Talk:Traffic sign

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Traffic sign article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Civil engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport High‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Colors

There is much work on signage colors, which is not addressed here. A new section, perhaps near the font section, is warranted. Marquess (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cbb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.172.81 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

Added a picture of a portuguese 17th century traffic sign to this section - ref. (in portuguese): http://www.ansr.pt/Portals/0/Padrao%20de%201686%20final.pdf
Couldn't find any reference to a type of vehicle described, named sége or sege - here's a few 18th/19th cent. examples:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FkKgTDI7ngU/S92vyv4wYqI/AAAAAAAAAzI/1ST2QepliMw/s1600/seg1.jpg (A.P.D.G. - “Sketches of Portuguese Life, manners, costume and caracther”, London printed for Geo. B. Whittaker, Ave Maria lane, 1826)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FkKgTDI7ngU/S92vyPf_ijI/AAAAAAAAAzA/8GiRNtIYT3Q/s1600/seg2.jpg (rev. William Morgan Kinsey (1788-1851)b - Portugal Illustrated Letters, London, 1829)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FkKgTDI7ngU/S92vx2YJJuI/AAAAAAAAAy4/Ckv87GpDfaI/s1600/seg3.jpg (later 18th cent., Museu Nacional dos Coches, Lisboa)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FkKgTDI7ngU/S92vnqF8diI/AAAAAAAAAyw/IFJoncCdWu4/s1600/seg4.jpg (later 18th cent., Museu Nacional dos Coches, Lisboa - four wheeled, later known as traquitana) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.62.138 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over "pictured"

This article has too many images that are incongruous, wrongly positioned/sized and offer nothing to the understanding of traffic signs. For example, an Australian sign of a kangeroo? And? Most countries have animal images for the indigenous wildlife. Deer in Europe, Moose in North America etc. The same types of signs are just repeated again and again, and they have little to do with the text. IMO this article needs a top down hard core edit.86.145.3.102 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False signs

There is a general trend to add signs in some countries taken by more or less similar ones of other countries. This is worse in the Wiki Commons galleries. Most Greek signs are wrong taken mainly from the Swedish ones, the Thai warning ones resemble US signs and some Iranian ones resemble German signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.33.33 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - do you mean that real countries are copying signs from other real countries, or that people are re-using photos on Wikipedia?

I think real countries can probably do what they want, unless someone challenges them in court. No one driving in Iran is going to believe the country has suddenly become Germany, no matter how many traffic signs you show them. :)

If someone on a wiki has (for example) used a Swedish photo because they think it's a good enough example of what a Greek sign looks like, and if you disagree, then please submit better photos that could replace the ones you disagree with. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Traffic sign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Road surface marking

I was quite shocked to find that no signs in the form of Road surface marking are currently included in this article, is there a reason for this? I appreciate that not all markings on the road are signs i.e symbols that convey meaning, but many do and (in the UK at least) are backed by act of law.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "sign" is used with a very precise meaning in the context of "traffic signs" to mean signage (that is, vertical information-bearing surfaces mounted next to or over the road), not symbols. You're confusing the category of "traffic signs" with the category of "traffic control devices," which is a much broader category of all devices attached on or next to a road that are intended to communicate something to drivers. Traffic signs and road surface markings are both types of traffic control devices. This is rather elementary ontology in civil engineering that one should be able to pick up quickly from reading professional magazines and textbooks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ontology accepted internationally? I can see that in the introductory text at least, yours is the delineation currently imposed, in which case should the image of the cycleway sign, currently on the page be removed? The photo of the camel symbol? The Irish warning sign? Civil engineers aside, perhaps the lay person may be best served by a Road traffic control device infobox? Mighty Antar (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is internationally accepted. All three photographs you just mentioned are of traffic signs, so they are all eminently appropriate for this article. Please go to a library and read some textbooks or take a MOOC if you still don't understand the subject. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another patronising response, please read that bit at the top of this talk page and don't bother responding if you've nothing constructive to say. This article is supposed to provide the justification and analysis, not some textbooks that nobody has bothered to source here. Your inference that your understanding is internationally accepted certainly isn't provided by the handfull of references currently on the page. Sort it out and you won't keep getting asked tiresome questions by people who can't differentiate between a sign and a symbol. Thanks. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar, you have the whole thing backwards. It is categorically wrong to expect prior knowledge of specialized fields in order to read a general encyclopedia. If this is basic knowledge for understanding the subject, then Wikipedia needs to lay it out in black and white near the top of the article for those who didn't already know. Wikipedia exists precisely to tell such people what they came to find out, or else tell them which other Wikipedia article to look in; expecting them to already know the thing they came to find out is perverse. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is a traffic light a traffic sign or not ?

Because on Dutch wikipedia, there is a 'difference', namely ; 'traffic light' is a 'part' of 'traffic signs' -> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeersteken ... so it is a bit 'confusing' to correctly tag the wikidata from those ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkevdb (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very clear that it isn't clear. :) Both methods - "traffic lights are a separate category" and "traffic lights are a sub-category of traffic signs" - are obviously valid and not wrong. International inter-wiki agreement should be possible, because there's no politics, religion, or sports teams involved - but would it be worth the effort?

My initial preference is to treat the lights as one major type of signs. But when I look at the English article "Traffic light", I see a *lot* of information. So I suspect that the "right" way might be to include them as a sub-category but to also say "see main article for more information". Which may mean I've gotten us exactly nowhere. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see other arguments on this talk page that pretty forcefully (and convincingly) make the case that certain types of visual information function differently and belong in separate categories.

