Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of European road signs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The image Image:Roundabout Ahead.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK signs

[edit]

There are issues, subtle ones i admit, with the UK signs, they are just not quite correct. The images can be downloaded free of charge from the Department of Transport at this link http://www.dft.gov.uk/trafficsignsimages/index.php . They are free to use, provided that a statement is made saying they are crown copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.157.251 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 October 2010

EU-section-with-GB.svg

[edit]

Where can I download this file EU-section-with-GB.svg ? I would like to add some UK images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transportuk (talk • contribs) 10:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you an answer at WP:HELPDESK. If you keep clicking on the picture it will take you to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/EU-section-with-GB.svg, and if you right-click on the picture there it should give you the opportunty to "Save SVG As ..." - David Biddulph (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK "derestriction" sign

[edit]

The "derestriction" sign in the UK is Diagram 671. The graphic that was here does not exist in TSRGD, looks like 622.2 with the HGV symbol removed. This is IIRC the only sign of such a design, the only other restrictions that end in this fashion are zonal restrictions, and thus are contained within square panels (618.4, 640.5, 664, 666 for examples). The French sign is not a 100% perfect match, but it's close enough - there is no black outline on the actual sign (other than for illustrative purposes), but it's otherwise good. 92.27.136.232 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the sign, and your change is an improvement. The correct sign can be imported from the DfT database but there is no easy way of doing this. commons:File:UK traffic sign 619.svg has now been added, so if you fancy giving it a go, you can add commons:File:UK traffic sign 671.svg yourself. I converted from PDF using misc2svg and then manually edited the dimensions and colour in a text editor. --Trevj (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too wide page

[edit]

Road signs comparison cannot be viewed at 1280 px width display. It'd be good to reduce size of sign pictures.VORON SPb (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried with different browsers? The table doesn't (currently) have columns and I think should resize automatically. --Trevj (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue VORON SPb is highlighting is that the gallery is designed to be able to view seven countries at a time. At the current size, using a 1440 px wide resolution, the gallery width is barely within the limits of the screen. When viewed in lower resolutions, you will not hit the imposed limit of seven, and the gallery is skewed so that the layout is terrible for comparison purposes. I think the standard should be to at least support a 1024 px wide resolution, which might be doable by limiting it to five (or four?) countries at a time. Preferably (in my opinion), enforce a minimum limit of seven as well, making lower resolution displays receive a sideways scrollbar. 158.37.73.87 (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English translations

[edit]

I'd like to know what all these signs mean, but listing their meanings in the native languages only is somewhat counterproductive on the English Wikipedia. Can we get translations? I like the fact the native language is there to help facilitate learning, but the basic German and smattering of Italian I have isn't enough to decode all of these. RandyKaelber (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could do with work on both sides - ensuring the descriptions carry the proper legal meaning (and make sense in the original language - recently asked WP:IE to fix the Irish), then providing a translation in English. I'm not sure that abusing the gallery tag in this way is the best way to present it, though - particularly since we have the same table three times with different countries listed. Perhaps a single table with the English descriptions down the left-hand side, so that we don't have a situation where we have descriptions for signs which don't exist? For example, the UK and Ireland do not have a concept of a priority road, and do not have a specific symbolic sign for a motorroad (what in the UK would be a non-motorway special road, of which there are only about a dozen). 92.27.136.232 (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the point of this article was to have equivalent signs depicted. I.e. not signs that just look alike. Perhaps signs that are essentially the same, but have some notable legal variances could receive a special treatment. Adding the exact legal definition of every sign would cause a lot of repeated text though. I edited a section a few minutes ago, and added File:No-image.svg to signs that might be missing (or do not exist), and File:Noimage.svg to a sign that definitely does not currently exist. I would like to use a better image for a sign that doesn't exist, but didn't find any. This one just implies that the image is missing (but does not imply that it is going to be added either).158.37.73.87 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By row

[edit]

If the intent is to compare the road signs side-by-side, they need to be done as 6 countries per row, not 7. It's throwing it off so it doesn't work. Fry1989 eh? 00:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same issue as above at Too wide page. I agree that it is a problem, but don't know what the best technical solution is. --JBH23 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Znak A-7.svg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Znak A-7.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Znak A-7.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested redesign

[edit]

Two problems have already been noted above:

  1. The table just doesn't work in a window that isn't wide enough -- the columns don't line up
  2. Do we really need all the non-English descriptions? This isn't Wikimedia Commons, where multilinguality is the norm, this is English Wikipedia. There are other Wikipedias to service other languages.

