User talk:The Navigators

@Fry1989: @Nathan A RF: I've also uploaded, and down some initial efforts on : s:Index:The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1975 (UKSI 1975-1536).pdf

It would be nice to get some more of the gaps (i.e missing images) resolved :)

Of course if someone has good scans of the 1964 regs + ammendments, I'm sure that could be included as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that they can be put on Commons but you may find the following links useful: -

This link http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090511122844/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2001/trsgd/trafficsignsregulationsandge2034 appears to be the draft consultation for the TSGRD 2002, and might give some hints on what changed between it and the 1994, 1981 and earlier versions.

Also I found a copy of both the Worboys (https://archive.org/details/op1265802-1001) and Anderson (https://archive.org/details/op1265801-1001) reports on IA , the NC clause means they can't be put on Wikimedia Commons, but the may have have some useful information. The back pages of Worboys might help give hints on how to manually reconstruct some of the pre 2002 signs that there aren't necessarily working drawings that can be worked back from. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
im working together with @Mrmw on the symbols of ISO 7000. @Mrmw has created tables for the symbols. I have made an draft for an article with the tables. Could you help us? But only if you have time for it. Thank you! Maxi123ID (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID: i just updated tables for iso 7000 and ice 60417 - i think, this is a good base to start creating symbols --Mrmw (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i also downloaded 5.247 pngs (28mb) --Mrmw (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something we might need to do is break those down into smaller groups, because even split in half, it's a lot of symbols that might struggle to load in a reasonably fast way. I recall how much the 'comparison of traffic signs' articles (Examples: Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced_traffic_signs, Comparison of European road signs) struggle to load images, and I'm pretty sure they have less images on those articles. That said, we aren't exactly going to be running into issues with that for a little bit.--The Navigators (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you redraw the Grid of Page 10 of this Document? Thank you! Maxi123ID (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.--The Navigators (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID: Okay, File:EC Symbol Model Base.svg. (If someone's planning on using this for a template, I'd advise they double check that the octagon and two rectangles are correct. The directions in the EU Official Journal were a little vague compared to the rest of it.)--The Navigators (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading. This model base is also used in the design of the ISO 7000 symbols. (IEC 80416 Part 1) Maxi123ID (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Navigators: Can you please redraw this files from ISO 80416-4? The pictures could be used to describe the application of the ISO and IEC Symbols as icons.

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/111734163/d1d17cd2.fig-1.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/111734163/d1d17cd2.fig-2.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/111734163/d1d17cd2.fig-3.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/111734163/d1d17cd2.fig-7.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/111734163/d1d17cd2.fig-b_1.090.gif?lang=de

And here are some pictures from DIN EN 1332-1 which show animated symbols. They could be used to show examples for the animation of ISO-Symbols:

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/116303173/d53caa52.fig-a_13.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/116303173/d53caa52.fig-a_15.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/116303173/d53caa52.fig-a_17.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/116303173/d53caa52.fig-a_22.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/116303173/d53caa52.fig-a_25.090.gif?lang=de

- https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/116303173/d53caa52.fig-a_27.090.gif?lang=de

Thank you! Maxi123ID (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, I'll take a look at those next.--The Navigators (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. By the way: thank you for making the crescent variant of the ISO 7010-symbols. One symbol (E029) is still missing. Maxi123ID (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I missed it since I didn't have E029 downloaded to my hard drive for some reason, and didn't pull it aside when I made the rest. Just uploaded it. The Navigators (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have the pictures inserted into the german article of ISO 7010. By the way: there exists an third symbol, which is protected by international law: The Red Crystal. Israel seems to use it. Do you think, there should be an version of the signs with this symbol or is this not relevant enough? Maxi123ID (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 7010 and 3864 are not the only standards for safety signs. There is also ISO 16069 for Safety way guidance systems:

https://www.beuth.de/app/nv/nv-rest/normviewer/resources/300235436/d1d22cf4.fig-1.090.gif?lang=de

...and ISO 23601 for Escape and evacuation plan signs, but for ISO 23601 are files on commons. Maxi123ID (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID - I Uploaded English and German exit signs. Working on bilingual ones. Also have a Table for the exit signs that is basically done, just needs the bilingual signs. Can you confirm that the word I used for the German exit signs, "Ausgang", is an appropriate word to use? I was attempting to pick a word for a 'generic exit' instead of emergency exit. But I don't know anything about German or German signage to know if that word is correct.

