AARoads Forum

I mean, European autoroutes tend to just put a number on a square or rectangle shape. To my knowledge, the idea of a distinctive looking highway "shield" that can visually be tied to a certain type of highway (Interstate, US highway, etc.) is not really popular over there.

Is there a reason for this? Perhaps it's easier to identify a specific number than it is a specific type of shield.

I think because of the two big influences over there, the British and German road systems, neither really use shields. (Germany does, sort of, by putting their Autobahn numbers in hexagon shapes, but I don't know about the lower-class roads.) The British system uses a letter before the route number to tell the importance of the road instead of using different highway markers. (A and B are signed, C, D, and U, when used, are not. M for motorways was added later.) If you're going to use letter prefixes like that, why have different shield types too?

There are some benefits and drawbacks to both systems. It's easier to tell I-35 apart from US 35 on the road because of shields, but they do not translate to text or speech well if the author or audience don't know the difference between an Interstate and a US route. (Note how often advertisers screw this up.) It is a lot harder to mix up A35 and B35 in speech and plain text–the correct letter is right there in the name.

I wouldn't call the British system a huge influence except in terms of typography, because the system currently in use in Britain--called the "Worboys signs" after Sir Walter Worboys, who chaired a committee on traffic signing for all-purpose roads which devised them--is a late innovation.  The Worboys committee reported in 1963 and the signs it recommended were legislated in TSRGD 1964, which had an effective date of 1 January 1965.  Previously to that, Britain had used a system in which route numbers were much more prominent and which was therefore a hybrid between the American system (where route numbers dominate) and various European systems where destinations tend to be more prominent.  The earlier system was devised by the Maybury committee on traffic signing in 1933, but was an evolution from earlier advice on signposting which was issued in 1921.  In the older system, route numbers appeared in cartouches which were much larger than destination legends.  The size ratio between a route number and destination was in fact roughly comparable to that between shield digits and destination legend in the USA.

The Worboys signs put route numbers and destinations at equal heights and discarded privileged placement for route numbers, and thus in effect "Europeanized" the British signing system.

The older British signing system had a number of defects, which were recognized by 1960.

*  The destination legends were too small to read.

*  Britain has a high proportion of intersections which are impossible to sign as a choice of two or three alternatives separated by 90° angles.  The extreme size of the cartouches made it difficult to design small diagrammatics for these intersections which were also readable from a distance at speed.

*  For administrative reasons, the British central road administration updated route classification on a regular cycle, with route number changes following in train.  Many of the route numbers shown on signs at any given time were simply wrong.

*  There was little evidence that drivers actually relied on route numbers for navigation (the British road classification system is broadly based), so it was considered that drivers would be better served by a new signing system which made route numbers less prominent and relied more on destinations presented in accordance with the continuity principle.  (The continuity principle, which is less emphasized in US signing, stipulates that if you see a destination on a sign and choose to follow it, you must be able to see the destination on every sign associated with a point where you have to make a turn to reach that destination.)

France could be considered to have "shields" of a sort since different-colored route number cartouches date back to the Michelin concrete signs.  Similarly, the use of route number cartouches on yellow-background signs in Germany actually dates from the Weimar Republic.  However, Autobahn direction signing did not use route numbers or cartouches initially; that was a postwar development.  Instead, Autobahnen were identified by terminus cities or locations ("Autobahn München-Salzburg," e.g.) and there were little roadside posts with distances and legends like "450 km von Berlin" or "170 km nach München."  But neither the French nor the German systems elevated route numbers in prominence.  I think the main purpose of route numbers in France and Germany was to allow some differentiation between multiple routes to a given destination, since in those countries the "one destination, one route" principle is not observed as it is in the USA.  This would not have been an issue in Germany during the early period of Autobahn construction when there was minimal duplication of routes, which may explain why Autobahn route numbers were a late development.

French route cartouches are also available in Benelux, with slight differences.

Also Worboys signage has a special font font road numbers on motorway signs, and those numbers are bigger. On primary signs, numbers are yellow, where destinations are white.

There's quite a bit of number following in the UK, and we don't do destinations like the continentals in England and Wales, so there's often complaints from foreign people on internet forums, especially about the destinations the M25 where the 3 of the 5 main control destinations are airports, and one's a tunnel/bridge (depending on what way you are going).

some European countries use shields. 

Hungary has a pentagon (kinda like a wider "home plate") and I remember there being cutouts here and there as late as 1998.  Now they are a green square with a white outline and a white number.

Romania uses a shield similar to the US highway marker (except missing the top center point) but alas I have never seen one in person. 

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 19, 2010, 03:51:37 AM
Similarly, the use of route number cartouches on yellow-background signs in Germany actually dates from the Weimar Republic. 

what color are these shields?

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/DR/DR19360091i1.jpg)

B-roads (Bundesstrassen - federal roads) have yellow signs with a black number and black frame.

That was also true in the German Reich.

Typical German shields;

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3343%2F4608666823_7754a0bfc6_o.jpg&hash=768822e31c79ea46e7aad94bae6f36a1efe09519) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/4608666823/)
A43-B51 Münster-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/4608666823/) by Chriszwolle (http://www.flickr.com/people/chriszwolle/), on Flickr

Quote from: Chris on October 19, 2010, 01:37:17 PM
Typical German shields;

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3343%2F4608666823_7754a0bfc6_o.jpg&hash=768822e31c79ea46e7aad94bae6f36a1efe09519) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/4608666823/)
A43-B51 Münster-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/4608666823/) by Chriszwolle (http://www.flickr.com/people/chriszwolle/), on Flickr

Hmm... Not a fan of cutout shields, either.

The Romanian shield:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F44%2F156764085_f1daf4e14b_b.jpg&hash=da4034b16b2aecc94860404398733d6e5c993d61)

The VSS-Schriften live on . . .

For those who love road numbers:

Hungarian shields:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.imageshack.us%2Fimg3%2F9374%2Fp11707351.jpg&hash=a841a2b046bbf8e99fb200eafcda5f7e9974dd4a)

I love the way M0 is used for the Budapest Ring Road. Do any other countries use the 0 number for the ring around their capital city?

As nice as those signs are, I think they show too much information in the time you've got to read them. There's far too many shields and some routes are shown on both signs.

Belgium's R0 is the road around Brussels.

The reason why some routes are on both signs is because they head two different directions from this junction. Google maps link (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=47.390796,19.168396&spn=0.094133,0.219727&t=h&z=13)

Some of those shields need some sort of bracket/to symbolism, though. And the country badges just adds to the confusing mess.

Brussels has R0. Copenhagen has a few O-roads that indicate ring roads.

The Hungarian sign would've been much better without the useless E-numbers.

Personally, I prefer the E-routes, as they conform to a grid far better than the national systems.

That said, because they aren't universally used (I'm looking at you, UK), they do add a lot of potentially useless information.

However, the E-routes should have a specific shield akin to the US/Interstate shields, as differentiating them from France's or Spain's national routes can be annoying.

A numbering grid is totally useless in Europe. As well as those E-numbers, which are just a copy of the Interstate system.
Introduced for the best sake of political unity of Europe, not for driving.

E-numbers often make no sense at all, while local A/N-numbering does. So for European motorists, who drive on control cities and not that much on road numbers (except UK...), the E-system is just a nuisance. "E30-west" wouldn't say a European anything, because wind directions aren't used combined to road numbers.

Control cities are primary information on European signs, A/N-numbering is secondairy information, in most countries shown in some sort of "status bar" between the arrows. No need to put that secondairy information in vaste shields, that's just a waste of space on the signs. A costly waste, when remembering high-rising signs have a greater moment of windforce on the gantry and thus need a heavier gantry.

E-numbering is just an extra type of information. Not used by nearly everyone.
E-routes are often weird and unlogical (e.g. E25 in the Netherlands...), and very alike 3-digit numbers for main routes are not that efficient for traffic information as 2-digit national systems.

Indeed, aswl, we don't have a very grid shaped road network (and why on earth should a grid automatically be better), but more like connected radial networks (perhaps multiple hubs in one country) with a few tangents. Germany has reasonable grid-system, but that's it. E-numbers are also much more rigid to the grid system than Interstates, and certainly US routes. This causes useless and arbitrary routes - they selected routes of importance and then applied the grid system to them, meaning some strange routes - Holland (the area of the Netherlands) is awful for it - routes cannoning off one another, taking long ways around, stuff like that. The old system was more logical - routes were connected important radial routes, but fitted the geography a lot better.

Likewise, numbers (other than somewhat in the UK), aren't used that much for directions, but destinations are. Thus Euroroutes are pretty pointless as navigational aids. (Number and cardinal compass point would work in the UK, to some extent).

One thing though - it's a UN thing, not an EU thing - it's not really about political unity of Europe, but nor is it for driving. Of course, it is political - more E-numbers, seemingly more important. Hence why the UK had lots of them before the new system came in - to get an inset like the Rhine-Ruhr area. France seems to be doing that now, with new 3-digit routes along corridors where it hopes to build/has just built an autoroute.

And, speaking as probably the Brit most passionate about having some sort of E-number signage here (and then only where the Euroroute turns off the road or meets another Euroroute, plus confirmation signs after those junctions with dual distance units and more 'European' destination choices), it's really rather pointless, given how there's not much international through-traffic.

As an American, non-grid systems make no sense to me, but other than that I can't really argue against them.  However, I will say that cardinal directions are superior to control cities for one reason: less sign clutter.  European signs tend to be jammed with way too much information.

Quote from: Quillz on October 19, 2010, 12:27:12 AM
I mean, European autoroutes tend to just put a number on a square or rectangle shape. To my knowledge, the idea of a distinctive looking highway "shield" that can visually be tied to a certain type of highway (Interstate, US highway, etc.) is not really popular over there.

Is there a reason for this? Perhaps it's easier to identify a specific number than it is a specific type of shield.

Most European countries use a colour code to distinguish different types of roads. That makes the use of flamboyant shields dispensable.

That said German motorway number shields are no less iconic than Interstate shields. They might be a bit more subtle though.

Quote from: firefly on August 27, 2012, 03:56:38 PM

Most European countries use a colour code to distinguish different types of roads. That makes the use of flamboyant shields dispensable.

That said German motorway number shields are no less iconic than Interstate shields. They might be a bit more subtle though.

I don't know if I agree with you on that.  I have never seen a hexagonal German autobahn shield used anywhere outside of Germany.  in fact, I don't remember ever seeing one in an advertisement in Germany - as opposed to the US style of "66 Motel".

I've seen a perfect '61 spec interstate shield used on a billboard in Sweden.  I couldn't quite catch the details, but the route "number" was "USA", and the company appeared to be someone importing various American brands of consumer goods. 

Greece uses the same shields as Germany for their motorways.

Quote from: Chris on August 28, 2012, 04:34:44 PM
Greece uses the same shields as Germany for their motorways.

Israel comes very close to the German number shield in their appearance:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1289.0

Rick

Iraq also has the German route shields.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2012, 04:14:56 PMI don't know if I agree with you on that.  I have never seen a hexagonal German autobahn shield used anywhere outside of Germany.  in fact, I don't remember ever seeing one in an advertisement in Germany - as opposed to the US style of "66 Motel".

I've seen a perfect '61 spec interstate shield used on a billboard in Sweden.  I couldn't quite catch the details, but the route "number" was "USA", and the company appeared to be someone importing various American brands of consumer goods. 

The iconicity of number shields is not decided in advertising. Unlike others the German motorway number shield is well known among motorists in Europe and it is unique. And that makes it iconic.

Quote from: deanej on October 22, 2010, 09:39:46 AM
However, I will say that cardinal directions are superior to control cities for one reason: less sign clutter.  European signs tend to be jammed with way too much information.

I have a different reasoning for the same conclusion: cardinal directions are of a far greater assistance to navigation than control cities. Saying you are going towards X city tells you nothing about which direction you are headed in without context. You could be headed in completely the opposite direction of what you think if you are mistaken about which side of said city you are on. And even that requires that you have heard of the city in question and have a concept of where on the map it is.