Also the signs are larger than they need to be. My radical redesign to address all these issues is illustrated below, for the first few rows.


Germany
 
France
 
United
Kingdom
Italy
 
Spain
 
Netherlands
 
Belgium
 
Stop and give way
Give way to traffic on major road (yield)

If there are some signs where the meaning differs significantly in some countries this could be noted using reference footnotes. With this design I think we could fit all the countries into a single table.

What do others think? Do you approve? -- Dr Greg  talk  00:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has objected, I have now implemented this. The foreign-language descriptions are now hidden but can be seen by moving your mouse over each sign. However, as I said above, I'm not convinced these descriptions should remain; perhaps the best solution is to translate them all into English and leave them as fly-over labels. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A good job well done! Now, it is much easier to compare the signs (as all listed countries are in one table). I think the descriptions in foreign languages should remain. --Chacha15 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement with UK Pedestrian Crossing sign

[edit]

The UK pedestrian crossing sign in this table looks very different to its European counterparts - I argue this is because they are not representing the same thing. The blue European signs mark the crossing place, as done in the UK with Belisha beacons. The red warning sign shown in this table represents a warning that a crossing is coming up. Thoughts? GoldenTie (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian border sign

[edit]

First of all, good work on the redesign. It is much better than the old one, and this actually looks like a decent article now.

Regarding the Norwegian border sign: it is not included in the free use signs provided by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (here), nor is it provided on the site for Norwegian laws. Images do exist via Google, a good one currently here. There are different versions (e.g. Finnmark (Russia-Norway) and Pasvik (Russia-Finland-Norway), but the first one is the most typical/official version for comparison.

The image provided is generic, and I doubt the paper produced it or licensed it, although there is no information on that. There is an email address on the top of the site where you can inquire about it if needed. I believe it, as a public road sign and non-personal image, is liable to fair use in this article. Here is a Google search for “Norwegian border sign” if you want to look at alternatives. If anyone can upload and add the sign or any variation: thanks! --83.243.251.108 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size of images

[edit]

Some editors are trying to increase the size of the images from 40 pixels to 70 pixels. This makes the whole article far too wide, and unless you are viewing on a large screen means you have to scroll the image horizontally to see all the images. I believe 40 pixels is adequate to compare most signs. Some of the most recently added signs e.g. motorway direction signs may be difficult to view at 40 pixels, but I suggest the solution to that would be to remove them from the main table and display them separately in a different table. -- Dr Greg  talk  14:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek signs

[edit]

Almost all "Greek" warning signs and a couple of the regulatory ones are simply the... Swedish ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.58.123 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the minor differences in colors and graphics real?

[edit]

Or it just represent artist/typography approximations from the sources? I'm from Russia and in the real life, for example, the "no left turn" sign has wider arrow, circular signs with red borders also have wider borders, blue signs use more saturated color etc. I guess any country uses only limited number of colors -- one red, one blue, one green. It's not such in this table. 88.147.212.106 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which countries have any standard color table, like PANTONE colors or RGB colors for web representation? I know only for UK - colour pallete Not sure if this page follows it. --Pl71 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"National speed limit applies"

[edit]

The sign shown in this row for the Russia really means "End of restrictions". It also cancels "No overtaking" and few other signs. There is specific "End of maximum speed limit" sign in the Russia looks like shown here for Norway or Finland. 88.147.212.106 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons table overhaul

[edit]

I have completed an overhaul of the comparisons table. I have maintained the previous style, however I have made several improvements.