If "Ausgang" it's the wrong word, let me know and I'll fix it, or you could change it, since I used liberations sans and left it as text to make it easy to translate. It is your call. The Navigators (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i think "Ausgang" is okay. "Notausgang" is literal translated in English as "Emergency Exit" and the signs use just "Exit". By the way: the used typeface is not defined in the ISO standards. But I (thats an personal opinion) would preffer "FreeSans", because it is a free typeface, which is similar to "Helvetica" which itself is a very commonly used typeface in public spaces. Maxi123ID (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> I'm not sure there's much point to a set of 'crystal' symbols, I don't think it actually has common recognition as a 'medical' symbol the way the cross and crescent do. I know the red crystal was added after Israel requested a red Star of David be added to the options of protective signs alongside the red cross/crescent, and I think the plan was to try and put an end to new symbols by creating a true neutral that option for anyone who didn't want to use the cross or crescent.

> Can't be positive for ISO 16069, but I think all the symbols pull from ISO 7010. I actually have that diagram you linked partly set up in a workspace from a while back, so it wouldn't be much more work to get that finished up and ready for use. I'll let you know about that.

> Yeah, ISO 23601 uses ISO 7010 and the ISO 3864 Type D arrow, so we're good there. I might make up a few variant plans that we could make easy to translate; but that's more of a change of pace or boredom project since we do have at least one diagram that is designed according to that standard.--The Navigators (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> One other thing, I removed the Geneva Convention template from File:ISO 7010 E003 - Crescent Symbol.svg. The Geneva Convention requires the symbol be red in order to qualify for protection (and also be subject to the rules about displaying it). A green and white one wouldn't be subject to those rules. That's why the standard E003 symbol using a cross doesn't need the IHL template either.--The Navigators (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are in the relevant legislation (and almost certainly according to some British Standard.) However the legislation.gov.uk copies are not always in color. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 - I'll take a look into that. You wouldn't happen to know the legislation off hand? (If you don't that's fine, I can take a look for it. But I figured I'd ask before I went hunting for it myself.) The Navigators (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't- but it seems someone did some of them already - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ADR_labels_of_danger ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Clicks link) Oh, hello past self. (But I'll take a look, since the UK does do worded hazard diamonds, which are different than the US ones. I actually have some documents from British Rail that can help with the colors, funny enough. The Navigators (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could take another look at these, Wikisource now has the 1964, 1975, 1981 regs?

I also think the 2002 era and 2016 era are on Commons, but not necessarily transcribed.

I will also not that whilst the actual signs are present, some variants aren't, and none of the signs are currently dimensioned. (You may find dimensioned versions for 2002 era signs amongst the artwork for the Traffic Signs Manual.)

Thanks for looking at these again.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also we seem to have a pre Worboys set of diagram from 1957 - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:UKSI1957_(Part_2).pdf/304

Commons seem to have a set of regulations (TSRGD) for:

• 1964 (barring some Amendments in the 1960's).
• 1975
• 1981 (+ the 1985 supplement for Cymraeg (welsh) language variants)
• 2002
• 2016

For the 1975, 1981,2002, and 2016 , Commons also seems to have some of the later amendments as well! Of course if someone can track down the Woroboys and Anderson reports in a form Commons can use as well, Commons would have a complete set of UK Traffic signs related material :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noted the following on a forum:- https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1269046#p1269046

Would you be interested if you had the time, in mocking up some clearly fictional signs?

