[OSM-talk-be] D1 road sign

[Ben Laenen]

On Friday 18 January 2013 00:07:19 A.Pirard.Papou wrote:
> 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
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-d1_downleft.sv
> g> and this sign
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-d1_downright.s
> vg> 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.

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).

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."




> 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.

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.


Of course, the traffic code has its problems, you won't hear me deny that. But 
the problems are elsewhere :-)

> Nice page. I appreciate the SVG format.
> Would you like some fills if I can find or make them?
> I would replace B9 with B15 with the bars in all 6 directions :-)
> I also like the left-turning D1 rotated 90° anticlockwise.
> (I took a photograph of one with a Carrefour shop in the background)
> Especially when followed by left-down-sloping rotated 90° clockwise.

Yeah, all those svg's were made by me. It turned out to be a task which was 
bigger than expected. But there were no real alternatives to make it easier 
:-)

I also wonder if that sign at the Carrefour is placed according to the 
rules...

Greetings
Ben