Re: [OSM-talk-be] D1 road sign
On Monday 11 February 2013 02:19:31 A.Pirard.Papou wrote: What you are showing here is a Ministeriële omzendbrieven http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrievenM.O. 30-10-1998 http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrieven/mo-301098 ** It's a text that must be not be read by the drivers but by the persons who place the signals. Er, that's about allowing cyclists in a oneway street, and how municipalities should implement it. It's not about the D1 traffic sign at all (sure, it's on the page a few times, but not related to your issue). I was quoting from the special placement conditions of traffic signs, which is a ministerial order, which is law and appeared in the Staatsblad/Moniteur. And as citizens you're supposed to know all laws... But even if you only know the traffic code itself, there is still no issue. 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). 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. Well, if your lawyer says otherwise... But I do wonder when it actually matters for you as a driver anyway. You're supposed to follow the arrow, that's all you need to know. Again, the text you're showing is Ministeriële omzendbrieven http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrievenM.O. 30-10-1998 http://www.wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/omzendbrieven/mo-301098 ** which is not for the drivers to read. Same conclusion. No, you're now pointing towards the same off topic ministerial lettre from above. I was again quoting from the special placement conditions of traffic signs. 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. It doesn't say it litterally about the double arrow, but it does say that the rule starts from the sign with an arrow pointing upwards, and ends at the sign with the arrow pointing downwards. When there's a double arrow, there will always be a sign with an arrow pointing upwards ahead of the double arrow, and one pointing down behind it. The sign with a double arrow is just there as a reminder. If you ever encounter a sign with a double arrow without signs ahead and behind with single arrows, that's an error from your municipality and should be fixed. So again, what is the issue really? Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] D1 road sign
On 2013-01-16 22:32, Ben Laenen wrote : On Wednesday 16 January 2013 22:04:57 A.Pirard.Papou wrote: Hi, The Mandatory to follow the direction indicated by the arrow description for the down sloping D1 signals here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium is (fortunately) incorrect. It should be Drive around the obstacle on the side indicated by the arrow. fortunately incorrect? :-) Yes, because if it were correct you should go under ground. *MANDATORY* !!! ;-) The full Dutch official definition of the D1 sign is: D1. Verplichting de door de pijl aangeduide richting te volgen. De plaatsgesteldheid bepaalt de stand van de pijl. 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. Translated: D1. Mandatory to follow the direction indicated by the arrow. The location decides the direction the arrow is pointing. If the traffic sign that represents a non-curved arrow is placed on an obstacle, it means that you have to drive around it on the side indicated by the arrow. So, the definition on the page isn't incorrect, but I only translated the first sentence. I just wanted to have a simple definition in the table without every little detail. But if you want you can always add the definition of the traffic sign when it's placed on an obstacle. 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.svg and this sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-d1_downright.svg 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. 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. 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. Cheers, André. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