The thinking in the forum thread seems to be to create a new warning triangle, and some supplementary plates.

The fictional signs:-

• NP 773.1 ,Red Warning triangle (P500) with 'wig-wag' lamp symbol.
• NP773.2 Supplementary panel for 529,529.1,558,559,NP 773.1 "STOP when lights show" Permitted variants: - "Trains crossing ahead", "Trams crossing Ahead", any combination of "Fire", "Police" or "Ambulance" "Station", "Active Runway", "Heavy Plant crossing", or other appropriate wording may be prefixed
• NP 773.3 Supplementary panel for 529,529.1,558,559,NP 773.1 "STOP if directed" Permitted variants "Gate Ahead", "Barrier ahead" , "Opening Bridge" , "Emergency access" may be prefixed. or other appropriate wording may be prefixed.

Some suggested combinations:

• NP 773.1 + 778 + 773.2 varied to "Trains Crossing"
• NP 773.1 + 778.1 + 773.2 varied to "Tramcars Crossing"
• NP 773.1 + NP 773.2
• 529 + NP773.2 varied to "Opening Bridge"
• 529.1 + NP773.2 varied to "Controlled Access"
• 558 + NP773.2 varied to "Active Runway"
• 559 + NP773.2 varied to "Fallen rocks possible"
• 559 + NP773.3 varied to "Fallen rocks possible"
• 771+NP 773.2 varied to "Trains crossing ahead"
• 771.1+NP 773.2 varied to "Trams crossing ahead"
• 771.1+NP 773.2 varied to "Trams in narrow street"

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As we will not have the official versions until the summer, perhaps someone can work on illustrating what the above, unofficial combinations would look like, with a view to drafting something over on Wikiversity? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Also @Nathan A RF: )

We don't seem to have the new signs for User worked railway crossings.

A thread https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43462 on the SABRE roads forums mentions a DfT consultation document https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1067720/improving-signage-at-private-level-crossings.pdf

I'm not sure where you'd get working drawings for them though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 I just put in a FOI to the DfT to see if I can get them to hand over working drawings for the new signs from page 27 to 47. I'll let you know what happens with that, it will take a few weeks.

Side question, should I put in another request for working drawings for the older "Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 1996" signs? The Navigators (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(on PCR1996) If you were wanting to, But I suspect the working drawings for the PCR (1996) signs might be held by the RSSB (example:https://www.rssb.co.uk/standards-catalogue/CatalogueItem/Sign-CC03-Iss-1) instead of DfT. RSSB for understandable reasons doesn't have an open access policy for it's standards. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on the RSSB/SparkRail database, you can just make an account if you want to view standards. Doesn't cost anything. I've had one for over 10 years now. I just threw N/A & 'Other' for any required field that I couldn't fill in.

I'll take another look at the law, and the RSSB standards database, since the RSSB didn't exist in 1996, so those records might be held in part by someone else. The Navigators (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other (historic) sign, that would be nice to have eventually, is the pre Hixon 'Hammers' sign warning of automatic barriers, (I'm not sure if this was ever a prescribed sign in the TSGRD) and as such you may have to find rare old photos, to get an example.

No working drawing for this that I could find, but it's shown in the back of the report of the Public Inquiry into the Hixon accident. (https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Hixon1968.pdf) in Appendix XV. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(on fictional signs) Those could be drawn by reference to the already available working drawings, the only 'new' component would be the 'wig-wag' in red triangle. Perhaps those 'fictional' signs could be drawn whilst you are waiting for the FOI? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere else, I had seen a non-prescribed "Do not cross tracks here" prohibitory sign, on a miniature railway, that crossed an access road in a park. TSGRD of course doesn't apply to "internal" use... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst on the subject of level crossings, there also an HMRI/ORR document that gave some layout diagrams for how crossing signs and road markings should be laid out, produced in the mid 1990's or so. (Railways archive has an earlier document from the 1980's that covers the same material.)