Of course, control cities can absolutely be helpful and I wouldn't ditch them. I like the North American way of using both. The two together are often more useful than either individually, it allows you to mentally check one against the other for greater understanding of where you are and which way you need to go.

Quote from: Duke87 on August 29, 2012, 08:55:17 PM
I have a different reasoning for the same conclusion: cardinal directions are of a far greater assistance to navigation than control cities. Saying you are going towards X city tells you nothing about which direction you are headed in without context. You could be headed in completely the opposite direction of what you think if you are mistaken about which side of said city you are on. And even that requires that you have heard of the city in question and have a concept of where on the map it is.

People want to go to places and not in a certain direction. Hence it is irrelevant which direction it really is.

On the other hand, navigating based on directional signs that reveal barely more than cardinal directions relies much more on context. If you don't know where you are in such an environment you're lost. A control destination based signage system, however, picks you up at every junction.

Quote from: firefly on August 30, 2012, 03:01:44 PM
People want to go to places and not in a certain direction. Hence it is irrelevant which direction it really is.

On the other hand, navigating based on directional signs that reveal barely more than cardinal directions relies much more on context. If you don't know where you are in such an environment you're lost. A control destination based signage system, however, picks you up at every junction.

I disagree.  let's say I am in Kansas, and want to head to Denver.  I come upon a junction and it is overcast, so I cannot tell west by the Sun.  I have been driving around random county roads all day; I cannot tell west by which direction I am currently going in, as I have no idea.

the guide sign at the T-junction says "Stockton" and "Hill City".

where do I go?

that was a real life example: K-18 northbound at US-24.  correct answer is probably "take I-70 you dumb fool" but that's not at all appealing.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 04:29:39 PM
the guide sign at the T-junction says "Stockton" and "Hill City".

where do I go?

A destination based system would give you more information. It would guide you towards a nearby road of higher rank. This would be the I-70 in this case.

A directional sign would rather look something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frippachtal.de%2Fmisc%2Fmiddleofkansas.jpg&hash=d037028f7d3cdafa36f3cc02ce80bd961fe7e097)

Quote from: firefly on August 30, 2012, 08:25:43 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 04:29:39 PM
the guide sign at the T-junction says "Stockton" and "Hill City".

where do I go?

A destination based system would give you more information. It would guide you towards a nearby road of higher rank. This would be the I-70 in this case.

A directional sign would rather look something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frippachtal.de%2Fmisc%2Fmiddleofkansas.jpg&hash=d037028f7d3cdafa36f3cc02ce80bd961fe7e097)

His point is that he wants to follow US 24 rather than I-70, but can't remember which way is west. Your sign would get him to I-70, but says nothing about which direction on US 24 goes towards Denver.

To the (continental) European, such a thought process is so alien that they really struggle to think that anyone would think that way - hence the wondering what the point is.

Quote from: english si on August 30, 2012, 09:54:08 PM
To the (continental) European, such a thought process is so alien that they really struggle to think that anyone would think that way - hence the wondering what the point is.

continental Europeans never shunpike or take old alignments?

Quote from: firefly on August 30, 2012, 08:25:43 PMA destination based system would give you more information. It would guide you towards a nearby road of higher rank. This would be the I-70 in this case.

A directional sign would rather look something like this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frippachtal.de%2Fmisc%2Fmiddleofkansas.jpg&hash=d037028f7d3cdafa36f3cc02ce80bd961fe7e097)

This particular example is pretty obviously designed to RWB criteria.  Is it the norm in Germany to provide signing to a road of higher rank when that road is more than 70 miles away (the distance between the US 24/K-18 junction and I-70 at Colby)?  Also, why does the example sign show Kansas City as a destination for "Autobahn I-70" when a Kansas City-bound driver going to Colby to connect with I-70 would be driving almost 150 miles out of his way?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 10:01:48 PMcontinental Europeans never shunpike or take old alignments?

No, continental Europeans never give a flying fuck whether they are heading East, West, North or South - they just care about some often remote control destination (the number of times I've been navigating my parents through French countryside and came to junctions where Paris or some large regional town was signed, and then a load of villages that were only on my map as I had a high-zoom Michelin map - like 200 population. The number was often the same too, or missing from the sign. I had to navigate from "I am here, heading that way, we want to go left". Typically the large towns worked as they do in the UK, but it wasn't rare that I got the same one in both directions.) OK, France isn't Germany, which would be a bit more organised, but the French system must clearly work for the French and these roads probably see only a handful of British drivers each summer - why cater for them?

They don't tend to navigate by number or nearer major destination either - firefly and I have debated the British system elsewhere, which uses a combination of number and nearby destinations and 'regional destinations' which are somewhat like cardinal destinations. Firefly got lost because his map didn't show Heathrow Airport big enough, and approaching here (http://goo.gl/maps/A37fe), he wanted Bristol to be shown, as that is what he is used to - not (very major) airports and bridges on/near the M25 belt and cardinal directions of W and N to help you. If you want the West of the country, go clockwise, and for the North go anti-clockwise, but they aren't that big or bold. Dartford Crossing, Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport should be on the map in green highlight, and Heathrow and Gatwick are normally accompanied by (M4) and (M23) respectively - motorway numbers form quite a bit of navigation on the M25. The sign there is pretty awful, but Bristol is useless for most drivers there - who are British, not going on the M4 when they turn off the M25, and know where the airports roughly are, or have a map showing them clearly where they are.

And it's like a "you say pavement, I say tarmac, he says Pflaster; you say sidewalk, I say pavement, he says Bürgersteig; you say freeway, I say motorway, he says autobahn" - neither US or UK English or German (these are probably wrong - Google translate as school didn't teach me road features) is better - they are simply different. Let's call the whole thing off.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
His point is that he wants to follow US 24 rather than I-70, but can't remember which way is west. Your sign would get him to I-70, but says nothing about which direction on US 24 goes towards Denver.

Heading west is no purpose neither is west a destination. And that's why it is not signed. The aim is to go to Denver. And the sign points there.
If he wants to stay on KS-24, then he can follow the route number.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 30, 2012, 10:07:28 PM
This particular example is pretty obviously designed to RWB criteria.  Is it the norm in Germany to provide signing to a road of higher rank when that road is more than 70 miles away (the distance between the US 24/K-18 junction and I-70 at Colby)?  Also, why does the example sign show Kansas City as a destination for "Autobahn I-70" when a Kansas City-bound driver going to Colby to connect with I-70 would be driving almost 150 miles out of his way?

You misinterpret this sign. The motorway panel don't guide you to Colby but to junction 128 of the I-70 which is approx. 35 km away. This is still a long distance. But in absence of any relevant place in between a motorway or Interstate highway would certainly be signposted.

Quote from: firefly on August 31, 2012, 08:31:10 AMYou misinterpret this sign. The motorway panel doesn't guide you to Colby but to junction 128 of the I-70 which is approx. 35 km away. This is still a long distance. But in absence of any relevant place in between a motorway or Interstate highway would certainly be signposted.

Thank you for the clarification.

I would make a few observations:

The RWB-style sign attempts to do work which in the US would ordinarily be left to road maps.  This sign could be posted on any side road off US 24 on either side of Hill City (US 283 intersection), and tells the driver the way to the nearest Interstate.  The signs that would actually be used would tell the driver, at most, the number of the intersecting route, the directions of travel on that route which correspond to one or more of the four cardinal directions, and (in Kansas, where special state standards apply) the next county seat or large town.  The direction to the nearest Interstate would not normally be given unless it were the straight-ahead destination on one route or would become the straight-ahead destination if one turned at an intersection of state highways.  (Kansas allows signposting of major routes but assigns them priority lower than county seats and towns with populations greater than 1000.)

Route and cardinal direction information would appear on one assembly, while control point information would appear on a separate assembly.  The information that is presented is therefore not only more parsimonious, but also broken into separate morsels.

In the US design criteria for message load are quite strict, because the basic principle used since the early 1940's has required that drivers of ordinary intelligence and visual acuity be able to read the entirety of every sign twice in the time that it is visible to traffic.  On D-series signs (conventional-road direction signs), this means that destinations are limited to three, exceptionally four, per sign, as opposed to an upper limit of six in Britain and similarly high limits in other European countries.  The RWB-style sign has not just four city destinations (Colby, Beloit, Denver, Kansas City), but also two routes (24, 70), so it would not be accepted as ordinary provision under current MUTCD design criteria.  It would need to be specially justified.

Finally, the use of Denver and Kansas City on the blue I-70 patch requires drivers to understand that each is being offered as a major city in one direction on I-70, and that the sign is not necessarily suggesting I-70 is part of the best route either to Denver or to Kansas City from the sign's location.  In fact, using I-70 for Denver and Kansas City from points on the US 24 corridor in western Kansas would involve measurable amounts of out-of-the-way travel.  From Hill City, using I-70 adds 35 miles to a journey to Denver and 5 miles to a journey to Kansas City.  (I-70 is actually the more logical route for Kansas City because US 24 passes through several small cities such as Manhattan and Topeka without full access control, so travel time is shorter overall on I-70.)  This is a distinction German drivers would be used to and would readily understand, but US drivers would not unless they received training in RWB design criteria or full immersion in an area where the RWB approach is used.

Quote from: english si on August 31, 2012, 07:37:51 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 10:01:48 PMcontinental Europeans never shunpike or take old alignments?

No, continental Europeans never give a flying fuck whether they are heading East, West, North or South - they just care about some often remote control destination (the number of times I've been navigating my parents through French countryside and came to junctions where Paris or some large regional town was signed, and then a load of villages that were only on my map as I had a high-zoom Michelin map - like 200 population.

Si, I agree regarding compass directions.  Only rarely have I seen a direction posted in the Nordic countries, with one set of exceptions.  For some reason, Finland nearly always posts directions (eastbound/westbound) on the Helsingfors/Helsinki orbital highways (Ring I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_I) (Highway 101) and Ring III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_III) (Highway 50/E18).

come to think of it, if I could do 240km/h on "the I-70 Autobahn", I'd go 35km out of my way to do so!  :sombrero:

maybe the Germans do have it right...

Quote from: firefly on August 31, 2012, 08:31:10 AM
Heading west is no purpose neither is west a destination.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaryalicea.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Fot.jpeg&hash=d2f2d548e899abb94fa88f73f9f7f0c6f7dea894)

Quote from: firefly on August 31, 2012, 08:31:10 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
His point is that he wants to follow US 24 rather than I-70, but can't remember which way is west. Your sign would get him to I-70, but says nothing about which direction on US 24 goes towards Denver.

Heading west is no purpose neither is west a destination. And that's why it is not signed. The aim is to go to Denver. And the sign points there.
If he wants to stay on KS-24, then he can follow the route number.

He doesn't want to *stay on* *US* 24; he's on a road that intersects US 24 and wants to know which way is west.

Quote from: NE2 on August 31, 2012, 02:38:58 PM
He doesn't want to *stay on* *US* 24; he's on a road that intersects US 24 and wants to know which way is west.

I want to *get on* US 24.

and for those that say 'get a compass' - imagine if it were a junction with a physically north-south road which goes logically east-west.  a lot of routes do this in the Midwest, to jog along section lines.

unless you're a land surveyor from ~100 years ago, it's a pretty arbitrary system - you cannot tell readily whether logical west is physical north, or physical south.

Quote from: firefly on August 31, 2012, 08:31:10 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
His point is that he wants to follow US 24 rather than I-70, but can't remember which way is west. Your sign would get him to I-70, but says nothing about which direction on US 24 goes towards Denver.

Heading west is no purpose neither is west a destination. And that's why it is not signed. The aim is to go to Denver. And the sign points there.
If he wants to stay on KS [US - sic] -24, then he can follow the route number.

"West" is a direction, and the direction he wants to go.  It serves a major purpose.  You (as in Europeans) often seem to forget that west of the Mississippi River, motorway/autobahn-type routes are much further and fewer in between.  In many cases when one is tens, even hundreds of miles from an interstate, one two-lane is just as good as another two-lane.  They're parallel, and to get to your destination, you need to head a certain direction.