  • Firstly, I have put all the countries alphabetically. This makes more sense as it is an English-langauge project, and it will make it much easier to edit and add new signs/countries as those images become available.
  • Secondly I have gone through every single row of signs personally, and corrected several errors from the previous versions.
  • Thirdly I have edited every line of code so that everything is the same, there are no ambiguities. This will also make editing the page or adding new signs much easier.
  • Blank grey areas are now used in all spaces where we do not have the respective country's image, or we are unsure that country uses that sign.
  • Grey spaces with NOT USED will be used where we explicitly know that a country does not in fact use the related sign.
  • Country names will also be repeated at the bottom of every table, as will is in between every 10 signs.


Overall, this is a great improvement. Over time, I intend to add at least two new countries, as well as many more signs. My cleanup of the tables will make doing that easier for everyone. Fry1989 eh? 02:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danish signs & references

[edit]

I've added some Danish signs, and in the process I read the legislation on the subject. I found it quite interesting, but don't know where in the article it would fit.

The regulation allows the use of other symbols, as long as the deviation is minor, and the sign conveys the same message.Bekendtgørelse om vejafmærkning § 1, sect. 2. The signs for wild and domestic animals (A 26 & A 27) are specifically allowed to feature other animals.Bekendtgørelse om vejafmærkning § 12, sect. A 26-27.

Thus most of the other red/white/black European signs could legally be used in Denmark.

Re references I noted the article is marked as being lacking in references/inline citations. Most of the Danish legislation is contained in the regulation cited above. What is the Wikipedia policy on multiple citations of the same source? Where is the best place for it?

Re low-flying aircraft I changed the use of File:Denmark_road_sign_A97.svg, which signals low-flying helicopters, as I thought it would be more appropriate to use File:Danish_warning_road_sign_low-flying_aircraft.svg, which conforms with the signs of other countries. I do appreciate the correction by Fry1989, who re-added the former, as “aircraft” also could be helicopters. I had only removed it, as I was unsure of the formatting. I apologise.

PeterMeyr (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cross symbol in hospital and first aid road signs

[edit]

I read in the Finnish Red Cross magazine some months ago that the Red Cross Movement had made representation to the relevant authorities that they consider the use of the Red Cross symbol in hospital and first aid road signs to be a mistake and should be replaced with the white cross on green background (as in Ukraine). – Kaihsu (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather interesting, but I doubt any countries will actually follow the request. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall the article correctly: The emblems are actually protected with special meaning under the Geneva Conventions. It has been realized that the road sign conventions were a mistake. It just takes a long time to correct it. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page 21 here: http://www.lehtiluukku.fi/lehti/avunmaailma/_read/2-2014/47767.html – Kaihsu (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015

[edit]

Can we do Luxembourg? Jermbollano (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the Luxembourg files on Commons are of enough quality to be added at this time. Fry1989 eh? 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image description has full location details

Irish no entry

[edit]

@Fry1989: here is a "single instance" of the old style Irish no entry sign - admittedly in the Wild West. And I could supply another example, also near Cobh. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any instances of File:Ireland road sign RUS 050.svg having been put up on Irish roads, even though it is on the books. The version with the arrow appears to be the current standard for the time being. Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the edit history. The Euro standard no entry sign is in use. Use Google Streetview of Dublin to look at the junction of Church Lane, St Andrews St and Suffolk St also trying to enter Fade Street from South Great George's Street. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to find examples of File:Ireland road sign RUS 050.svg being put up and always failed, which is why I removed it and left the arrow version only. However now that it's actually on the streets and not just on the books, both should now be on the comparison table. Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested changes

[edit]

i made some recent changes to traffic signs in Belguim and Ireland but they keep on being reverted as someone believes theyvare incorrect.

Here are my references for the changes:

Belgian traffic sign B15: official page of Belgian road Authority gives this sign and mentions the sign can be adjusted (in Dutch): http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/kb/wegcode/250-art67

No entry sign in Ireland: http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/publications/roads/english/traffic-signs-manual-2010/traffic-signs-manual-2010-chapter-5-regulatory-signs.pdf p17

Priority on Right in Ireland: http://www.rotr.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf: P122 If you are at a junction where the roads are of equal importance, the traffic on your right has right of way. You must let that traffic pass before moving on.