Railway Construction and Operation Requirements: Level Crossings - 1981 - to save having to hunt for it later.--The Navigators (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Navigators: I don't know of any working drawings of the signs without an FOI request. They are railway signs as well as road signs so might not be strictly for the TSRGD Nathan A RF (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 and Nathan A RF: - Heard back from DfT. Rejection. Sounds like we might want to mothball this for a few months. Won't link it directly, since it has my name on it, and the actual document has nothing useful that I can't just paste in below, but here's the response I got from DfT. Long story, is all they have is what we saw in that PDF. RSSB has the rest. Also those aren't finalized yet. Finalized designs will be published sometime this summer by the Government.

Freedom of Info Act Request Response

Freedom of Information Act Request – [Request number] Thank you for your information request dated 28 January 2023. We have considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). You requested working drawings of the signage shown in Annex B of the "Improving Signage at Private Level Crossings" consultation document published in April 2022. This consultation ran until 01 June 2022. The signs at Annex B are based on work created by the Rail Safety & Standards Board (RSSB) in their research project T983, further developed in discussion with industry experts in Network Rail, RSSB and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). To produce these illustrations that were consulted on, we discussed our requirements with signage experts from a private company, so that they could create them. As such, the only information that we hold are the documents that are in Annex B of the consultation document which is already in the public domain. We do not hold the working drawings that you seek and we do not believe any other organisation bound by the Act does. You may wish to note that we are currently considering changes to the signage (published in the consultation) as a result of the feedback received during the consultation. The drawings, including measurements, of the final versions of the signage will be published in regulations which the Government intends to make in the summer. Given that these updated signs are still in development, if you were to ask for this information now, we would be likely to withhold it under one of the exemptions set out in the Act. Whilst I am unable to provide illustrations of these at this time, I would advise monitoring the consultation webpage if you wish to stay up to date with the progress on this consultation. You may also wish to sign up for updates on progress by emailing “subscribe” to [Email address Omitted]. [Appeals Procedure section Omitted] Yours sincerely, Callum Gurr Policy Advisor (Rail Safety and Interoperability) Anything in italics and brackets above is a modification I made when posting it here.

I have not had much luck with FOIs/RTKs this year. Only February, and that's two delayed past the original extension and two rejections so far...(And for ones I filed this year, that's just straight up 2 rejections. The delays are hold overs from 2022)--The Navigators (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me informed.

It seems that we will have to wait for publication of updated regulations then..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan A RF@ShakespeareFan00 - Remembered to check back on this, since we're well into summer. So, after my FOI, they ended up launching a 2nd consultation based on these Revised Designs from May to June, and are currently analyzing that feedback. So no idea when we'll see working drawings. The Navigators (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this on Legislation.gov.uk - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1112/pdfs/uksi_20231112_en.pdf . The previous versions should me marked as obsolete somehow. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Oh, guess I should relaunch that FOI request... They should have working drawings now if they're adopting them into law.

As for how to label the obsolete signs, if they're traffic related, add them to the historical categories for traffic signs. I created a category for the new signs: Category:The Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023, and tossed two signs that were unchanged in there so it wouldn't be empty.

When we have the replacement signs, we can put "Replaced in 2023 by (example.svg)." in the descriptions of ones that were replaced. I might be able to make replacements for the electrical warnings today. I made a template that should work for something else by chance last night. For signs that were just dropped without a replacement (if any were) we could put 'Phased out from 2023.' in the description.

... Really hope the symbols in the working drawings are better, because some of those in the legal doc are just ugly. Like Diagram 153... Why doesn't it use the British No access for pedestrians safety symbol that they use everywhere else on the railway... or the ISO symbol... File:ISO 7010 P004.svg...?

Wait a second.. Hang on...