At the point where you are, US-24 and US-283, I-70 is 26 miles to the south, about a half-hour away.  Most US (and Canadian for that matter) drivers will go tangential until they are closer to the interstate instead of heading directly for the interstate first, especially in the West where interstates are farther and fewer in between.  They worry less about which destination than which direction they are going.  The direction will get them to their eventual destination which may be a couple thousand miles away.

This is a fascinating discussion, but there's one thing I really want to point out - on many US roads there are SO MANY destinations that can be accessed from that road that signing the destination rather than the direction is not really possible.

For example, say I'm getting on I-95 in Westchester County, NY (just outside NYC). If I got on northbound, I could be heading to Portland or Portsmouth or Boston or Providence or New London or New Haven, all by staying on I-95, and all within 6 hours of driving. Other destinations of note that I could be headed for include Cape Cod, Fall River, or New Bedford (via I-195), Plymouth (via US 44), Hartford or Springfield (via I-91), Worcester (via I-395), or any of dozens of other sizable cities in New England. But to get to ALL of these places I know that when I get on I-95 I need to head north. If the signage lacked the direction north, I would instead need to know that I need to head toward New Haven, then pick a new destination there. But if I'm a tourist who is completely unfamiliar with relatively minor Connecticut cities (like New Haven), headed from a NYC airport up to Boston, I will know that Boston is north[east] of New York, but probably not where New Haven is or where to go from there.

In short, there are too many intermediate destinations for you to follow your destination the whole way even for day trip distances. You need to know intermediate destinations. Whereas with cardinal directions you can follow that the whole way.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 11:08:08 AMThis is a fascinating discussion, but there's one thing I really want to point out - on many US roads there are SO MANY destinations that can be accessed from that road that signing the destination rather than the direction is not really possible.
<snip example>
In short, there are too many intermediate destinations for you to follow your destination the whole way even for day trip distances. You need to know intermediate destinations. Whereas with cardinal directions you can follow that the whole way.

Ah, but the continental Europeans (and Irish, and somewhat the Scots) sign destinations that are a long way away. The British halfway house of having things like this where you have some small (though primary destinations, which stand out on better maps) places nearby and most of the country signed as "The SOUTH", rather than fighting over which big city to sign (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=20910060#post20910060) spooks continentals.

As a bonus, Firefly says on page 20 "The example you came up with is great. It got it all in once the flaws of the British road signage. As already mentioned it is mainly based on road numbers. And that's the reason why this sign is utter crap." Therein lies the rub - we think differently - imposing some US-style system of navigation on Germany, or English & Welsh (Scotland and NI are different) or vice versa (German in the UK, UK on the USA, etc, etc) is silliness. It's like forcing lefties to write with their right hand.

Quote from: firefly on August 27, 2012, 03:56:38 PM
Most European countries use a colour code to distinguish different types of roads. That makes the use of flamboyant shields dispensable.

Finland has a nice assortment of colors (this could almost go in the "Sine Salad" thread):

International arterial highway, or "E" route (always multiplexed with a national highway route in Finland, example below): 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FE12Finland.jpg&hash=7f23794ae054cb779c538c3fe47a09dfbb5d9300)

National highways:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F2Finland.jpg&hash=94d6805d9517d3f0ac113c8183d968b21a8b6e6e)

Highway 7/E18 (most of E18 is being upgraded to motorway standard (much of it already is), and when that happens, the blue background becomes green):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F7E18Kotka.jpg&hash=ed85462966d0c9d01f30a06bea0eb3972f09d5bb)

Regional highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F42Finland.jpg&hash=553c222642f79e60ea7a78e09fed5ee3e318758e)

Local (secondary) highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F522Finland.jpg&hash=9875e473e23323806329046df59e9cde5ac9bc7c)

"Other" local (secondary) highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F3622Finland.jpg&hash=953fe020914543b2d518bcfaa469e605d05b2032)

Quote from: english si on September 01, 2012, 01:06:38 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 11:08:08 AMThis is a fascinating discussion, but there's one thing I really want to point out - on many US roads there are SO MANY destinations that can be accessed from that road that signing the destination rather than the direction is not really possible.
<snip example>
In short, there are too many intermediate destinations for you to follow your destination the whole way even for day trip distances. You need to know intermediate destinations. Whereas with cardinal directions you can follow that the whole way.

Ah, but the continental Europeans (and Irish, and somewhat the Scots) sign destinations that are a long way away. The British halfway house of having things like this where you have some small (though primary destinations, which stand out on better maps) places nearby and most of the country signed as "The SOUTH", rather than fighting over which big city to sign (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=20910060#post20910060) spooks continentals.

Which helps my point. If you're going to consistently use "The SOUTH", "The EAST", etc. as a destination, why not just include the cardinal directions all the time.

I feel like it would be easier to have signs say "M6 SOUTH" rather than just list "the South" as if it were a destination.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 03:31:23 PMWhich helps my point. If you're going to consistently use "The SOUTH", "The EAST", etc. as a destination, why not just include the cardinal directions all the time.

1)Because we neither have the road geography that provides each road with a simple pair of opposite cardinal directions - a few more could be done N-E or something - but most can't - trust me.
2)Because that's not how we work - numbers and destinations - the Regional Destinations are mostly for the Trunk road network - there's times where the cardinal direction (or The MIDLANDS, or the four secondary compass point - though London replaces the south east, or NORTH WALES, MID WALES and SOUTH WALES, or SCOTLAND) work better than giving a few cities, but not every time - or we'd use them more often.
3)We don't long distance traffic not on the long-distance network.
4)We want The WEST or The NORTH, or whatever on a beltway, as a destination, when it's not the direction.
5)We have nowhere to put it on signs - we fairly frequently have some direction indicator other than destination, but proper directions don't really fit.
6)It'll look ugly without a radical overhaul of the UK sign system.

QuoteI feel like it would be easier to have signs say "M6 SOUTH" rather than just list "the South" as if it were a destination.

Given that there's nowhere to put a direction, listing it as a destination works well. And it is a destination - more than just a direction - signs to The SOUTH dry up when you are there.

As I've alluded to, not everything that works in America works everywhere else. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Quote from: english si on September 01, 2012, 04:20:37 PM
4)We want The WEST or The NORTH, or whatever on a beltway, as a destination, when it's not the direction.

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland070/i-070_eb_exit_091_09.jpg)

Err, that picture says nothing - NORTH 695 TO NORTH 95 - not what I was talking about with different directions.

http://goo.gl/maps/eyz4i <- this is more the kind of thing I was thinking about - OK, this is an E-W road, forming the northern section of the mostly unbuilt Belfast Ring Road, but The NORTH, The SOUTH and The WEST are on the sign in that direction. And having "M3 (W): (A12, M1 (W), A1(S)), (M2 (N)), Docks" looks silly. We could overhaul our entire signage system to do it like the USA "M3 WEST to M1 SOUTH WEST, M2 NORTH", but that is a waste of time and a lot of money to make some minor niggle about us using compass points as destinations rather just than as directions.

Also would piss off the European drivers (that are way way more common than American drivers), who want destinations as numbers are meaningless to them (which is also rather the case there in Northern Ireland anyway) - they find it bad enough that on this sign "Dublin" becomes a more vague "The SOUTH" (possibly to include Newcastle and Downpatrick, certainly to include Newry - and Cork, etc), that "Carrickfergus, Londonderry, Coleraine, Larne" is shortened to "The NORTH", and that a vague "The WEST" is given instead of one of many destinations down the M1 past Craigavon.

As I've said - more than one way to skin a cat. The American way works, the German way works, our hybrid between the two works - as it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quote from: english si on September 01, 2012, 05:59:13 PM
Err, that picture says nothing - NORTH 695 TO NORTH 95 - not what I was talking about with different directions.

It could just as easily be EAST 695 TO NORTH 95.

Quote from: english si on September 01, 2012, 04:20:37 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 03:31:23 PMWhich helps my point. If you're going to consistently use "The SOUTH", "The EAST", etc. as a destination, why not just include the cardinal directions all the time.

1)Because we neither have the road geography that provides each road with a simple pair of opposite cardinal directions - a few more could be done N-E or something - but most can't - trust me.
2)Because that's not how we work - numbers and destinations - the Regional Destinations are mostly for the Trunk road network - there's times where the cardinal direction (or The MIDLANDS, or the four secondary compass point - though London replaces the south east, or NORTH WALES, MID WALES and SOUTH WALES, or SCOTLAND) work better than giving a few cities, but not every time - or we'd use them more often.
3)We don't long distance traffic not on the long-distance network.
4)We want The WEST or The NORTH, or whatever on a beltway, as a destination, when it's not the direction.
5)We have nowhere to put it on signs - we fairly frequently have some direction indicator other than destination, but proper directions don't really fit.
6)It'll look ugly without a radical overhaul of the UK sign system.

QuoteI feel like it would be easier to have signs say "M6 SOUTH" rather than just list "the South" as if it were a destination.

Given that there's nowhere to put a direction, listing it as a destination works well. And it is a destination - more than just a direction - signs to The SOUTH dry up when you are there.

As I've alluded to, not everything that works in America works everywhere else. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I never once said that you guys were doing it the 'wrong way'. Though using the argument "that's how we do it" to justify something is NOT good enough. I don't understand why people from other parts of the world aren't allowed to question the European system at all. I do not think it's wrong, and I never said it was wrong. I merely presented a flaw with the system, yet here you are attacking me because "not everything that works in America works everywhere else".

Also, you certainly do have room to put it on signs though. 4 (or 5) letters do not take up that much space. It would easily and attractively fit right next to the "M5" on that sign you used as an example.

---

And NE2 is right, the method depicted on that sign from I-70 in Baltimore does indicate which directions can be accessed from it. "I-695 EAST TO I-95 NORTH" means the same thing as "695 to The North".

Finally:

Quote from: english si on September 01, 2012, 05:59:13 PM
As I've said - more than one way to skin a cat. The American way works, the German way works, our hybrid between the two works - as it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm not saying that it's broke[n] and needs to be fixed, but surely you must recognize that all systems have their flaws, and the British system's flaw was pointed out previously. I just think that people shouldn't be attacked for pointing that out.

I can't understand how someone could navigate without using route numbers and directions, so Europeans signage is always impossible for me to decipher.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 06:46:55 PMThough using the argument "that's how we do it" to justify something is NOT good enough.

I gave several reasons, you ignore them - it's actually more the American system that's been justified as "that's how we do it", though of course, it's the status quo for most people here.

QuoteAlso, you certainly do have room to put it on signs though. 4 (or 5) letters do not take up that much space. It would easily and attractively fit right next to the "M5" on that sign you used as an example.

Not really - especially not without undermining the central location of the route number - which is more important than the direction you are going. You've not given a reason why Brits should sign directions like the Americans other than "that's how we do it, here in America" - you've already said that "that's how we do it" is a poor argument, yet that is pretty much your argument here.

QuoteI'm not saying that it's broke[n] and needs to be fixed, but surely you must recognize that all systems have their flaws, and the British system's flaw was pointed out previously. I just think that people shouldn't be attacked for pointing that out.

You are saying it's broken - you want a radical overhaul from destinations to directions. I'm saying that that would break it more - that it's not a flaw, but an idiosyncratic feature of our road network and road history. You were the first to bring up this 'flaw' with the British system (other than my discussion of previous discussion with continental Europeans, when he had the opposite problem - that we use 'South' etc too much) - others brung up flaws with the American system (and got attacked for it) or the Continental system - the British system is different (though perhaps you made the Canada is the same as the USA type-fallacy?)

If there is a flaw in the British system, it's more that we don't cater well enough for the European travellers, not that we don't confuse the majority of visitors even more by using a system that is totally incomprehensible to them to please a handful of Americans who drive here - after all "People want to go to places and not in a certain direction. Hence it is irrelevant which direction it really is." and "it is mainly based on road numbers. And that's the reason why this sign is utter crap."

Quote from: NE2 on September 01, 2012, 06:23:52 PMIt could just as easily be EAST 695 TO NORTH 95.

Yes that was obvious, but you gave a bad example, so I wasn't sure if you had gotten what I was saying. Still a very large sign and confusing to continentals, therefore totally unsuitable for the UK.

Quote from: deanej on September 01, 2012, 07:29:18 PMI can't understand how someone could navigate without using route numbers and directions, so Europeans signage is always impossible for me to decipher.