This the most recent revision (2013) the rule is still in effect.

If you have references to prove me wrong, pleas provide them in response Bigar (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your changes were reverted. Whether you are right or wrong, you shouldn't edit war and you should be blocked for violating 3RR. Secondly, I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand about Belgium, but unless you have the proper sign the box should be left blank. Do not use a different sign with a note saying "the sign can be changed to fit the intersection", it isn't proper. I have explained Ireland on my talk page. Fry1989 eh? 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom and Brexit

[edit]

Um... should the UK "flag" at the top of the list be changed because brexit? 152.26.197.32 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Brexit eventually happens in over two years' time, yes. But not yet. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curb/Kerb

[edit]

this was originally posted on 82.11.72.220's talk page and my own talk page, and refers to this edit

@82.11.72.220: I've just reverted your edit at Comparison of European road signs where you added the alternate spelling "kerb" in several places, by writing "kerb/curb". Our guideline on regional differences in English specifies that an article should choose one variety of English and use it consistently throughout, but not use several within the same article nor insert alternate spellings in the way that you did within the article's prose. If you think that the spelling in the article should be changed throughout, you should start a discussion on that article's talk page. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivanvector, and thanks for your comment about my edit to the European. road signs page. Perhaps you'd kindly reconsider your revert? Kerb is not an alternative to curb in British English as you suggest, but a completely different word with a different meaning. As the article already includes the British English and American English variants of "Yield" ("Give Way" in British English), I thought I'd be helpful and add a further variant so that the article is clearly understood on both sides of the pond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.72.220 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this for a bit, and sorry for taking a while to get back to you, I hope you don't mind I moved this to the article's talk page. If curb and kerb have different meanings and are not just different spellings for the same thing, then I think we should determine which one is more appropriate for how it's being used in the article and just use it. However, I don't think that's the case. It looks to me like both words are just different spellings for the same meaning, that being the little raised paved bit at the edge of the roadway. As for "yield" and "give way", those are the same concept but seem to have different legal meanings in different places, so it's probably appropriate to include both. I don't really like the way it's done in this article, but can't think of a better way at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm puzzled by why a European article is tied to en_US spellings.
That said, we do have some established practice for ENGVAR issues.
  • The two terms should be introduced once at their first convenient use, and both forms given, labelled as British and American.
  • After that, we use one term consistently throughout.
  • There is no clear practice on language variation within articles which vary section by section in having a strong national tie. As this is European road signs, not worldwide, I don't see this as being an issue anyway.
  • It's possible that we might have to describe a wheelchair users' campaign group for dropped pavements called "Curb the Kerb". In which case we either follow sources, or follow appropriate specific spellings, as needed. "Curb" and "Kerb" are both correct British English, just different meanings.
Otherwise we do the usual for ENGVAR and favour consistency first, stability and only then worry about regional appropriateness. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't get the "different meanings" bit, but I'll concede I don't know everything. In Canada our accessibility groups advocate for curb cuts. I also agree this article should be using UK English throughout, I was puzzled by the use of US English as well but didn't look into it too much. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, since most European ESL are are taught British English (as a matter of geography), it would be appropriate to use kerb on this article. It can be hotlinked to curb. Fry1989 eh? 18:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian border speed limit sign

[edit]

The Belgian border speed limit sign will need to be replaced by the new one. Since the 1st of january 2017 the standard maximum speed outside of the built-up-area in Flanders is now 70 km/h (in Wallonia it's still 90 km/h). I haven't seen the new road sign yet, nor in real life nor on the internet but I'm quite sure they will soon be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostpunk (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had inserted the Flemish sign:

But then, someone manifestly removed it – no idea why. I’ve seen plenty of those on the streets, and evidently we are currently also creating the wrong impression about speed limits in Belgium, but hey, I’ve done my part… Vollis (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian fantasy sign removed

[edit]