IS THAT THE GERMAN DIN SYMBOL!? File:DIN 4844-2 D-P003.svg No, really, I think it is... WHY!? Germany stopped using it in 2012.

(It's 5:50 am where I am, and I'm about to lose my god damn mind at the British. What is my life right now?)--The Navigators (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, FOI request has been sent. Should hear back no later than 20 Jan, 2024. The Navigators (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a response? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 (Checks request.) Okay, I mistyped earlier. They have until 30 January... (But no, they haven't responded yet, beyond the generic, we have received your request.) The Navigators (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 @Nathan A RF

Got a response... Boy is it something.

Freedom of Info Act Request Response

Freedom of Information Act request – 00007528 Thank you for your information request dated 31/12/2023. You requested: The working drawings of the signage for the legislation "The Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023", listed under Schedule 1, Part 1 to Part 6. I'm looking for working drawings of the signs identified as in the legislation as Diagram 101 to Diagram 166. The signs that are contained within the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023 are the final set of signs that take account of comments made in the 2022 consultation on the topic. These were then reconsulted on in 2023, after which they were placed in to legislation. The only information that we hold are the designs in the Regulations and those within the consultation document, which are already in the public domain. [Appeals Procedure section Omitted] Yours sincerely, Freddie Pike

Only other folks I can imagine who would hold these would be the Rail Safety and Standards Board, but I haven't seen anything new on their site in the standards search. I was looking recently in order to complete some designs from the old legislation.

(Why the hell did it take them this long to tell me 'No we don't have that?')-- The Navigators (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Well you tried. Looks like you might have to do a reconstruct based on intelligent reasoning, (with input from the Traffic Signs Manual, existing RSSB artworks, ISO 7010 etc... :(. Not ideal though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll try reaching out to RSSB and see if there's any sorta time frame on drawings, because I assume they have to be coming up with drawings if DfT doesn't have any.... SOMEONE HAS TO.

But yeah, I'll start by just moving over all the signs that didn't change from the old legislation, since there are a few. -- The Navigators (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check the border widths here: s:Page:The Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 1996 (UKSI19961786 en).pdf/8 Someone said the diagrams you drew did not match the source document, even thought I understood you'd drawn them dirrctly from the applicable standard!

For some user-worked crossings, you might also see if they exist as drawings within the MCHW/DRMB series of drawings? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file's I've uploaded are drawn to the RSSB's working drawings; these two in this case: [1]. Shockingly, when someone actually tried to put the sign together, they likely discovered the half-assed drawings in the legal document didn't work correctly. Like for fuck sake, there are 2 measurements on that diagram. It's not to fucking scale.

The corners on Diagram 105 aren't even drawn correctly.

(This rant is not directed at you, this is me getting real fucking tired of this editor, because I think it's the same one, and venting before I go have a chat with them about this.)-- The Navigators (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway signage is a mess so not unexpected that they've all been made with minimal effort. So in any case its likely that a lot of actual signs will not quite match the drawings. In that case it might be better to reconstruct from pictures of actual signs rather than the "working drawings". I think the big fail I've just noticed is that the warning sign in the regulations warning of a private crossing is 600mm wide, whereas (nearly) all warning signs in the TSRGD are 600mm high... Nathan A RF (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped message to the RSSB to find out if they're planning on doing working drawings, and if have any timeline on their release if they are.

No idea on when I should expect to hear back from them.

Really tempted to just revalidate page 8 and if the person complains that there's an issue again, tell them that if they see a problem with it, they can fix it, because I don't see a problem with it.

I can't fix a problem I can't see. -- The Navigators (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan A RF, @ShakespeareFan00 - Heard back from the RSSB, actually impressed with the turn around.

RSSB's Response
::::::::::::::Hi Michael, Thank you for your enquiry. I regret that the RSSB catalogue does not include signs that are intended purely for road traffic. We therefore have no plans to include signs encompassed by the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations in the catalogue. Regards,

Also nothing in the MCHW/DRMB drawings.