And Firefly has the opposite problem, which is why debates over the better system are silly and why people from a different system don't understand how the system works. This leads to 'improvements' being suggested which are basically "follow my system" - like this idea that regional destinations in the UK should be cardinal directions (USA 'improvements') or scrapped and replaced with some arbitrarily chosen control destination that's fairly large and quite a way along the road if not all the way (European 'improvements').

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 01, 2012, 03:28:07 PM

Quote from: firefly on August 27, 2012, 03:56:38 PM
Most European countries use a colour code to distinguish different types of roads. That makes the use of flamboyant shields dispensable.

Finland has a nice assortment of colors (this could almost go in the "Sine Salad" thread):

International arterial highway, or "E" route (always multiplexed with a national highway route in Finland, example below): 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FE12Finland.jpg&hash=7f23794ae054cb779c538c3fe47a09dfbb5d9300)

National highways:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F2Finland.jpg&hash=94d6805d9517d3f0ac113c8183d968b21a8b6e6e)

Highway 7/E18 (most of E18 is being upgraded to motorway standard (much of it already is), and when that happens, the blue background becomes green):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F7E18Kotka.jpg&hash=ed85462966d0c9d01f30a06bea0eb3972f09d5bb)

Regional highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F42Finland.jpg&hash=553c222642f79e60ea7a78e09fed5ee3e318758e)

Local (secondary) highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F522Finland.jpg&hash=9875e473e23323806329046df59e9cde5ac9bc7c)

"Other" local (secondary) highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F3622Finland.jpg&hash=953fe020914543b2d518bcfaa469e605d05b2032)

These work fine, unless, of course, you're colorblind.  Is there someone here who is either completely colorblind or red-green colorblind to tell us what they see?

english si, I have given several reasons. As I keep saying, "that's how we do it" is never an acceptable reason, and as you'll see if you could get past the fact that I'm an American for long enough to read my post, I never once used that as a reason.

I gave you scenarios in which having the direction would be helpful, and situations in which you cannot easily navigate by destination alone. You merely ignored those parts of my posts and attacked me for questioning the European system. You never, ever reply to the parts of my post that present any reasoning or example. You merely complain over and over again about how I want to destroy the sanctity of British roads.

I also never said you guys were doing it wrong and needed to change. And I was certainly not the FIRST to question this. I never even replied to this thread until the bottom of the second page! I don't understand where this tremendous amount of animosity and accusations are coming from!

I am not telling Europe to do it the American way, and I think before you reply to this thread again you need to re-read it, so you can stop accusing me of things I have not done and consider maybe using a little logic in the discussion, as well as consider and respond to the logic we have presented, rather than just attacking people for questioning anything.

Oh and,

Quote(though perhaps you made the Canada is the same as the USA type-fallacy?)

what the hell are you talking about?

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 11:08:08 AMFor example, say I'm getting on I-95 in Westchester County, NY (just outside NYC). If I got on northbound, I could be heading to Portland or Portsmouth or Boston or Providence or New London or New Haven, all by staying on I-95, and all within 6 hours of driving. Other destinations of note that I could be headed for include Cape Cod, Fall River, or New Bedford (via I-195), Plymouth (via US 44), Hartford or Springfield (via I-91), Worcester (via I-395), or any of dozens of other sizable cities in New England. But to get to ALL of these places I know that when I get on I-95 I need to head north. If the signage lacked the direction north, I would instead need to know that I need to head toward New Haven, then pick a new destination there. But if I'm a tourist who is completely unfamiliar with relatively minor Connecticut cities (like New Haven), headed from a NYC airport up to Boston, I will know that Boston is north[east] of New York, but probably not where New Haven is or where to go from there.

Destinations are categorised by their prominence which reflects their size and their importance as a traffic hub. In this case it isn't particularly difficult to determine Boston as the prime destination on the I-95 which ought to be signposted from the junction with I-78 on.
Additional to the prime destination there can also be intermediate destinations with less but still significant prominence. These secondary destinations are not signposted before the preceding secondary destinations has made way. So that the number of destinations never exceed 4 per direction.

The first junction after leaving NYC could look like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frippachtal.de%2Fmisc%2F1-SouthernNewRochelle.jpg&hash=dad08730452e056b210c639676bd00f2561de560)
If you wonder what Central New Rochelle is. That is the name I picked for the following junction.

I admit that my quick survey of the geography in southern New England might not be too profound. And the pick of some destinations at the expense of others is debatable.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 11:08:08 AMIn short, there are too many intermediate destinations for you to follow your destination the whole way even for day trip distances. You need to know intermediate destinations. Whereas with cardinal directions you can follow that the whole way.

One follows one prime destination for a long distance in most cases. The changing intermediate destinations can then be ignored.

Looking at that Google Maps link that was posted...The NORTH, The WEST, The SOUTH... so the M3 will take me anywhere as long as it's not in the east? Neat.

I'm glad that we don't have this convention in the US... I-85 and I-95 will both certainly take you to "The SOUTH", but they go to very different places.

Quote from: Brandon on September 01, 2012, 08:14:32 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 01, 2012, 03:28:07 PM

Quote from: firefly on August 27, 2012, 03:56:38 PM
Most European countries use a colour code to distinguish different types of roads. That makes the use of flamboyant shields dispensable.

Finland has a nice assortment of colors (this could almost go in the "Sine Salad" thread):

International arterial highway, or "E" route (always multiplexed with a national highway route in Finland, example below): 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FE12Finland.jpg&hash=7f23794ae054cb779c538c3fe47a09dfbb5d9300)

National highways:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F2Finland.jpg&hash=94d6805d9517d3f0ac113c8183d968b21a8b6e6e)

Highway 7/E18 (most of E18 is being upgraded to motorway standard (much of it already is), and when that happens, the blue background becomes green):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F7E18Kotka.jpg&hash=ed85462966d0c9d01f30a06bea0eb3972f09d5bb)

Regional highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F42Finland.jpg&hash=553c222642f79e60ea7a78e09fed5ee3e318758e)

Local (secondary) highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F522Finland.jpg&hash=9875e473e23323806329046df59e9cde5ac9bc7c)

"Other" local (secondary) highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F3622Finland.jpg&hash=953fe020914543b2d518bcfaa469e605d05b2032)

These work fine, unless, of course, you're colorblind.  Is there someone here who is either completely colorblind or red-green colorblind to tell us what they see?

Ah yes, I see Green, Red, Purple, Green, White, Purple. Dunno if those are the right colors...

Quote from: mcdonaat on September 02, 2012, 07:29:45 PM

Quote from: Brandon on September 01, 2012, 08:14:32 PM
These work fine, unless, of course, you're colorblind.  Is there someone here who is either completely colorblind or red-green colorblind to tell us what they see?

Ah yes, I see Green, Red, Purple, Green, White, Purple. Dunno if those are the right colors...

Thanks, mcdonaat.

They're green, red, blue (with red and green), yellow, white, and blue.  However, it makes my point about these being a poor signage choice for the colorblind.  If the green sign and the yellow sign are the same number, and put next to each other, it is impossible for someone such as macdonaat to tell the difference between the route.  This is where shields are far superior to differing colors.

Quote from: firefly on September 02, 2012, 07:25:11 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 11:08:08 AMFor example, say I'm getting on I-95 in Westchester County, NY (just outside NYC). If I got on northbound, I could be heading to Portland or Portsmouth or Boston or Providence or New London or New Haven, all by staying on I-95, and all within 6 hours of driving. Other destinations of note that I could be headed for include Cape Cod, Fall River, or New Bedford (via I-195), Plymouth (via US 44), Hartford or Springfield (via I-91), Worcester (via I-395), or any of dozens of other sizable cities in New England. But to get to ALL of these places I know that when I get on I-95 I need to head north. If the signage lacked the direction north, I would instead need to know that I need to head toward New Haven, then pick a new destination there. But if I'm a tourist who is completely unfamiliar with relatively minor Connecticut cities (like New Haven), headed from a NYC airport up to Boston, I will know that Boston is north[east] of New York, but probably not where New Haven is or where to go from there.

Destinations are categorised by their prominence which reflects their size and their importance as a traffic hub. In this case it isn't particularly difficult to determine Boston as the prime destination on the I-95 which ought to be signposted from the junction with I-78 on.
Additional to the prime destination there can also be intermediate destinations with less but still significant prominence. These secondary destinations are not signposted before the preceding secondary destinations has made way. So that the number of destinations never exceed 4 per direction.

The first junction after leaving NYC could look like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frippachtal.de%2Fmisc%2F1-SouthernNewRochelle.jpg&hash=dad08730452e056b210c639676bd00f2561de560)
If you wonder what Central New Rochelle is. That is the name I picked for the following junction.

I admit that my quick survey of the geography in southern New England might not be too profound. And the pick of some destinations at the expense of others is debatable.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 01, 2012, 11:08:08 AMIn short, there are too many intermediate destinations for you to follow your destination the whole way even for day trip distances. You need to know intermediate destinations. Whereas with cardinal directions you can follow that the whole way.

One follows one prime destination for a long distance in most cases. The changing intermediate destinations can then be ignored.

This is actually not all that different than what is done on the freeways in the US. You have a "control city", which is supposed to be the 'prime destination'. Unfortunately it can break down sometimes since each state is more or less free to select whatever city it feels is appropriate. Oklahoma does a good job by showing the north-south destinations from Oklahoma City as Wichita and Dallas, but some states can be pretty bad at it, like Pennsylvania and Colorado (raise your hand if you've heard of Limon!) In the case of I-95 as shown here, I believe the next city shown north of NYC is New Haven, then Hartford, then Providence, then Boston.

Interchanges normally usually don't have "names" here...once you enter a city, like New Rochelle, you see a sign that says "New Rochelle: Next 2 Exits" and then it's not shown anymore. However, large cities sometimes do sometimes include the city centre/downtown area as a destination.

Quote from: mcdonaat on September 02, 2012, 07:29:45 PM

Quote from: Brandon on September 01, 2012, 08:14:32 PM
These work fine, unless, of course, you're colorblind.  Is there someone here who is either completely colorblind or red-green colorblind to tell us what they see?

Ah yes, I see Green, Red, Purple, Green, White, Purple. Dunno if those are the right colors...

The background of the 7/E18 and 3622 are blue. The 42 is yellow.

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2012, 07:26:18 PM
Looking at that Google Maps link that was posted...The NORTH, The WEST, The SOUTH... so the M3 will take me anywhere as long as it's not in the east? Neat.

I'm glad that we don't have this convention in the US... I-85 and I-95 will both certainly take you to "The SOUTH", but they go to very different places.

Keep in mind that the total land area of Great Britain is smaller than many US states. A better example would be if California signed regions like "The South", "The Desert", "The Central Valley" which would work just fine.

People like to compare European countries to US states, but the size difference isn't that extreme.  The only state (other than Alaska) that approaches the size of countries like France or Germany is Texas.

Control cities in the United States appear to be somewhat different from Europe. In Germany and France, you can navigate the entire country via just 3 to 4 control cities. For instance, on I-70 eastbound at Denver, Kansas City would've been the control city if it was in Europe. Places like Limon or Hays would not be control cities in Europe, at least not primary control cities.

Also note that in countries like Germany, UK, France, Spain or Italy the freeway network is much denser than even most of eastern United States. If there's more than 60 - 80 miles between parallel freeways, it's huge. The population density is higher, there are more medium/large cities and more importantly, not all countries operate a grid-like freeway network, making cardinal directions less useful than they are in the U.S.

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2012, 07:35:42 PMIn the case of I-95 as shown here, I believe the next city shown north of NYC is New Haven, then Hartford, then Providence, then Boston.

Actually, it's New Haven (or, on recent NYSDOT signage, "New Haven CT"), New London, Providence, then Boston. Hartford would be a significant destination from this point, but it is not along I-95. In the US, control cities not directly along the highway in question are usually not used unless said highway ends before you get there or there is no prominent control point along said highway within reasonable distance.