Servus, I removed File:Vorschriftszeichen 21a.svg because it's not a official sign according to Austrian law. The sign was created by a user. Austria uses this sign to warn about a roundabout.--213.47.191.75 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong signs in wrong table

[edit]

@ZH8000:, you need to explain why you are putting the wrong signs in wrong tables, not I for removing them. I have explained this in edit histories, and on my talk page, and you will not respond. File:CH-Hinweissignal-Vorwegweiser bei Kreisverkehrsplatz.svg IS NOT a warning sign. It indicates a roundabout is ahead and shows the available exits. That does not make it a warning sign. Other countries have indication signs like this, it does not make them warning signs. You are vandalising this article. Fry1989 eh? 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course does the Swiss sign. no. 4.54 not look like a warning sign, of course not. Nevertheless, this sign has – besides the routing indication – also the purpose to "warn" the traffic users about the appearance of a roundabout, as stated by the corresponding law (Art. 52 SSV). That is excately the purpose of the warning sign "roundabout ahead". In fact, in Switzerland, they used to have the same only warning sign of a roundabout ahead, like the whole EU still does. But the authorities dicided to get rid of it, since it was useless anyhow always to produce the warning and the routing indication at the same time. And since roundabouts is nothing to be afraid of, they just got rid of it, very reasonably IMO. This might not be compliant with EU regulation, but since Switzerland is not part of the EU, they don't have to comply with it. ;-)
And please, watch your languge, boy! -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IDK who you think you're calling "boy". You are the one here that is stepping out of the norm, and therefore need to explain why you are adding these images to tables where it appears they do not belong. The same issue exists with placing a hospital sign in a table for no honking signs. It may be a regulation in Swiss Law to not honk your horn in a hospital zone, but that does not make the hospital sign a no honking sign. I'm sure many countries have such regulations, I know they do here in Canada. But that table is specifically for a no honking sign which could be used in a variety of cases besides just hospital zones. Fry1989 eh? 21:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the no honking sign, or the Swiss Hospital sign, respectively, follows ecaxtly the same argumentation line: The former Swiss no honking signal was only used around hospitals, rest homes and comparable establishments. Exactly where the H-sign was produced as well. Therefore again, it was replaced by sign 4.14, which is part of the conducting indication signs, in other words, it is not only informative, but also mandatory. – Eco, same argumentation, same conclusion: removal of a superflous sign and application of an already existing one (4.14) with both lawful meanings.
The images should be removed unless ZH8000 can find a consensus that they belong in the tables they have been placed in. Fry1989 eh? 16:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My vote, for what it's worth: They shoud be removed. Sigur (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But ZH8000 (talk · contribs) is just edit-warring to re-add them, and then dumping user warnings. So, ANEW or ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose ANEW? I don't want them blocked though, just to not re-insert the signs without consensus. Fry1989 eh? 16:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in this issue hides a much more fundamental question. Namely: what actually is the purpose of this comparison?
What do you want to compare?:
a) the similarities (besides minor graphical discrepancies) between all the visually already almost similar and easy to read signs (if you know one of them, you know them all), or
b) the much more interesting issue, what are actually the (visually) not so easily dedectable differences regarding their legal meanings (despite the Vienna convention)!
E.g. the No heavy goods vehicle sign always looks more or less the same, of course. But, e.g., in Switzerland a "heavy goods vehicle" starts from 3.5 t, but 3 t (or T?) in Ireland and 8 t in Russia; luckily the latter two even say so. But what about the rest??! ... And so on.
The practicable value of b) is fundamentally obvious. – And also much less boring.
And it is obvious, what I would prefer to focus on: Content vs form. – It does however not mean that we should not show the (visually) obvious similarities, but they are obvious anyhow and you get them "for free", so to speak. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two aspects to this. Firstly, and most simply, you are simply edit-warring against the consensus of other editors. That is of itself, whether you are right or wrong disruptive and block worthy. If you disagree with that consensus, you first have to work to change it. Convince other editors, by giving a reasoned case on the talk: page, as to why your view is better. Do not simply attempt to grind everyone down by edit-warring - we are all tired of you doing that.
Secondly, what is the best comparison of signs? Yes, it should be the semiotics of them: not the illustration, but the meaning. In this case though, you are ignoring the semiotics and focussing on particular use cases. We are looking for a sign meaning "Hospital". Not a sign saying, "No horns outside the hostpital" or "reduced speed limit outside the hospital" or "no parking outside the hospital", we need one that says directly, "This is a hospital" (and might imply other assumed restrictions as a result). Maybe Switzerland just doesn't have such a specific sign, in which case we leave it blank. But we don't replace the hospital sign with a "no honking" sign, just because those signs are placed outside Swiss hospitals as standard. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