So that appears to be that. The Navigators (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan A RF @ShakespeareFan00 - Okay, I tossed an FOI to the Office of Rail and Road, and see if they have working drawings. Screw it, I'll just try working through all the possible orgs, worse that happens is I rack up a list of rejections...--The Navigators (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Rail & Road - Freedom of Info Act Request Response

Dear [My Name], Thank you for your request of 7th April 2024 for information in relation to the working drawings of the signage for the legislation "The Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023", (signs identified in the legislation as Diagram 101 to Diagram 166). Whilst we have considered your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA 2000), we do not hold the information you have requested. We suggest you contact the Department for Transport (DfT), as they are responsible for these Regulations and produce the working drawings for the signs. Details of how to contact DfT’s FOI Team are available on their website. [Appeals Procedure section Omitted]

Nevermind. Not held, pointed back to DfT.--The Navigators (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Cymraeg (welsh) word for exit? Some examples I've seen on Google Image seem to say "Allan" but I'm clearly not a Cymreaeg speaker. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this useful:-

https://web.archive.org/web/20220313025146/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities

It had the "temporary" traffic signs for social distancing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks for tracking down archives of these documents. I had them saved to my computer from when they were first released, but was annoyed I couldn't locate them online recently to link when uploading them.--The Navigators (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Version in TSGRD 1975 says 32 not 38 ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Version in TSGRD 1975 is 10 tons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also: File:UK traffic sign 629.svg 6'-6" in SVG sign, 7'6" ion TSGRD 1975 (But check the other years) may need a variant for differing heights? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By no means complete, but you might find this useful, (of course if you can add to it, even better:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk))