QuoteInterchanges normally usually don't have "names" here...once you enter a city, like New Rochelle, you see a sign that says "New Rochelle: Next 2 Exits" and then it's not shown anymore. However, large cities sometimes do sometimes include the city centre/downtown area as a destination.

Indeed. I also note that the mockup here lacks an exit number (should be 15) - exit numbers are very prominent in freeway navigation in the US and you change the game a lot if you start omitting them. "Exit 16" is more meaningful to your average motorist on I-95 than "Central New Rochelle" (which, by the way, could also be a destination from exit 15)

Quote from: Brandon on September 01, 2012, 08:14:32 PM
These work fine, unless, of course, you're colorblind.  Is there someone here who is either completely colorblind or red-green colorblind to tell us what they see?

A few things:

• Finland generally does not repeat route numbers;
• European route numbers always have an "E" prefix (as in many other EU nations) and are always green;
• National highways are always numbered 1 to 29 (and use red, which does not usually get mixed up with blue and green);
• Regional highways are always numbered 40 to 99;
• Secondary highways are numbered 100 to 999; and
• "Other" or municipal highways are numbed 1,000 and above.

Quote from: Duke87 on September 03, 2012, 05:42:10 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2012, 07:35:42 PMIn the case of I-95 as shown here, I believe the next city shown north of NYC is New Haven, then Hartford, then Providence, then Boston.

Actually, it's New Haven (or, on recent NYSDOT signage, "New Haven CT"), New London, Providence, then Boston. Hartford would be a significant destination from this point, but it is not along I-95. In the US, control cities not directly along the highway in question are usually not used unless said highway ends before you get there or there is no prominent control point along said highway within reasonable distance.

Blargh. My Connecticut geography is extremely hazy.

European style seems to imply you ONLY take the freeway between major points, and your basis of travel is getting to that freeway as quickly as possible.

If I'm driving from Tucson AZ to Cincinnati OH, this is how I do it in the US:

I-10 East
I-20 East
I-30 East (probably taking the I-635 east of Dallas to bypass the city)
I-440 East (bypassing southeast Little Rock)
I-40 East (I'll assume I'm just sticking to an interstate instead of the KY parkway route)
I-65 North
I-71 North

Now, if we used European Style:

I-10 El Paso/Houston
I-10 San Antonio/Houston
I-20 Midland/Dallas
1-30 Texarkana/Little Rock
I-40 Memphis/Nashville
I-40 Nashville/Raleigh NC
I-65 Bowling Green/Chicago
I-65 Louisville/Chicago
I-71 Cincinnati/Cleveland

So, if I just feel like writing down instructions, I either better have a good memory of which cities I'm looking for, because if I get lost in Dallas and wind up east of Dallas and suddenly see: I-20 Shreveport/Birmingham,... I'd be stumped. I wouldn't even know if the road was going north, east, south, etc.

Of course, in the US, even without a map, you could just go east to Birmingham and see I-65 North, and realize that's the road you wanted.

In European style you'd see: I-65 Huntsville/Chicago

And every 'control city' better be the same. What if one area had "Indianapolis" listed instead? You get off the road to eat, go to get back on and suddenly you're staring at: I-40 Memphis/Oklahoma City and I-40 Jackson/Nashville.

Imagine if you didn't know that I-65 went through Nashville's downtown? Would you know which way you were still headed on? Did you pass Memphis yet? Or do you still need to get there? Without cardinal direction, the position of the sun doesn't mean much to you. Just get on and guess?

And that is based on the fact that you're taking Interstate freeways the whole time.

From Tucson I could take US70 to I-10 in Lordsburg, NM, I-10 to Las Cruces to I-25 N to US70 to Alamogordo to Roswell to Clovis to Amarillo, TX to I-40 East to Oklahoma City to I-44 through Tulsa, Jopllin, St. Louis, and then I-55 North to I-70 East through Indianapolis, I-465 to I-74 East to Cincinnati. Or take I-64 out of St. Louis to Louisville to I-71 North to Cincinnati.

Using cardinal directions means your 'palette' of directions is four. If you use control cities, the longer the trip, the more cities and where they are that you'll have to remember for your trip.

For instance, American style from Tucson to Cincinnati: East, East, East, East, North, North
Now, European style from Tucson to Cincinnati: El Paso, Houston, Dallas, Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, Chicago, Cleveland

Less memorization, easier default recognition of direction of travel.

Let's say you get off the freeway, a quick glance at the shield sign at the entrance ramp tells you where to go: EAST I-40. No remembering which city you're looking for or which cities you've already passed on your route.

Spanish numbering is a total mess. And even worse is when you see all numbers put on simple rectangles. But things becomes more easy with all coloring rectangles have: Blue are motorways, red are national roads and regional roads are, from more importance to less, orange, green and yellow. But then, toll motorways are signed with the same color as free ones, so you have to search for a circle besides the rectangle. And some regions mess things up: Catalonia signs its primary regional roads as they where national roads when they should go in orange (Fomento ministry signs those right) and some motorways like M-45 or A-92 are signed orange like if they weren't motorways (They should go in blue).

Typically, Spanish toll roads are AP-x, while the free counterpart is just A-x. A/AP-7 along the Mediterranean is a good example -- though don't get me started on its exit number series!

Quote from: Bickendan on January 02, 2013, 04:00:44 AMTypically, Spanish toll roads are AP-x, while the free counterpart is just A-x. A/AP-7 along the Mediterranean is a good example -- though don't get me started on its exit number series!

That rule is generally applicable only to freeway-grade roads that form part of the Red de Carreteras del Estado (the road network under the direct control of Spanish central government).  Even then there are exceptions; metropolitan freeway-standard roads on the RCE often have designations built out of province codes (V-30 in Valencia, B-20 in Barcelona, SE-40 in Seville, etc.).  The convention of using "A" and "AP" to differentiate among tolled and toll-free motorways on the RCE was introduced in the mid-noughties to provide an easy way of differentiating between existing N-roads and their freeway-grade relocations, but now Spain has some toll-free autovías which are getting back their old N-road numbers (N-322 in Valencia comes to mind), and there are some new N-road relocations which are being built to freeway standard but are not being numbered as autovías because they are formally carreteras convencionales (the Benidorm bypass comes to mind as one recent example).

As CNGL says, numbering is a mess.

Quote from: Bickendan on January 02, 2013, 04:00:44 AM
Typically, Spanish toll roads are AP-x, while the free counterpart is just A-x. A/AP-7 along the Mediterranean is a good example -- though don't get me started on its exit number series!

Well, things have simplified: AFAIK Valencia bypass, signed as A-7 but originally with kmposts of AP-7, has changed recently its starting point and now continues the kmposts of the Sagunto-Vilavella section (Only god know where its kmpost 0 is: The first one is 274). Don't know about Valencia-Alicante section. BTW, what moron in Google Maps has labelled all of A-7 as AP-7 and left large sections of actual AP-7 as E15 only...

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AM
European style seems to imply you ONLY take the freeway between major points, and your basis of travel is getting to that freeway as quickly as possible.

If I'm driving from Tucson AZ to Cincinnati OH, this is how I do it in the US:

I-10 East
I-20 East
I-30 East (probably taking the I-635 east of Dallas to bypass the city)
I-440 East (bypassing southeast Little Rock)
I-40 East (I'll assume I'm just sticking to an interstate instead of the KY parkway route)
I-65 North
I-71 North

Now, if we used European Style:

I-10 El Paso/Houston
I-10 San Antonio/Houston
I-20 Midland/Dallas
1-30 Texarkana/Little Rock
I-40 Memphis/Nashville
I-40 Nashville/Raleigh NC
I-65 Bowling Green/Chicago
I-65 Louisville/Chicago
I-71 Cincinnati/Cleveland

It would actually read more like this:

Houston, Dallas, El Paso I-10
Houston, San Antonio, Dallas I-10
Dallas I-20
Memphis, Little Rock I-30
Memphis I-40
Nashville I-40
Chicago, Louisville I-65
Cleveland, Cincinnati I-71

So all you have to memorise are 4 control cities additional to your destination. Which shouldn't be that difficult. Well, it is at least easier than keeping 6 or more road numbers as in this case.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMSo, if I just feel like writing down instructions, I either better have a good memory of which cities I'm looking for, because if I get lost in Dallas and wind up east of Dallas and suddenly see: I-20 Shreveport/Birmingham,... I'd be stumped. I wouldn't even know if the road was going north, east, south, etc.

But you would know that you're heading for Birmingham which is south of your preferred route. So you have either to turn or to consult a map for better option.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMOf course, in the US, even without a map, you could just go east to Birmingham and see I-65 North, and realize that's the road you wanted.

Yet, you would only know that you could turn onto I-65 without consulting a map when you're already near Birmingham.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMAnd every 'control city' better be the same. What if one area had "Indianapolis" listed instead? You get off the road to eat, go to get back on and suddenly you're staring at: I-40 Memphis/Oklahoma City and I-40 Jackson/Nashville.

In a properly maintained signage system a control city is repeated on every sign until the city (or the road leading to this city) is reached. So you can follow it until your next control city appears.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMImagine if you didn't know that I-65 went through Nashville's downtown? Would you know which way you were still headed on?

Yes, you would. The signs always tell you where you're heading.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMDid you pass Memphis yet?

You're more likely to ask this question when navigating by numbers and cardinal directions only.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMOr do you still need to get there? Without cardinal direction, the position of the sun doesn't mean much to you. Just get on and guess?

Just because we're not navigating by cardinal directions doesn't mean we don't care about them.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMAnd that is based on the fact that you're taking Interstate freeways the whole time.

A non-interstate wouldn't be a sensible choice on this particular occasion.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMFrom Tucson I could take US70 to I-10 in Lordsburg, NM, I-10 to Las Cruces to I-25 N to US70 to Alamogordo to Roswell to Clovis to Amarillo, TX to I-40 East to Oklahoma City to I-44 through Tulsa, Jopllin, St. Louis, and then I-55 North to I-70 East through Indianapolis, I-465 to I-74 East to Cincinnati. Or take I-64 out of St. Louis to Louisville to I-71 North to Cincinnati.

Using cardinal directions means your 'palette' of directions is four. If you use control cities, the longer the trip, the more cities and where they are that you'll have to remember for your trip.

The number of control destinations doesn't necessarily increase by the length of a journey. It can though. It depends on the route and the size of the control city. Chicago for instance could very well be signed on I-90 from Boston and Seattle onwards. If you stayed on this route you could follow a single control city for several thousands km.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMFor instance, American style from Tucson to Cincinnati: East, East, East, East, North, North

The American way requires to memorise the road numbers as well. You forgot about them.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMNow, European style from Tucson to Cincinnati: El Paso, Houston, Dallas, Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, Chicago, Cleveland

Less memorization, easier default recognition of direction of travel.

As I mentioned before one could find its way with less control cities depending on the directional signage. It's still easier to memorise a chain of cities than a handful of number especially when your familiar with the general geography.

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 AMLet's say you get off the freeway, a quick glance at the shield sign at the entrance ramp tells you where to go: EAST I-40. No remembering which city you're looking for or which cities you've already passed on your route.

In Europe you'd get the choice between Nashville I-40 and Memphis I-40. Knowing your route you'd pick Nashville. One has to think a bit more in this case I admit.

Keep in mind that it's not really a big deal that you're following six road numbers, as you're going to be on each one of them for several hours. From Tucson to the I-20 turnoff is a six hour drive, then it's six more hours to Dallas, and when you reach I-40 you'll be in an entirely different state. Chances are slim you're going to do Tucson to I-20 to I-30 in one day, so you don't even really have to worry about "remembering" all of the numbers, since you'll be sleeping in between them, and most travelers would need to refresh their itinerary in the morning before setting off anyway.

This is all only tangental to the OP, though.  European highways are numbered.  The question was why they don't use US-type shields for those numbers, not whether it's 'better' to navigate by control cities or route numbers, or whether it's 'better' or not to use cardinal directions–which has already been discussed at length in other threads.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
Keep in mind that it's not really a big deal that you're following six road numbers, as you're going to be on each one of them for several hours. From Tucson to the I-20 turnoff is a six hour drive, then it's six more hours to Dallas, and when you reach I-40 you'll be in an entirely different state. Chances are slim you're going to do Tucson to I-20 to I-30 in one day, so you don't even really have to worry about "remembering" all of the numbers, since you'll be sleeping in between them, and most travelers would need to refresh their itinerary in the morning before setting off anyway.