[edit]
This apparently is still a problem. Can we get a new consensus please? Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

End of prohibition signs

[edit]

Any objection against a new section with end-of-prohibition signs?

This means signs like these:

If not, I'll start it with those signs that are already available in the country-specific articles (there are a lot). Sigur (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is what it would look like (of course, from Italy to Romania and from Slovakia to Ukraine it's still the wrong signs):
  Austria Belgium Czech
Republic 		Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia
&
Belarus 		Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United
Kingdom
End of overtaking prohibition
End of overtaking prohibition for heavy goods vehicles NOT
USED
End of maximum speed limit NOT
USED
End of maximum speed limit and overtaking prohibition NOT
USED 		NOT
USED
End of speed limit zone NOT
USED
or

Sigur (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like this idea, but dowe have to do it for every sign? Where the "end of overtaking prohibition" is basically the same sign for all vehicles and HGVs, except with the base sign changed appropriately, I don't think we need both. Only if they are somehow more different from each other do I think we need both. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see for the remaining countries whether there might be something different, but that indeed seems unlikely. After that, I'm open. I can see the argument for keeping both and for keeping just one. Sigur (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue is that as the number of images gets higher and higher, and it is becoming difficult for users with lower internet speeds or data caps to view and edit the article. Fry1989 eh? 15:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point (I've experienced myself that editing the page isn't much fun). I think, though, that these signs are so closely linked to their start-of-prohibition counterparts that they make a lot of sense in the page, more sense than many others that are there. Your objection begs a more general question: Shouldn't we split up the text? Interestingly, there is a page on Belgian road traffic sings in German and Italian, but none in Dutch or French. But when you go to the general Dutch page on road traffic signs, you see that they link to six other pages for six categories of Belgian road traffic signs where you can find all the official signs nicely listed. Now, that may be an extreme solution, but what about reducing each of the categories to the most important signs and have a link to an in-depth page for each category? Sigur (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes I think this section needs to be brought back, the loading issue is not a big enough reason for it to be removed (and then why is it that this section had to be removed and not some other one instead?) LICA98 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally re-designed the article, I had the "End of No Overtaking" sign at the bottom of the Prohibitory Signs table as a general example of derestriction signs, and saw that as sufficient. Fry1989 eh? 15:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
with that logic you could put 1 row of warning signs as a general example and see that as sufficient as all warning signs are a similar shape LICA98 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I don't see derestriction signs as terribly important. If you're going to drive in another country, knowing their prohibition signs and warnings signs is pretty important. Fry1989 eh? 16:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a new section. I didn't put the signs concerning overtaking by lorries there, because they come down to an evident analogy in all countries. But I think that both the end-of-speed-limit sign and the general derestriction sign are need, even if it is only to point out the difference in meaning between the UK end-of-speed-limit ("national speed limit") sign and the (e.g.) Swiss general derestriction sign (which look exactly the same). There also are some differences between and-of-zone signs, which make that comparison worthwile. Sigur (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More specific pages?

