CESSA", or any other Italian word you could translate as "Stop". I would thus think it not entirely outlandish that even in a non-English speaking country, speed limit signs made in the North American style might just read "SPEED LIMIT". 
On the other hand, the Quebeçois have their stop signs saying "ARRÊT", so... it could go either way.

Well, in every other country in the World outside the USA and Canada, other than in the UK, the number inside the red circle is in km/h, so remembering it as being in kilometers should not be a problem.  I would think that the problem, at least in Europe, is that in the UK, the number inside the red circle is in MPH, especially when crossing the border between the UK and Ireland (which uses km/h).

BTW, tell those hardhead Quebecors that STOP signs in France also say "STOP"

:D

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on April 05, 2010, 12:15:16 PM
BTW, tell those hardhead Quebecors that STOP signs in France also say "STOP"
:D
Mike

Well, it might be a mission impossible  :-D

Btw, there some cities here who got stop signs like Granby
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.41469,-72.727733&spn=0,359.94524&z=15&layer=c&cbll=45.414674,-72.727967&panoid=PfsqoUtSvjkU8tpmrNFlOg&cbp=12,128.48,,0,0.49

another one at Lennoxville, now amalgated to Sherbrooke
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.366921,-71.858053&spn=0,359.94524&z=15&layer=c&cbll=45.36875,-71.863122&panoid=DeEHePAUTkP-9Se3ZefMFA&cbp=12,12.01,,0,-6.14

at the Kanhawakhe Mohawk reserve http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.407489,-73.687277&spn=0,359.89048&z=14&layer=c&cbll=45.407564,-73.687209&panoid=O0mdzqpif3VOkfLb9wIk4g&cbp=12,71.95,,0,4.15

one bilingual French-Huron language at the Wendake Huron Indian village near Quebec city  http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=46.864593,-71.360021&spn=0.00892,0.05476&z=15&layer=c&cbll=46.864589,-71.360003&panoid=0ut7o2DNnSVcY_zmo3aLYg&cbp=11,2.11,,0,3.45

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 05, 2010, 09:48:23 AM
Speaking as an American who has lived in Europe for a number of years, and visited about eight European countries, I tend to smell hypocrisy when a native European lectures us about our text-only signs, and I then turn to pictures of that European's country's roads, and I see lots of text-only signs.  What does "Uitgezonderd" mean?  (I know I can look it up using Google Translate, but as you pointed out, I can't do that on the road at 80 km/h . . .)

True story, not to mention temporary signs in Europe which often have text on them in the native language only. Due to increasing legal insanity in this country those "exception" signs are increasingly common. "uitgezonderd laden en lossen" or "fietsers afstappen", "situatie gewijzigd", "let op" , or "-destination- bereikbaar" etc.

Or stuff like this. I don't think a Polish or Bulgarian trucker would understand such signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi516.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu326%2Fmblaak90%2FWegenforum%2FIMG_3093.jpg&hash=c44c60d83aa9bea7f2284c642974bee2a66d6e90)

I can only begin to understand that last sign and I am a native English speaker with a little German vocabulary.  "Brug" is bridge, "Last" (I'm guessing) means much the same in Dutch that it does in German (i.e., freight, cargo), and I think "volg" is cognate with "folgende" in German, so my rough translation is:  (bottom panel) for these various parts of the district, follow the marked L1 and L2 routes; (middle panel) names of landmark bridges; and (top panel) parking for lorries?

Another problem with text on the supplementary plates is that it interferes with rejectability ("does that message apply to me, or can I ignore it?").

Quote from: mgk920 on April 05, 2010, 12:15:16 PMBTW, tell those hardhead Quebecors that STOP signs in France also say "STOP"

I have got news for you on that one--"STOP" is now officially considered a French word for purposes of traffic signing in Québec.  In other words, you can now use "STOP" instead of "ARRÊT" anywhere on the provincial highway network in Québec, regardless of whether the area is majority French- or English-speaking.  Of course, any traffic engineer who tried to do this would probably be lynched, but at least the legal option exists.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 05, 2010, 10:44:53 AM

Quote from: english si on April 05, 2010, 06:24:12 AM
and the Welsh have it bilingual (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.772301,-3.41692&spn=0,359.922838&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.772428,-3.416994&panoid=cms72LZAXa42IIwVmGhqZA&cbp=12,303.16,,2,3.57).

I'm not sure if I was actually at the posted example... but if not I was darned close.  The week I was in Wales with my family, we were pretty much in that area of the country.  (We stayed with relatives not too far away in the Rhondda valley in Maerdy).  I know we were on the A-470 fairly often, but not sure if I was in that exact spot.

It's at the northern end of the Merthyr Tydfil (that's the English name, yet is still unspellable) bypass, on the edge of the national park. Maerdy is a valley over from Rhondda, and Merthyr is a couple further over. If you went to Brecon, you'd have passed here, if most of your A470 (no dash please: half a space if you can, and dots are archaic, but also correct; most people use no gap) use was heading to Cardiff, then you haven't used this bit.

I chose it pretty much at random. I just randomly chose a part of Wales and tried to find a give way sign! I think the closest I've been to there is Crickhowell on the A40. Most of my Welsh trips have been to Cardiff, Swansea or North Wales. Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=53.011915,-4.102533&panoid=yhlg3NgbeIezls3qktw00g&cbp=12,244.99,,0,11.2&ll=53.011892,-4.102385&spn=0,359.98071&z=16) another, in a rather scenic place I had a lovely Welsh Cream Tea in (normal tea and scone with cream and jam, plus a welsh cake and a slab of bara brith - really rather big, but worth it). Welsh would be a first language here (or people would be truly bilingual). I love it that Streetview covers the whole UK now.

QuoteAnd pretty much everything in Wales is bi-lingual.

Except the majority of people! Outside the North or West, Welsh language is not spoken and is barely a second language. There's been signs in Cardiff saying opposite (look left vs look right) that have lasted months without someone noticing. Swansea had a sign where the Welsh said something like "I'm sorry I'm not in the office at the moment, on holiday for a week" that someone had as an automated e-mail response. When you get to Newport and other parts of Monmouthshire, it's like putting signs up in French to them - just a language that they learn at school. It's worth noting that the Welsh language lobby is very powerful (especially compared to the Ulster Scots or Cornish lobbies). Scottish Gaelic's lobby is pushing for bilingual signs all over Scotland, despite it not being a native language for the far north, or the lowlands - the Western Isles have mono-lingual (in Gaelic) directional signs (Steornabhagh rather than Stornoway, or both, on signs)

It's funny, I know a bit of Welsh, but it all comes from road signs and place names. Aber is mouth/confluence, Afon is river, Araf (which those who have been to Wales will automatically know) means slow, Diweed means end, etc.

We did check out the Brecon Beacons after a nice meal with some relatives at some restaurant in Aberdare... but I can't remember where we entered the park from... it very well could have been there.

My dad has been trying to learn to speak Welsh.  I think he can do OK reading/writing.  Pronunciation, I've been told, is much more difficult.