That doesn't make a difference really. An overnight stay is refreshing whether one navigates one way or the other.

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2013, 06:26:20 PM
This is all only tangental to the OP, though.  European highways are numbered.  The question was why they don't use US-type shields for those numbers, not whether it's 'better' to navigate by control cities or route numbers, or whether it's 'better' or not to use cardinal directions–which has already been discussed at length in other threads.

Therein, however, lies the answer to the original question. If one doesn't navigate by road numbers one doesn't display these in opulent badges but rather in modest frames.

Quote from: firefly on January 09, 2013, 01:12:43 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
Keep in mind that it's not really a big deal that you're following six road numbers, as you're going to be on each one of them for several hours. From Tucson to the I-20 turnoff is a six hour drive, then it's six more hours to Dallas, and when you reach I-40 you'll be in an entirely different state. Chances are slim you're going to do Tucson to I-20 to I-30 in one day, so you don't even really have to worry about "remembering" all of the numbers, since you'll be sleeping in between them, and most travelers would need to refresh their itinerary in the morning before setting off anyway.

That doesn't make a difference really. An overnight stay is refreshing whether one navigates one way or the other.

How does it not make a difference? You don't really have to remember "I-10 to I-20 to I-30 to I-40 to..." because you're only going to do "I-10 to I-20" one day. There's no point bothering to remember the turns you're going to make in Little Rock and Nashville when you are not going to get past West Texas on the first day. You just have to remember "Follow I-10 east to I-20 east, follow I-20 east until bedtime."

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 09, 2013, 03:35:50 AM

Quote from: firefly on January 09, 2013, 01:12:43 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
Keep in mind that it's not really a big deal that you're following six road numbers, as you're going to be on each one of them for several hours. From Tucson to the I-20 turnoff is a six hour drive, then it's six more hours to Dallas, and when you reach I-40 you'll be in an entirely different state. Chances are slim you're going to do Tucson to I-20 to I-30 in one day, so you don't even really have to worry about "remembering" all of the numbers, since you'll be sleeping in between them, and most travelers would need to refresh their itinerary in the morning before setting off anyway.

That doesn't make a difference really. An overnight stay is refreshing whether one navigates one way or the other.

How does it not make a difference? You don't really have to remember "I-10 to I-20 to I-30 to I-40 to..." because you're only going to do "I-10 to I-20" one day. There's no point bothering to remember the turns you're going to make in Little Rock and Nashville when you are not going to get past West Texas on the first day. You just have to remember "Follow I-10 east to I-20 east, follow I-20 east until bedtime."

...in which case you wouldn't really need to remember the 'east' parts at all...which would make it essentially the same as following the European system of signage.

Don't forget that in some places in Europe, the highways were not numbered until fairly recently.  When did the Germans (West) first add route numbers to their autobahn network?

Mike

I can't name any European country which has introduced road numbers less than at least 25 years ago. Road numbers are prominently signed in virtually all countries.

Germany introduced their current Autobahn numbering system in 1975, but there were numbers before that.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2013, 10:14:48 AM
I can't name any European country which has introduced road numbers less than at least 25 years ago. Road numbers are prominently signed in virtually all countries.

Germany introduced their current Autobahn numbering system in 1975, but there were numbers before that.

I'd love to see some route number signs from places like Albania and the USSR.

Route numbers are fairly commonly signposted in Albania.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg188.imageshack.us%2Fimg188%2F2959%2Fdscf6342l.jpg&hash=191b86b19ce13c22a83782456d48986a43cda4ed)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1153.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp512%2Fzandesiro%2FALBANIA%25202012%2FIMG_3709.jpg&hash=d2e1c6683a1094b7ec8b6b1e3cc9b5750c50f3eb)

^^ That last one is good for the overkill in sign use thread.  One bgs with two down arrows would've been just as effective, and possibly more efficient.

Albania decided to copy the Italian signage, which is probably the worst system in Europe.

Quote from: mgk920 on January 09, 2013, 10:08:26 AM
Don't forget that in some places in Europe, the highways were not numbered until fairly recently.

In the case of France, "recently" means Napoleon.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
Route numbers are fairly commonly signposted in Albania.

I had been inquiring about ~1975.  anyone got photos from that time?  really, any European country would be interesting, but especially the Eastern Bloc.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2013, 12:16:02 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
Route numbers are fairly commonly signposted in Albania.

I had been inquiring about ~1975.  anyone got photos from that time?  really, any European country would be interesting, but especially the Eastern Bloc.

Here's one of Sweden's Essingeleden motorway (E4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E4)/E20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E20) today) in 1967, on the day that Sweden switched from driving on the left to driving on the right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F42%2FEssingeleden_1967_Dagen_H.jpg&hash=bdeee9221b0b806dc5f8fe9b675bd82eb899aa03)

EDIT:  This was actually taken a day or two before the switchover, since all traffic is operating in on the left in [what was to become] the southbound lanes of the motorway once the switch to the right was accomplished.

As an aside, this is (today) the busiest motorway in Sweden, with six through lanes running about 160,000 AADT.

Regarding the buses - those buses are painted in the livery that SS (the municipal transit agency for Stockholm) used at the time.  SS became the regional SL not long after the change to right-hand running.  The bus that's a little closer and to the left of the camera is a German Büssing Konsul, the one further back is a Scania licensed copy of a U.S. Mack bus.  Most of these were modified for right-hand operation and ran for many  years after 1967.

cool!  what's with the hexagonal "H" signs everyone's holding?

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 01:58:33 PM
Here's one of Sweden's Essingeleden motorway (E4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E4)/E20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E20) today) in 1967, on the day that Sweden switched from driving on the left to driving on the right.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Essingeleden_1967_Dagen_H.jpg

I see no route signs there. Am I missing something?


If I'm interpreting it correctly, the first sign on http://panotheque.free.fr/Disparition/RN51.html was patched in 1871.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2013, 02:11:48 PM
cool!  what's with the hexagonal "H" signs everyone's holding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2013, 12:16:02 PM
I had been inquiring about ~1975.  anyone got photos from that time?  really, any European country would be interesting, but especially the Eastern Bloc.

Albania pretty much had no roads prior to the 1990s.

The Eastern Bloc had a decent road system, most communist countries built their first freeway in the 1970s.

Here's a 1980s photo from Poland. It was taken near Szczecin, at current A6. I think the bottom road number is DK6. E14 is an outdated number (even at that time). Interestingly they signed foreign cities, including London!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP57jP.jpg&hash=8b4dbf1e578540de6e9beb549c2a4ec0e6522597)

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2013, 02:14:55 PMAlbania pretty much had no roads prior to the 1990s.

dang! 

QuoteThe Eastern Bloc had a decent road system, most communist countries built their first freeway in the 1970s.

Hungary was 1978, IIRC. 

how much of the Eastern Bloc segments of Reichsautobahns were preserved?  I know the Berlinka was allowed to fall into disuse, and East Germany's segments were pretty poorly maintained.

QuoteHere's a 1980s photo from Poland. It was taken near Szczecin, at current A6. I think the bottom road number is DK6. E14 is an outdated number (even at that time). Interestingly they signed foreign cities, including London!

awesome photo.  what was the planned route to Copenhagen and London?  did both include a ferry, or just one?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2013, 02:37:36 PM
how much of the Eastern Bloc segments of Reichsautobahns were preserved?  I know the Berlinka was allowed to fall into disuse, and East Germany's segments were pretty poorly maintained.

Very few Reichsautobahnen are still in original condition. The old Reichsautobahn from Berlin to Wrocław has been mostly upgraded, though it is still lacking shoulders. The eastbound carriageway of DK18 between the German border and A18 is still in very poor condition with concrete slabs spaced apart an inch or two.

Most of the Berlinka has been renovated. The Polish part was reopened in 2006 as a super two, the Russian part has also been renovated, so that it acts as their new international link to Kaliningrad. However, I believe there is still a destroyed bridge near Kaliningrad which has been in that condition since 1945.

Some Reichsautobahns currently in Germany were renovated rather recently, I remember a trip in 2000 across A13 south of Berlin which was in disastrous condition. It has been renovated since. They are currently renovating the last parts of A11 north of Berlin, which is the last Reichsautobahn still in original (or at least GDR) condition. There are still quite some Reichsautobahnen in other parts of Germany (such as southern Germany) but they have at least been repaved and are usually in good condition apart from some hairy exit designs and lack of shoulders.

Poland route 18 at the Germany border still has a bunch of 1940s elements.

https://www.aaroads.com/blog/2012/06/07/the-last-reichsautobahn/

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2013, 02:11:48 PM
cool!  what's with the hexagonal "H" signs everyone's holding?

Note that the "H" leans to the right.  Right in the Swedish language is höger, and that was the symbol used to remind everyone of the change to right-hand traffic on 1967-09-03 at 0500 CET.

The image below was also used to remind people of the changeover:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5e%2FDagen_h.png&hash=aeb6a1fbfd69b8ab08a27267d92ee92a0de41b33)

gotcha.  I am guessing that is Sept 3, not Mar 9? 

Yup.  1967-09-03, not 1967-03-09.  YouTube has footage from a changeover ceremony at the Slussen cloverleaf in Stockholm.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2013, 10:14:48 AM
I can't name any European country which has introduced road numbers less than at least 25 years ago. Road numbers are prominently signed in virtually all countries.

Germany introduced their current Autobahn numbering system in 1975, but there were numbers before that.

This is just partly right. Only West Germany started signposting motorway numbers in 1975. For obvious reasons these motorway number did not arrive in East Germany before 1991.

Czechoslovakia signed just E-route as well. And I could imagine that Poland didn't signpost proper numbers for their few stretches of motorway until the 1990s too. So there were plenty of motorways with no signed numbers 25 years ago.

Hungary had the M-numbers for their motorways, and unprefixed numbers for their other highways, as long as I can consciously remember.  (1982?  83?)

here's a photo we have of a German route shield from the 1940s.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/DR/DR19360091i1.jpg)

I'm assuming it is a route shield, and not a kilometer marker, because it is repeated on the next post.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 11:49:47 PM
Right in the Swedish language is höger

He he.  He he.  In Sweden, Hoger is always right.  He he.  He he.   :)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 10, 2013, 09:37:17 AM
gotcha.  I am guessing that is Sept 3, not Mar 9? 

Ayup.  Sweden puts the day before the month.

Quote from: kphoger on January 10, 2013, 12:52:24 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 11:49:47 PM
Right in the Swedish language is höger

He he.  He he.  In Sweden, Hoger is always right.  He he.  He he.   :)

Incorrect.  Or not right. ;-)

In the Swedish, Hoger is a name and a proper noun, just like in English. 

Höger is an entirely different word because of the o-diaeresis ("ö").

The Swedish character set adds three letters at the end of the alphabet, all vowels:

Ã..., Ã,, and Ö. 

The Danes, who have to be different from the Swedes, have these letters, which are pronounced the same way:

Ã..., Æ and Ø.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 01:14:23 PM
The Swedish character set adds three letters at the end of the alphabet, all vowels:

Ã..., Ã,, and Ö. 

The Danes, who have to be different from the Swedes, have these letters, which are pronounced the same way:

Ã..., Æ and Ø.

what does Norway have?  I remember only Ã..., and Ø.  what's the missing sound?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 10, 2013, 01:25:21 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 01:14:23 PM
The Swedish character set adds three letters at the end of the alphabet, all vowels:

Ã..., Ã,, and Ö. 

The Danes, who have to be different from the Swedes, have these letters, which are pronounced the same way:

Ã..., Æ and Ø.

what does Norway have?  I remember only Ã..., and Ø.  what's the missing sound?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86#Danish_and_Norwegian

I've always been interested in Scandinavian languages, ever since I had a Danish friend tell me that their verbs are the same in all conjugations.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 10, 2013, 01:25:21 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 01:14:23 PM
The Swedish character set adds three letters at the end of the alphabet, all vowels:

Ã..., Ã,, and Ö. 