I *am* in favour of some way for people to easily start with a certain very broad category - I'd prefer to name it so that the naïve will easily find it and yet the experts won't complain that it's incorrect - what I wish for is a simple phrase that means "All of the signs, signals, indicators, symbols, instructions, communications, etc that are seen on roads". I believe that that's a category in people's minds, and that it would be nice to be able to start from there and see a hierarchical list or whatever.

Maybe I'm badly over-thinking this. Maybe it's already good. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CH: Entering built-up areas indicates speed limit

Moved from my talk page -- ZH8000 (talk)

Regarding this edit by you: Unlike other European countries, town entry signs do not prescribe 50 km/h in Switzerland. I've corrected it. Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SelfishSeahorse: You are correct given that the sign itself does not define a speed limit, but it indicates the start of a built-up area/settlement. And according SR 741.11 Art 4a §2 second sentence (de: " Für Fahrzeugführer, die aus unbedeutenden Nebenstrassen (wie Strassen, die nicht Ortschaften oder Ortsteile direkt verbinden, landwirtschaftliche Erschliessungsstrassen, Waldwege u. dgl.) in eine Ortschaft einfahren, gilt sie auch ohne Signalisation, sobald die dichte Überbauung beginnt.") if you enter a settlement (always indicated) the generally valid speed limit of 50km/h is indeed applicable even w/o signalisation.

BTW: the signalisation for bicycle etc are indeed falu red, not red.

-- ZH8000 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The signals "Start of town on main roads" (4.27) and "Start of town on secondary roads" (4.29) are set up where the loosely built-up area of a settlement begins (SSV art. 50 §4). However, the general speed limit of 50 km/h applies to the entire densely built-up area of the locality (VRV art. 4a §2). While it is true that the general speed limit of 50 km/h applies even without sign 2.30.1 on insignificant minor roads (and only there), this exception has nothing to do with sign 4.27 or 4.29.

Regarding the signpost for bicycles and vehicle-like devices: please excuse me, i thought "falu" were a mistake. I didn't know that word and neither did my dictionary. (Besides, SSV art. 54a §1 only says red background.)

By the way, a "see also" with a red link doesn't make much sense and should be avoided (WP:REDNO).

Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @SelfishSeahorse: Besides the explicit speed limit given by a "start of town or village on secondary roads" sign as cited above, the SR/RS 741.21 (SSV/OSR/OSStr) Art. 50 §4 also says: "Die Signale «Ortsbeginn auf Hauptstrassen» und «Ortsbeginn auf Nebenstrassen» werden aufgestellt, wo das locker überbaute Ortsgebiet beginnt; sie dürfen nicht nach dem Signal stehen, das die allgemeine Höchstgeschwindigkeit innerorts anzeigt". And in conjuction with Art. 22 §3 it implies that the "generally valid speed limit of 50km/h" is always valid latest with the beginning of a town or village, or the production of the sign 4.27/4.29. In other words, both signs, 4.27 and 4.29, explicitly and implicitly imply the generally valid speed limit of 50km/h. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZH8000: The signs 4.27 and 4.29 cannot be placed after 2.30.1, but they can be placed before 2.30.1. Examples: Nottwil, Cunter, Tramelan (all 4.27 + 60 km/h, 2.30.1 comes after), Beffeux (4.29 w/o speed limit and w/o 4.30 [80 km/h]). As cited above, 4.27 and 4.29 are set up where the loosely built-up area of a settlement begins, but the general speed limit of 50 km/h (which doesn't have to be signed with sign 2.30.1 on insignificant minor roads) applies to the densely built-up area only. Therefore it is not true that 4.27 or 4.29 imply 50 km/h! Regards, --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SelfishSeahorse: OMD, you're totally right. How was I able to overead it – shame on me. But the odd thing still is that you have to reduce your speed to 50km/h after you enter a settlement on a minor road and the densly built-up area begins. Thanks for your patience! – I will try to change the text accordingly. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I changed the Short description to "Signboard displaying information for road users". Possible alternatives to signboard are noticeboard, placard, or billboard but all three lack the precision of signboard ("A board displaying a name, image, or some other inscription, used to give information or directions, identify a business, etc."), a word that's been around since 1632.^[1]

Reference

^ Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online) (3rd ed.). Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press. 2011.

Quebec road signs

The Quebec government has posted the designs of its road signs at http://www.rsr.transports.gouv.qc.ca/Dispositifs/Accueil.aspx Some of the designs might be worth mentioning here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings and construction 🏗 ⚠️

-•-Is there a ‘Cool shake’ warning?-•- Avery 917 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrians and cyclists 🚶 🚲

Is there a pedestrian memory sign? Avery 917 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? What's the meaning of the sign you're asking about? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery photos: on topic?

There are currently a number of photos in the gallery that, while they *do* show signs which *are* meant for drivers, they might potentially be unofficial signs; in any case, they're certainly intended as informal humorous advice rather than required information.

(a) Do they belong here at all? (b) If yes, do we really want more than one? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over two years later, I have reduced them to one. But I agree in wondering if it still belongs in the article. EthanL13 | talk 18:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Downerchannel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MichaelFHatt.

— Assignment last updated by WikiEdit7205 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online) (3rd ed.). Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press. 2011.

[1]