[edit]

I would like to reiterate my suggestion above: Shouldn't we have a much shorter page with the most important signs and then specific pages for various categories of signs with as many signs as possible? Sigur (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is possible. That was done on the Italian version of this article, it was split into several pages. Fry1989 eh? 16:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish no-overtaking sign for lorries

[edit]

The description of this sign says "This sign is not official but is used at the entries to the Dublin Port Tunnel". Does anybody know whether it is used elsewhere in Ireland? At the entry of the Dublin Port Tunnel, it's an illustration of a prohibition that is also spelled out in plain English (I checked on Google Street View). If the sign can't be found elsewhere, I would tend towards deleting it. Sigur (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dublin Port Tunnel is the only instance I am aware of. It seems to be a one-off. Fry1989 eh? 16:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Size of article

[edit]

This article is ridiculously large making it slow to load and even slower to edit.

How would people feel if the various sections of this article were hived off into sub-articles, with this providing an overview and linking the sub-articles for those that wish to look at the pictures? DocFergus (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "hiving off" was the method done on the Italian-language version. It is possible, though somewhat undesirable. As long as it is all properly linked together, I wouldn't object. Fry1989 eh? 17:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote regarding No Entry sign in UK

[edit]

Currently the footnote states that the No Entry sign may only be used if there are no exceptions. That appears to no longer be the case. Fry1989 eh? 00:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bike only signs vs Bikes must use lane signs

[edit]

Currently, the page makes no distinction between Bike only and bike lane mandatory. In some places the signs are indeed the same (e.g. Switzerland) but in others (particularly France and the Netherlands) they are not. Generally a square sign indicates bikes only while a circular one indicates bikes must use that lane as seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeway_and_legislation Swissnetizen (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I’ll make the following changes:

  1. Rename bicycles only to “Obligatory bike path”
  2. Add a row for Bicycles only.
  3. Move and add signs appropriately.

--Swissnetizen (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please alter Slovak road signs

[edit]

As per the new national norm "VL6" from May 2018 the Slovak Republic has changed its national road signs. This is a Slovak Wikipedia page with pictures of the new road signs: https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoznam_dopravn%C3%BDch_zna%C4%8Diek_na_Slovensku#Zvisl%C3%A9_dopravn%C3%A9_zna%C4%8Dky_(pod%C4%BEa_nov%C3%BDch_VL6.1_-_M%C3%A1j.2018) Signs have the new TERN typeface as the ones in this comparison still have the old Universal Grotesk typeface. They closely resemble German road signs. Thankyou for your co-operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outererror (talk • contribs) 15:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

customs sign in country in Schengen Area with Schengen Area neighbouring contries

[edit]

Some countries like czech republic, sweden, germany, have in sections Checkpoints shown that they use customs sign, because these countries are in Schengen Area, they should have at least some note, or marked "NOT USED" (In red.) instead of showing a sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luky0805 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Segregated vs Shared - Bicycles and pedestrians only

[edit]

I propose:

  1. Add an additional row below 'Bicycles and pedestrians only' named 'Shared bicycles and pedestrians only'
  2. Rename 'Bicycles and pedestrians only' to 'Segregated bicycles and pedestrians only'

I believe 'Shared bicycles and pedestrians only' signs normally look like the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:UK_traffic_sign_956.svg


And 'Segregated bicycles and pedestrians only' signs look like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:UK_traffic_sign_957.svg


--Wkmdjay (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check: fonts in Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina

[edit]

Can anyone confirm the validity of the edit [1] regarding the use of Verdana on signs in Hungary and in Bosnia and Herzegovina? The changes cite no sources, among others. I have not been able to confirm the contents of the change, but am not much of an expert in the field.

The same user (contributions: [2]) also changed the Template:Traffic signs for the same countries (as well as for Slovenia and Serbia), also without citing sources ([3]).

Thank you! Pepicek (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
After much research (searches in English and Hungarian, as well as examining recent street view footage), I found no such use of Verdana for Hungarian signs. I have removed this point.
EthanL13 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron indicating sharp turns?

[edit]

Any objections to a new section with chevron signs? I know these signs are common in Ireland and the UK used to indicate a sharp bend in the road. I found similar signs in other countries pages, although I thought these signs were more common throughout Europe than Wikipedia would suggest. I've included the signs I could find in a table below. Please let me know if you aware of examples from other countries.