The Danes, who have to be different from the Swedes, have these letters, which are pronounced the same way:

Ã..., Æ and Ø.

what does Norway have?  I remember only Ã..., and Ø.  what's the missing sound?

Æ or Ã,, (pronounced as "ah").  Norway seems to prefer Æ.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 10, 2013, 11:28:37 AMhere's a photo we have of a German route shield from the 1940s.

(snip)

I'm assuming it is a route shield, and not a kilometer marker, because it is repeated on the next post.

Yes, it is a route marker.  The basic system for numbering and signposting important through roads (called Reichsstrassen at the time, Bundesstrassen now) was introduced in 1932.  It is still in use, although the graphical standards for composing signfaces have been revised several times.  The picture shows a route marker used independently, but there has always been provision for route numbers to be used as cartouches on direction signs.  I have a late-1930's road code book with example signs as well as several photos culled from late-1930's periodicals.

The 1932 numbering system, which I believe has continued in use with no significant alteration, was designed with gaps to free up numbers for important roads in territories which had historically been part of Germany but were at the time part of other countries, such as the post-1918 Polish corridor.  I am not sure to what extent the Nazis rolled out these numbers to the territories they occupied once World War II got underway.  As regards placenames on signs, the usual rule was Germanization (so "Königgrätz" instead of "Hradec Králové").  (For official publication more generally, bilingualism was the rule--one version in German, the other version in the local language--except that in occupied Czechoslovakia the Germans had a list of terms which were considered untranslatable in the local language.  It was forbidden, for example, to say "Čechy" instead of "Böhmen," or "Morava" instead of "Mähren.")

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2013, 03:46:30 PM
I have a late-1930's road code book with example signs as well as several photos culled from late-1930's periodicals.

I would love to see scans of this!

I note that the fonts aren't too different from the more recent Mittelschrift, apart from the fancy uppercase I, and asymmetric curves on the "h" and "m" glyphs.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 10, 2013, 04:54:19 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2013, 03:46:30 PM
I have a late-1930's road code book with example signs as well as several photos culled from late-1930's periodicals.

I would love to see scans of this!

I note that the fonts aren't too different from the more recent Mittelschrift, apart from the fancy uppercase I, and asymmetric curves on the "h" and "m" glyphs.

I second that!  I'm sure many others here would like to see them as well.

Here is the WorldCat entry for the road code book I have:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/verkehrszeichen-und-verkehrseinrichtungen-dienstvorschr-fur-d-signalschau/oclc/632082360

It is small (pocketbook-sized) and has a tight binding, so it is difficult to scan.  The art is substantially as found here:

http://www.hs-merseburg.de/~nosske/EpocheII/vk/e2v_stvo.html

Direction signs for surface highways (which match the 1938 illustrations as to layout but not typeface) are here:

http://www.hs-merseburg.de/~nosske/EpocheII/vk/e2v_vs3.html

The 1938 book also has basic direction signs for Autobahnen which are not shown on this website.  I will try to scan or prepare camera copies of these pages in the next few days.

As to typeface, it is difficult to tell both from the 1938 book and from surviving contemporary photographs how well standardized sign typefaces were.  At the time the US had a standard set of unrounded typefaces which were endorsed by the federal BPR, but many states had their own custom rounded typefaces, and the situation seems to have been rather similar in Germany in that the contemporary DIN lettering had official endorsement but basically any typeface could be used on a sign so long as it was obviously a type of sign lettering.  The illustrations in the 1938 book are pretty low-fi, to the point that it is difficult to tell how many illustrations have a typeface in common.

I also have a few pictures of Autobahn signs, all from a 1938 issue of the Indian Concrete Journal.  The car shown in each picture has numberplate N140 and distinguishing sign "BI."  I think (but have not been able to confirm) that "BI" stands for "British India."  These pictures were taken, I assume by a British civil engineer or surveyor, on the 1938 equivalent of a roadgeeking trip which covered not just Germany but also parts of Switzerland.  I will post them shortly.

Indian Concrete Journal images:

*  Kilometerpost and 600-m countdown marker, probably on the Frankfurt-Darmstadt length of Autobahn (first to open, in 1935) (originally the countdown to each exit was in 200-m increments):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F1%2F1c%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-001-km-post.jpg&hash=4cbf19a0b9ddc936619533998e8586ab5f62ddf3)

*  Final advance direction sign for Langen/Mörfelden, Frankfurt-Darmstadt length of Autobahn

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F4%2F48%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-002-langen-final-ads.jpg&hash=ba15c1fa5fc4ac81e8b729e0a38bbd17a3b65458)

*  Final advance direction sign for Chiemsee, Munich-Salzburg Autobahn (heavily promoted by the Nazi regime as a prestige project):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F8%2F83%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-003-chiemsee-final-ads.jpg&hash=960ec841c80456bec110debf241a48d1d422a283)

*  Wild-animal warning sign ("the only warning sign the Autobahn needs"--but early Autobahnen were unfenced as a matter of course):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F4%2F41%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-004-wild-animal-warning-sign.jpg&hash=d27b6b27a9cc3b81019094a1e4b81657c37723dd)

*  Advance sign for Tankstellen (services):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F5%2F5b%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-005-tankstelle-sign.jpg&hash=c1ba22b76c468f3c89d5c83e67c8099eb0dbd5fd)

*  Graphic "Keep right except to pass" sign for the Cologne-Bonn Autostrasse (opened during the Weimar period as a project of the Rhine Province Administration, and is sometimes described as a "first Autobahn"):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe6%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-006-kretp-sign-on-cologne-bonn-autostrasse.jpg&hash=f4069765c49bd6460e3b9a920a11f9680dbee9c0)

*  Direction signs for Reichstrassen (probably just off the Cologne-Bonn Autostrasse):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F8%2F84%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-007-surface-road-direction-signs.jpg&hash=5c7b97b458cc71d273cfa90b0ce89b69f08babf3)

The Reichsstraßen were named in 1934. Before that, they were briefly known as Fernverkehrsstraßen (Long Distance Traffic Roads) between 1932 and 1934. East Germany reused this name after 1945, while West Germany named them Bundesstraßen (Federal Roads).

Apart from Napoleon's Routes Impériales created in 1811, there were other road numbering systems prior to 1932, for example the Badische Staatsstraßen created in 1901. It is doubtful whether these were actually signed in the field.

The term Staatsstraße still exists today in several states like Bayern (Bavaria) and Sachsen (Saxony).

Quote from: Chris on January 11, 2013, 05:44:17 AMApart from Napoleon's Routes Impériales created in 1811, there were other road numbering systems prior to 1932, for example the Badische Staatsstraßen created in 1901. It is doubtful whether these were actually signed in the field.

Britain has had road numbering since 1923 and the numbers have been signposted since then.

excellent photos!

looks like the deer sign has cateyes?

also, on one of the websites is this sign description:
"Zeichen für Ring- oder Sammelstraßen für Fernverkehr"

any idea what it means?  google's literal translation is a head-scratcher: "Sign of ring or collector roads for long distance".  Is it a roundabout/traffic circle advance notice sign?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 11, 2013, 11:54:39 AMlooks like the deer sign has cateyes?

Yup--it does.  I think I have seen photos (not sure if I have taken a camera copy) of one of them as seen at night, with a real button-copy effect.

Quotealso, on one of the websites is this sign description:

"Zeichen für Ring- oder Sammelstraßen für Fernverkehr"

any idea what it means?  google's literal translation is a head-scratcher: "Sign of ring or collector roads for long distance".  Is it a roundabout/traffic circle advance notice sign?

No.  It means roughly the same as "R" in a square in Britain or a "BYPASS" tab in the US.  The caption translation is something like this:  "Sign for a ring road or collector road [in practice, a length of road shared among multiple routes] for through traffic."

so the circle sign would go with a route shield?  interesting proportions - there'd be a huge (400mm) "banner" (as we'd call it in the US) above a tiny shield.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 10, 2013, 11:28:37 AM
Hungary had the M-numbers for their motorways, and unprefixed numbers for their other highways, as long as I can consciously remember.  (1982?  83?)

here's a photo we have of a German route shield from the 1940s.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/DR/DR19360091i1.jpg)

I'm assuming it is a route shield, and not a kilometer marker, because it is repeated on the next post.

Is that where Jan Jakob Jngelheimerschmidt was from?

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2013, 09:47:42 PM

*  Wild-animal warning sign ("the only warning sign the Autobahn needs"--but early Autobahnen were unfenced as a matter of course):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F4%2F41%2FIndian-concrete-journal-autobahn-004-wild-animal-warning-sign.jpg&hash=d27b6b27a9cc3b81019094a1e4b81657c37723dd)

BUTTON COPY DEER who needs a girlfriend

Is it strange that the same car is in nearly all of those old German road photos? :P

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 11, 2013, 05:28:19 PM
Is it strange that the same car is in nearly all of those old German road photos? :P

...
please

PLEASE
tell me you are being sarcastic

:(

Yes, it was sarcasm. No worries.  :pan:

I love those old photos of the Frankfurt-Darmstadt highway. I used to travel that road fairly often back in the day, probably at least twice a month. And stopped at that same Tankstelle a few times. It looked a lot different in the early 90s. :)

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2013, 10:14:48 AM
I can't name any European country which has introduced road numbers less than at least 25 years ago. Road numbers are prominently signed in virtually all countries.

Malta seems to have been about 10-15 years ago, roughly when they joined the EU.

Guernsey and San Marino don't have road numbers. Gibraltar, Monaco and Vatican City don't either but that's a bit more understandable. Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands have so few roads that numbering makes little sense - unsure whether they do have numbers or not, but going to say 'not'.

Other tiny states/dependencies in Europe do have numbers: Jersey (http://goo.gl/maps/Sh7Mo), Isle of Man (http://goo.gl/maps/feBsd), Faeroe Islands, Ã...land (http://goo.gl/maps/eJ4Hu) (only one 'lan' between A and d).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 01:05:55 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 10, 2013, 09:37:17 AMgotcha.  I am guessing that is Sept 3, not Mar 9?

Ayup.  Sweden puts the day before the month.

I don't get why you'd put it any other way - either all ascending, or all descending. Today is 29-01-13 or 2013-01-29: none of this 01-29-13 nonsense! 9-11 is November, not September. Thankfully for you Yanks, 7/7 is the same, whether you do it the correct way, or the American way - you can understand what/when 7/7 is.

Quote from: english si on January 28, 2013, 07:49:02 PMI don't get why you'd put it any other way - either all ascending, or all descending. Today is 29-01-13 or 2013-01-29: none of this 01-29-13 nonsense! 9-11 is November, not September. Thankfully for you Yanks, 7/7 is the same, whether you do it the correct way, or the American way - you can understand what/when 7/7 is.

I'm guessing the reason Americans write it Month / Day / Year is because that's how we generally talk. If I'm telling someone a date I say "February 5th, 2013", I don't say "5th February 2013". That sounds weird.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 05, 2013, 05:45:09 PMI'm guessing the reason Americans write it Month / Day / Year is because that's how we generally talk. If I'm telling someone a date I say "February 5th, 2013", I don't say "5th February 2013". That sounds weird.

In Britain (and other countries which follow the day-first date convention), the following expressions are idiomatic:

5 February 2013 (in writing)
5th February (usually without year)
5th of February (when speaking)
5th of February in 2013 (when speaking)
5th inst. (in writing--inst. stands for Latin instant, i.e., the current month; not usually seen post-1950)
31st ult. (in writing--ult. stands for Latin ultimo, i.e., the previous month; not usually seen post-1950)

There is similar use of prepositions to divide the elements of a date in other languages where the day-first convention also applies, e.g. in Spanish:

5 de febrero de 2013

Note that all American usages require the calendar month (a proper noun) to be used as an adjective, which is only true for the more abbreviated British usages, where month as modifier is substituted for an adjectival phrase.  The distinction between various parts of speech tends to be observed more strictly in Britain, so phrases like "February 5" or even "February 5th" sound unnatural.  It won't be remarked on verbally, and it may not even be consciously noticed, but it is one of a thousand ways a Briton can recognize a native speaker of American English.