Pre 1994	Post1994	Descripton
537	770	Level crossing with gate or barrier ahead(1964)
537.1		(1975-1993)
537.2		(1975-1993)
537.3		(1975-1993)
537.4		(1975-1993)
538	771	Railway level crossing without gate or barrier ahead(1964)
	772	Tramcars crossing ahead (1994- )
	773	Light signals as shown in diagram 3014 (1994- )
542	774	Location of railway or tramway level crossing without gate or barrier(1964-)
542.1		Location of level crossing without gate or barrier over more than line of railway (1981-1993)
542.2		Indication of left hand or nearside limit of a railway level crossing without gate or barrier (1981-1993)
863	775	Vehicular traffics must not stop within the area of railway or tramway crossing (1981-)
828		Another train coming (1964)
828		Another train coming (1975)
828.1	776	Another tain may be about to pass over the crossing.(1981-)
828.2	777	Level crossing ahead is crossed by more than one railway or tramcar track, and more than one train or tramcar may pass over it in quick succession(1994?)
602.1	778	Open railway crossing without light signals (1975-)
	778.1	Open tramway level crossing without light signals (1994-)
533	779	Overhead cable (1964-)
534		Plate for use with diagram 533-"Headroom" (1964)
534.1	780	Safe height beneath overhead cable ahead (1975-)
534.2	780.1	Safe height beneath overhead cable in direction and distance indicated (1975-)
535		Plate for use with diagram 533-"Headroom" (1964)
535.1	780.2	Safe height beneath overhead cable ahead provided with a load guage shown in diagram 781 (1975-)
526	781	Load guage giving audible warning to drivers where vehicle exceeds safe height under electrified overhead cables(1964)
556.1		Plate for use with sign in diagram 556 at or near a railway level crossing (1975-1980)
556.2		Plate for use with sign in diagram 556 at or near a railway level crossing (1975-1980)
556.3		Plate for use with sign in diagram 556 at or near a railway level crossing or with sign in diagram 528 at or near a hump bridge (1981-1993)
556.4		Plate for use with sign in diagram 556 at or near a railway level crossing or with sign in diagram 528 at or near a hump bridge (1981-1993)
	782	Risk of grounding at a railway or tramway level crossing or hump backed bridge (1994)
853		Instructions to some users of level crossings. (1975-1980)
861	783	Drivers of long low vehicles must obtain permisson before using an automatic railway or tramway level crossing (1981-)
649		Drivers of large or slow vehicle must stop an telephone before using an automatic railway or tramway level crossing.(1964)
649.1	784	Drivers of large or slow vehicle must stop an telephone before using an automatic railway or tramway level crossing.(1975-2001)
	784.1	Drivers of large or slow vehicle must stop an telephone before using an automatic railway or tramway level crossing.(2002-2015)
862	785	Details of telephone number for contacting railway or tramway operator(1981-2001)
	785.1	Drivers of large or slow vehicle must stop an telephone before using an automatic railway or tramway level crossing.(2002-)
856	786	Place where large or slow vehicles should wait near an automatic railway or tramway level crossing while the driver obtains permission to cross (1975-)
854	787	Site of emergency telephone or telephone at or near a railway or tramway crossing (1975-)
855	788	Direction to emergency telephone or telephone at or near a railway or tramway crossing (1975-)
539	789.	Countdown markers to concealed level railway or tramway level crossing.(1964)
540	789.1	Countdown markers to concealed level railway or tramway level crossing.(1964)
541	789.2	Countdown markers to concealed level railway or tramway level crossing.(1964)
569.3	790	New method of controlling traffic at railway or tramway crossing ahead. (1981- ? )
564	7001	Road works or temporary obstruction of the carrigeway ahead.
564.1	7002	Plate indicating nature of road works for use with sign in diagram 564
564.2		(1975)
564.3		(1975)
564.4		(1975)
564.5		Diversion to the other carrigeway of a dual carrigeway (1975-1981)
565		(1964) SLOW loose Chippings - (NB. Large and small wordings.)
565.1	7009	Loose chipping
565.2	7010
	7010.1	"SLOW WET TAR" and variants.
565.3	7011	To indicate to vehicular traffic the place beyond which traffic shall not proceed when a tempoary red traffic light signal conforming to Regulation 33(2) is displayed and no stop line is place on the carrigeway.
565.4	7012	To indicate temporary absence of road markings.
566	7013	Ramp/ Temporary sudden change in level of roadway
	7014
	7015
	7016
567	7017	Direction of temporary pedestrian route
567.1	7018	Direction of temporary pedestrian route
567.2	2708	?
568	(2702) Diversion.
569	7104	Sharp deviation of route to left.
569.1	7105	Traffic lane or carriageway closed to traffic/Position to mark length of road cloase to traffic of guide to traffic past an obstruction
569.2	7014	Permenant change in road layout ahead.
569.3	790	New level crossing control ahead
569.4	7019	To indicate failure of lights ahead.
570	570
571	572a
572	-
573	-
574		(1975-) Animal disease sign
575		(1975-) Oncoming vehicles in middle of road.
576	7016	Temporary Sign for pedestrians to indicate that Zebra or Pelican pedestrian crossing is not in use as such a crossing
577	-	Conincal traffic cone
578	-	Cylindrical traffic cone
579	7301	Plate for use with diagrom 506.1 to indicate a temporary accces to a construction or road works site.
	7302	(Works Exit)
580	7303	Temporary sign to guide road works or construction traffic.
	7304
857
857.1		?
858	109 (PCR 1996)
858.1	110 (PCR 1996)
858.2	114 (PCR 1996)
859		?
860	111 (PCR 1996)
860.1	112 (PCR 1996)