Austria
Austria 		Belgium
Belgium 		Czech Republic
Czechia 		Denmark
Denmark 		Estonia
Estonia 		Finland
Finland 		France
France 		Germany
Germany 		Greece
Greece 		Hungary
Hungary 		Iceland
Iceland 		Republic of Ireland
Ireland 		Italy
Italy 		Luxembourg
Luxembourg 		Moldova
Moldova 		Netherlands
Netherlands 		Norway
Norway 		Poland
Poland 		Portugal
Portugal 		Romania
Romania 		Russia
Russia
Belarus
Belarus 		Slovakia
Slovakia 		Slovenia
Slovenia 		Spain
Spain 		Sweden
Sweden 		Switzerland
Switzerland
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein 		Turkey
Turkey 		Ukraine
Ukraine 		United Kingdom
UK
Chevron yada yada
or
or

Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

 Updated Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to get Åland back

[edit]

So apparently some bonehead removed Åland road signs, despite it being an informative column. I tried to revert the edit, but wikipedia stated "it must be done manually". Does any one know how to retrieve the Åland column in a more convenient way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unofficialwikicorrector (talk • contribs) 03:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Motorway Sign Colour?

[edit]

A note refering to Belgian motorway signs claimed that "signs to motorways are green on white, whereas the directional signs on motorways are blue on white". However the table itself showed the opposite (white on green, not green on white), so I changed the note to match the table. But I also couldn't find a source or even an example that shows a difference between on and to motorway signs, and wasn't sure if I should've removed the note altogether, so I've added a request for citation. Feel free to revert my edit or delete the note entirely if neccesary. Thanks! NeutronStop (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New format

[edit]

I have redone the tables (except for built-up areas and checkpoint control), and made it easier to edit. Where countries do not use a sign, the box has been greyed out (instead of the hundreds of red "Not Used"). Where a sign is used but missing, the box has been left blank. It is also no longer necessary to insert <br> between multiple images to keep them vertically aligned. I have also attempted to group like-signs together, therefore the order of some signs has changed. For example the "Stop ahead" and "Give way ahead" signs have been moved to the priority section, since a majority of countries consider them to be a form of priority sign instead of warning sign. If there are any questions or feedback, that will be welcome. Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number of examples

[edit]

@Llama jim. Clapped: There really is only a need to show one, maybe two examples with a nearly identical message. The point of the derestriction section is to show how various countries sign the end of various restrictions. Derestricting the overtaking ban, overtaking ban for goods vehicles, and the ban on honking are all essentially the same. Take the Czech Republic for example, with File:B21bcr.jpg, File:B22bcr.jpg, and File:B23bcr.jpg. There is no difference in design, in essence "if you've seen one, you've seen them all", and the silhouettes for the goods vehicles version and the honking version can be discerned from their red circle equivalents. The other issue is that as the page becomes more and more bloated, it is more and more difficult for readers around the world to load the page and read it. This is why I consider those two sections as unnecessary. Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typeface used in Cyprus

[edit]

Under the Different typefaces in texts section, Cyprus is said to use the Transport font. However, I see no evidence that that is the case? The vast majority of signs I have seen use Arial and Helvetica (bold, narrow and light variants used inconsistently). EthanL13 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No rationale provided by the nominator to move against consistency. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of European road signs → Comparison of European traffic signs – Unlike the other two pages the word traffic sign shall be needed and NOT: road sign. 2600:1700:6180:6290:60CB:CA76:257F:41DC (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images bugged

[edit]

Some of the pictures are just links to the .pngs rather than showing the image on the screen. 132.170.34.224 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific examples because nobody is going to search through hundreds of images just to locate the 'some' to which you refer. 86.186.4.139 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UK expressways / limited-access roads

[edit]

There are some very rare roads in the UK that qualify as what this article calls "expressways" or "limited-access roads"; non-motorway special roads like:

146.198.240.50 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French expressways

[edit]

The colour, shape and text style of expressways in France is the exact same than on primary routes ; while the article shows them like it was the same as motorways. Must be corrected, but I don't know how to do that. Luna Lyons (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_European_road_signs&oldid=1206764926"