<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-01-18 00:38, Ben Laenen wrote :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:201301180038.06289.benlaenen@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Friday 18 January 2013 00:07:19 A.Pirard.Papou wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I did not say that your translation is bad and I don't blame you, I
meant that the explanation in the Belgian highway code is bad.
*Actually*, this sign
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-d1_downleft.svg"><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-d1_downleft.sv
g></a> and this sign
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-d1_downright.svg"><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-d1_downright.s
vg></a> are the only (direction) ones placed on obstacles. The blunder of the
code is that there should be two different IDs such as D1a and D1b, and
two explanations for two different meanings (turn left and go around). So,
what should be done is split the D1 row in two, move those two signs to
the second part and put each explanation in the correct part.
Who will do that?
Do you want it confirmed by a lawyer (source=)? I'd prefer.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Why can't they have the same id. The traffic code is very clear about it. The
definition of the sign is clear (see the bit of traffic code I quoted in my
previous reply).</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:201301180038.06289.benlaenen@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Of course, that bit is not the only thing said about it in the traffic code.
You'll have to read the "special placement conditions of traffic signs" as
well. So there we have in article 10.1 the following text:
"2° Wanneer een verkeersbord D1 met een niet-gebogen pijl wordt geplaatst op
een hindernis of op een inrichting bestemd om het verkeer te leiden, dan moet
deze pijl onder een hoek van ongeveer 45° naar de grond worden gericht."
Translated: "When a traffic sign D1 with non-curved arrow is placed on an
obstacle or on a facility to guide the traffic, then this arrow has to be
placed at an angle of 45 degrees, pointing towards the ground."</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><strong>D1. </strong>Verplichting de door
de pijl aangeduide richting te volgen.<br>
De plaatsgesteldheid bepaalt de stand van de pijl.<br>
Wanneer het verkeersbord dat een niet-gebogen pijl voorstelt, op
een hindernis geplaatst is, betekent het dat langs de door de pijl
aangeduide richting moet voorbijgereden worden.</blockquote>
<br>
What you are showing here is a <a
href="http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrieven">Ministeriële
omzendbrieven</a><a
href="http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrieven/mo-301098">
M.O. 30-10-1998</a><br>
<div class="breadcrumbs"> <strong></strong></div>
It's a text that must be not be read by the drivers but by the
persons who place the signals.<br>
<br>
I have talked to a lawyer and he confirmed that the code is
incorrect because it says two different things to the driver
(horizontal arrow) and to that person (sloping arrow).<br>
And indeed, a signal that indicates to turn to the right or left
should be a different signal than the signal to avoid an obstacle,
which are two different rules.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:201301180038.06289.benlaenen@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><blockquote type="cite">The highway code has many blunders.
The "no parking sign" with a double headed arrow is described as "no
parking over a long distance". It's obviously meaningless to say "long
distance" without saying how long and not to say *where* the
interdiction applies.
The correct definition is "... in front of the sign and behind it, up
to a crossing or another signal.
E1 explanation should add "behind the signal".
One E1 in a GB parking lot was obviously placed to mean the opposite.
</blockquote>
Again, it's all well described in the traffic code, but look further than just
the definition of the traffic signs...
You'll find nice rules like:
(about the traffic signs about parking) "A traffic sign with an extra white
sign with double black arrow has to be placed as a repetition sign if the zone
where that rule applies is over 300 meters."
There you have your "long distance", but there's nothing ambiguous about those
arrows anyway: the rule starts where the arrow points upwards, and it ends
where the arrow points downwards, and the double arrows are just in between as
a repeater.</pre>
</blockquote>
Again, the text you're showing is
<div class="breadcrumbs"><a
href="http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrieven">Ministeriële
omzendbrieven</a><a
href="http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrieven/mo-301098">
M.O. 30-10-1998</a><br>
<strong></strong></div>
which is not for the drivers to read.<br>
Same conclusion.<br>
It's not a concern for the driver whether the distance is long or
short but it is his concern that the rule applies before and after
the sign, which the code does not say.<br>
<br>
BTW, I have found road signs at Image:Belgian road sign XXX.svg<br>
and I've used 4 of them to fill the gap at A1a-d.<br>
They're a tiny bit different (a bit shorter) but they are quite
suitable.<br>
Could the difference be compensated by specifying a slightly
different size?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</body>
</html>