2002	2016
770	Schedule 2 Part2 Item 51
771	Schedule 2 Part2 Item 52
772	Schedule 2 Part2 Item 53
773	Schedule 14 Part2 Item 6?
774	Schedule 2 Part 6 Item 4
775	Schedule 11 Part 2 Item 67
776	Schedule 14 Part 2 Item 8
777	Schedule 14 Part 2 Item 8
778	Schedule 9 Part 2 Item 4
778.1	Schedule 9 Part 2 Item 5
779	Schedule 2 Part 2 Item 54
780	Replaced with worded plate as detailed in Schedule 2 Part 2 Item 54
780.1A	Replaced with worded plate as detailed in Schedule 2 Part 2 Item 54
780.2A	Replaced with worded plate as detailed in Schedule 2 Part 2 Item 54
781	Schedule 2 Part 6 Item 5
782	Schedule 2 Part 2 Item 55
783	Schedule 11 Part 2 Item 68
784.1	Schedule 9 Part 4 Item 4
785.1	Schedule 11 Part 2 Item 69
786	Schedule 11 Part 2 Item 70
787	Schedule 11 Part 2 Item 71
788	Schedule 11 Part 2 Item 72
789	Schedule 2 Part 6 Item 6
789.1	Schedule 2 Part 6 Item 6
789.2	Schedule 2 Part 6 Item 6
790	Schedule 14 Part 2 Item 67

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might help in potentially filling in a few gaps: Category:Traffic_Signs_Manual_(UK)

Hope it helps :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Report_of_the_Traffic_Signs_Committee,_18th_April_1963 I thought you'd want to know about these :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

i have a new graphic theme after ISO 7001: the TERN symbols, which are used by Austria. The symbols are in use since 2019 (on the Autobahns of Austria) and since 2020 (on other roads in Austria). I have already writed a Message on the discussion page of @Clemenspool, there are also a few links to useful sites. Perhaps you can draw the road signs, when the symbols are uploaded by Clemenspool. By the way: @Mrmw has recently paused to draw the symbols of ISO 7000 and IEC 60417. The most important symbols are uploaded, but there are still a lot of missing symbols. Maxi123ID (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID: i am still vectorizing iec-symbols, pls dont draw and upload any files for ISO 7000/IEC 60417

i have over 200 done but not upoaded, will feedback you when i am finished, dont hessitate to request at my disk-page --Mrmw (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrmw load 'em up, load 'em up! Clemenspool (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID and Clemenspool: i have done 225 since last upload and want to do at least 187, so it would take a little bit - is there a hurry? is anyone waiting for it? maxi123 told me to take the time i need --Mrmw (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrmw just trying to cheer you up - there is no hurry I think, but the potential for doubling the work, since we wont see which files already exist... Clemenspool (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID and Clemenspool: absolutely wants to avoid doubleing work - this would be very annoying for everybody - who is creating files for ISO 7000/IEC 60417? would be a list of files as text helpful? --Mrmw (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be better to upload the pictures, when they are made (for example: 20 files or so at once) because they need to be translated and categorized. Maxi123ID (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID and Clemenspool: you are right, will upload soon --Mrmw (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi123ID and Clemenspool: sorry for the delay - see below my uploads - i am done with my cooperation in this project (1.650 files in total) - for sure i will do fixes if necessary

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--Mrmw (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a set of common signs for UK waterways? There was a wikivoyage article on voy:Inland waterways in the United Kingdom and wondered if there was a common UK approach. (You've previously done vectors for all kinds of signs). So if these exist in a 'free' licensed format it would make sense to put them in a sutiable category. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I just checked on this. The UK seems to use a system developed/established based on a document published in 2006 NAVIGATION SIGNS AND SYMBOLS - An industry standard for UK inland waterways by the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities. The signs themselves appear to be largely derived from a mix of UK road traffic signs and BS 5499 safety signs (The UK's Pre-ISO 7010 standard for safety signs.) with a couple custom symbols here and there.

It's not a government organization, so I don't think they're under Crown Copyright, like the rail and traffic signs we've been working with. I'll dig around a little more. The Navigators (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/industry-guidance/traffic-signs-and-road-markings/#71257 This might be useful to bookmark

The Welsh variants are - https://www.gov.wales/traffic-signs-and-road-markings ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]