The American convention is actually awkward since it puts the most specific element of the date in the middle, where it cannot be used for sorting.  This disadvantage is not counterbalanced by the use of the month in effect as a throat-clearing (audience hears:  "February . . ." and reacts, "Date coming!  Get ready to write it down!") because in ordinary speech the month is often omitted--Americans are just as likely as Britons to say just "the 5th" when it is in February.

2-5-2013--this will not sort by date order even by string comparison
02-05-2013--this will not sort by date order even by character-by-character collation
2013-02-05--this will sort by date order both by string comparison and character-by-character collation

Guess which order passengers arriving at a US port of entry have to write the date on Customs Form 6059B?  Yes, that's right--day first.

whenever I formally sign and date something, I use a three-letter abbreviation, all in capitals.

for example - 18 NOV 2012 - the date I first entered Chile.

I think this matches several of my passport stamps, with only a language difference.  (somewhere I have an 8 ENE 2011, for Enero/January.)

At work, I've been saving reports as filename MM-DD-YYYY, e.g. 04-06-2012 for April 6, 2012.   Now that we've turned over the calendar to 2013, I wish I had been saving them as YYYY-MM-DD; I  might go back and rename them when I'm bored at work some day.  However, I find a disadvantage in that, with the year first, it's not necessarily intuitive that the next number is the month.  2013-01-02 could just as easily be February 1 as January 2, because nobody actually writes the date that way in everyday life.

Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2013, 12:06:52 PM
At work, I've been saving reports as filename MM-DD-YYYY, e.g. 04-06-2012 for April 6, 2012.   Now that we've turned over the calendar to 2013, I wish I had been saving them as YYYY-MM-DD; I  might go back and rename them when I'm bored at work some day.  However, I find a disadvantage in that, with the year first, it's not necessarily intuitive that the next number is the month.  2013-01-02 could just as easily be February 1 as January 2, because nobody actually writes the date that way in everyday life.

my photos tend to be sorted as "20121118", as that allows Windows to sort folders in the intended order.

Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2013, 12:06:52 PMAt work, I've been saving reports as filename MM-DD-YYYY, e.g. 04-06-2012 for April 6, 2012.   Now that we've turned over the calendar to 2013, I wish I had been saving them as YYYY-MM-DD; I  might go back and rename them when I'm bored at work some day.

You don't need to do them one by one--it is fairly straightfoward to write a batch file to handle that for you.  It just needs code to parse the filenames, extract the part that is the date, and then make the appropriate reversal of digit sequences.  This fairly simple script should work as long as you can guarantee that the date suffix, when present, always occurs at the end of the filename, and always follows the MM-DD-YYYY syntax:

SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION

dir /a:-d /o /b > temp1.txt
findstr /r [0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] temp1.txt > temp2.txt
FOR /F "tokens=1 delims=" %%A IN (temp2.txt) DO (
set FNBase=%%~nA
set FNBase=!FNBase:~0,-10!!FNBase:~-4,4!-!FNBase:~-10,3!!FNBase:~-7,2!
move "%%A" "!FNBase!%%~xA"
)
del temp*.txt

ENDLOCAL

QuoteHowever, I find a disadvantage in that, with the year first, it's not necessarily intuitive that the next number is the month.  2013-01-02 could just as easily be February 1 as January 2, because nobody actually writes the date that way in everyday life.

I don't think that confusion actually occurs in practice.  When a date string is incorporated into otherwise identically named files and the year is the first part of the string, that is a strong signal that the person who generated the files intends a name sort to result in a correct ordering by date, which obviously does not happen if the day rather than the month is the second digit group.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2013, 01:20:04 PM
I don't think that confusion actually occurs in practice.  When a date string is incorporated into otherwise identically named files and the year is the first part of the string, that is a strong signal that the person who generated the files intends a name sort to result in a correct ordering by date, which obviously does not happen if the day rather than the month is the second digit group.

indeed - I don't know of any locality which uses YYYY-DD-MM.  "2012, 6th March" sounds awful.

Right.  I know it's never said like that.  But my brain always takes a few seconds to sort it out when the year comes first.

Whenever I put the date in any filename I always do it YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD since that is what you have to do to make sorting files in alphabetical order give you dates in chronological order. So it doesn't seem at all unnatural to me and I have no trouble parsing it.

I do have to mentally adjust come fall, though, since after having spent the last nine months putting a zero before the number of the month I tend to instinctively want to type October as "010" when it should just be "10".
I mean hey, when mentally you say to yourself "oh one, oh two, oh three, oh four, oh five, oh six, oh seven, oh eight, oh nine...", "oh ten" seems to logically come next. :ded:

For several years now I have been writing all of my dates in the YYYY-MM-DD format as my default.  It just makes life easier for me.  And yes, I have little real use for the USA's oddball customary 'MM-DD-YYYY' format.

Mike

Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2013, 12:06:52 PM
At work, I've been saving reports as filename MM-DD-YYYY, e.g. 04-06-2012 for April 6, 2012.   Now that we've turned over the calendar to 2013, I wish I had been saving them as YYYY-MM-DD; I  might go back and rename them when I'm bored at work some day.  However, I find a disadvantage in that, with the year first, it's not necessarily intuitive that the next number is the month.  2013-01-02 could just as easily be February 1 as January 2, because nobody actually writes the date that way in everyday life.

The trouble with mm/dd/yyyy is that half the world uses dd/mm/yyyy and the other half uses mm/dd/yyyy, and you can't generally tell which was intended.  So when handwriting or in text, I spell out the name of the month, or use three letter abbreviations.  Non-English speakers may not know which month I mean, but at least they realize it's the month and not the day.

For filenames, yyyymmdd seems pretty clear to me because it's in logical progression from larger units to smaller, much like place value or hours, minutes, and seconds.  Also, as noted, when sorted lexically it puts the files in date order.  I don't know anyplace where yyyyddmm is in use.

Decreasing order makes the most sense to me, because that's how we measure the time of day.

12-12-12; 12:12. In my mind, that should read 2012, December 12; 12:12 PM.

Second would be the British system because, though it does defy this rule, it is not completely random and is an increase in units. :D

I hate the American system, because it is totally random, and doesn't follow a pattern...

But does any operating system offer sort by date making this moot

Quote from: spmkam on February 07, 2013, 09:33:04 PM
But does any operating system offer sort by date making this moot

No, for several reasons.

First, the date the file was created or last modified is not necessarily the date desired in the filename. Files might be created or uploaded on a date other than the day they are current as of. And any time a file is moved, patched, or has to be restored from a backup, the date created/last modified becomes inaccurate.

Second, there may be multiple files in a folder that I want sorted by something other than the date before the date.
Basic example: I might have in a folder, sorted by name, the following:
Blue20090110
Blue20110720
Blue20120914
Green20100424
Green20120501
Red20091116
Red20110603
Red20121206

Assuming the dates created/modified line up correctly (which I guarantee you in any real world example they will not), sorting the folder by date I will get this:
Blue20090110
Red20091116
Green20100424
Red20110603
Blue20110720
Green20120501
Blue20120914
Red20121206

which is a mess.

Linux offers a program called "touch" that can be used to alter the last modified date to whatever you'd like it to be, although it's much easier to just keep it in the file name if it's that important.

I usually use the ISO format (2013-02-08) wherever I can, although I am required not to do so at work, since accounting sent my boss an email several years back along the lines of "Please tell Scott to stop putting the year first on dates on jackpot paperwork." In that case, I tend toward the format 02-08-2013, which happens to be the same format used on Oklahoma driver licenses, which is a source of some of the date information I have to record. I would use "8 Feb 13" or something like that, except since most of the dates I work with are in numerical form to begin with, and I don't want to deal with the mental overhead of translating between words and numbers, minimal though it may be.

Every file I make that I'm naming by date is YYYYMMDD. I never use dashes. I also catalog a lot of things for business records, and I use YYYMMDD-# (increasing in number for each occurrence).

The reason Americans don't use the British Style is partly anti-imperialism, but mostly the year isn't considered important.

If we're talking about many different dates in 2013 coming up... which makes more sense:

02/10
03/04
05/08
06/05
06/07
08/02
09/01
09/03
10/02
11/04

Most important part of the date would come first (month), followed by it's secondary characteristic (day).  The year is just thrown on last as a means of keeping it situated if there's more than one year being used.

To me, I always felt the British way was maddening.

You wouldn't have 48:02 for your clock, would you?

There is a related issue--formatting count numbers to be compatible with different ordering systems.  Versions of Windows up to about XP used straight character collation, so 1, 11, 111, 1111, etc. all come before 2.  Versions of Windows from XP onward use string comparison in Explorer, which mimics natural-number ordering (1, 2, 3, . . ., 11,  . . ., 111) but requires the OS to identify which parts of a given filename are sequence numbers.  In all cases both MS-DOS batch and NT batch (the languages encountered at the command prompt in older and newer versions of Windows respectively) use character collation even if Explorer uses string comparison.

What this means is that character collation and string comparison will produce identical sorts only if all sequence numbers are zero-padded to an uniform width.  I usually do this by using a consistent syntax for all date expressions and zero-padding all other numbers to four-character width.  It is possible to accomplish zero padding using only the functionality available through NT batch (by parsing filenames one character at a time to identify sequence numbers), but personally I take the easy way out and use GnuWin sed.

SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION

REM  This is a zerofill script which converts ALL digit strings to four-digit width

FOR /F "tokens=1 delims=" %%A IN ('dir /o /b /a:-d') DO (
echo "%%A" > !temp!\input.txt
sed "s/\([^^0-9]\)\([0-9]\)\([^^0-9]\)/\1000\2\3/g" !temp!\input.txt > !temp!\outtemp1.txt
sed "s/\([^^0-9]\)\([0-9][0-9]\)\([^^0-9]\)/\100\2\3/g" !temp!\outtemp1.txt > !temp!\outtemp2.txt
sed "s/\([^^0-9]\)\([0-9][0-9][0-9]\)\([^^0-9]\)/\10\2\3/g" !temp!\outtemp2.txt > !temp!\output.txt
FOR /F "tokens=1 delims=" %%B IN (!temp!\output.txt) DO set OutFN=%%B
move "%%A" !OutFN!
del !temp!\outtemp*.txt
del !temp!\input.txt
del !temp!\output.txt
)

ENDLOCAL

The thing that maddens me about that is that there are some cases where you want a numerical sort and others where you'd rather have an alphabetical sort.

Any date or number at the end of a filename, naturally, you want sorted in chronological order. And any numbering at the beginning of a file you probably do as well, if the numbers are meaningful.

My problem is, I save a lot of crap off the internet and I usually don't bother to change the filename. This leaves me with folders full of files with names like "32b6a4e9.jpg". Ideally, when it's gibberish like this, I'd want a straight by character sort. But Windows will put that file before "226f1c7d.jpg" rather than after because it sorts the former as "32" and the latter as "226". To a human eye this is ridiculous - but the computer of course cannot determine when the number is meaningful and when it isn't.

Personally, if I have a meaningful number in a filename, I always ensure that it's zero-padded so each file has the same number of digits. I do this out of obsessive-compulsiveness rather than functional purpose, but if I could get windows to just do character collation like it used to it would be a net improvement to my computing experience.

European road systems are under different countries' authorities, they each have their ideas of numbering or lettering their highways. For them to use the North American or US highway standard might be easier to get around, like for finding the "north-south" route to the closest "east-west" route by a geographical number system can be a time-saver. In Europe, drivers are used to the way their highways are numbered or lettered, therefore I don't see them having an issue getting around on their highway networks.

Quote from: Mike D boy on February 16, 2013, 01:23:43 AM
For them to use the North American or US highway standard might be easier to get around, like for finding the "north-south" route to the closest "east-west" route by a geographical number system can be a time-saver.

Err... huh?  You look at a map, find your two cities, find the set of highways that most closely resembles a straight line, and read the route numbers.  I don't see how that process would change much by using a "˜north American or US highway standard'.

There are some European countries that use shields, although not as much as in the US. Here you have examples of Romania and Moldova.

astonishing how much - apart from the one point missing of course - the Romanian shield resembles USA '70 spec.