daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 24th, 2011, 11:27 AM   #341
Luki_SL
Moderator
 
Luki_SL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Upper Silesia
Posts: 53,721
Likes (Received): 17431

If this sign would be so old, it is in fairly good condition
Luki_SL no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 24th, 2011, 11:01 PM   #342
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,801
Likes (Received): 615

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post

As far as I can tell from any map, the E9 begins where the A71 branches off the A10. On this photo, they're directing E9 traffic off the A10 (and onto city streets) a few kilometers before that (specifically, here http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll...m&z=14&vpsrc=6 ). Which is a routing that doesn't make sense to me, whether the maps are wrong or not.
The arrangement has been changed. According to Google Street View, the road to exit is E60 instead of E9.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll...,195.73,,0,2.4

This does not make any sense either.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2011, 11:05 PM   #343
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Well, that makes sense because it's possible that street view pic is older than the A19 motorway, where E60 runs across, which opened on June 16th, 2009.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2011, 11:11 PM   #344
Uppsala
Registered User
 
Uppsala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Uppsala, S, Europe
Posts: 654
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
The arrangement has been changed. According to Google Street View, the road to exit is E60 instead of E9.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll...,195.73,,0,2.4

This does not make any sense either.
The signs is changed. And at the old picture there is an old sign for the number of the junction with the text Sortie 14. At the new picture there is the modern junction number with the symbol instead of the text Sortie.

I don't think they have so many signs with the old style of junction number in France now.
Uppsala no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2011, 11:30 PM   #345
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 779

Another issue there - although it's nothing to do with the E-numbers and I have an urge to shift this into the France thread - is that, if I were heading for the northern part of Orléans for whatever reason and had looked at a map and seen I needed to exit onto the A701, I wouldn't actually see any indication of the A701 (not even a blue sign)....

Europeans who complain - and with good reason - about American signage not giving enough destination information: the inability to navigate in Europe by route numbers is is the other side of the coin.

[steps off soapbox]
__________________
I didn't vote for him....

DRIVEN IN BEEN IN:
AL CA CT DE DC FL GA ID IL IN KY ME MD MA MI MN MO MT NH NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD TN UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ---
AB BC MB NB NS ON PE QC SK ---
A B CH D F GB I L NL
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2011, 11:33 PM   #346
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

It's correct that Europe is less number-focused than the United States. The degree of numbering roads varies by country, especially in signing lower class road numbers. In some countries, virtually all roads are numbered and signed, in others nearly all roads have numbers but not all of them are signed and in others only roads with significance to traffic are numbered.

The most troublesome country I've driven in regarding road numbers must be Switzerland.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2012, 07:09 AM   #347
treichard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 0

A few of us working on the Clinched Highway Mapping site have tallied up the total length of the E Roads in each participating country.

We also calculated a total length of about 171,200 km.

Here lengths are counted only once along highways with multiple E numbers. We include countries that do not post E numbers on signs along with those that do, using an educated guess wherever we could not be certain of a route's path or end. Some countries document the paths well online, while others make no such attempt that we could find. Some countries also create well signed E roads that do not appear in the latest UNECE log or subsequent amendments.

We have excluded the seemingly non-existent E404 in Belgium, the imminent E16 extension from Oslo to eastern Sweden, the approved but not yet completed/signed(?) E579 in Hungary, and the newly approved E66 extension in Hungary. We have excluded Albania because the latest UNECE route log from 2008 excludes Albania, and we could not determine that the E road routings in Albania have been officially determined since then.

The lengths given below are not exact, but they are likely to be correct to within 2%.

Code:
Rank	Country			Length (km)
1	Russia			19308.5
2	France			13868.4
3	Kazakhstan		13395.7
4	Germany			10474.9
5	Turkey			9143.6
6	Italy			8615.5
7	Ukraine			8264.1
8	Spain			6528.7
9	Sweden			6395.5
10	Romania			6060.6
11	Norway			5874.8
12	Poland			5488.6
13	Finland			4304.8
14	United Kingdom		3805.2
15	Greece			3765.9
16	Uzbekistan		3372.0
17	Czech Republic		2638.7
18	Turkmenistan		2391.7
19	Bulgaria		2368.8
20	Austria			2311.4
21	Tajikistan		2294.5
22	Portugal		2234.9
23	Hungary			2209.5
24	Belgium			1834.4
25	Serbia			1815.1
26	Belarus			1765.8
27	Croatia			1672.4
28	Kyrgyzstan		1648.1
29	Netherlands		1645.1
30	Lithuania		1564.8
31	Slovakia		1517.9
32	Switzerland		1438.5
33	Azerbaijan		1416.6
34	Latvia			1255.2
35	Georgia			1188.5
36	Estonia			1002.8
37	Bosnia and Herzegovina	938.3
38	Denmark			936.9
39	Ireland			807.8
40	Moldova			784.0
41	Armenia			759.3
42	Slovenia		589.8
43	Montenegro		546.2
44	Macedonia		519.8
45	Kosovo			245.3
46	Luxembourg		212.5
We have also created a map of the whole system:
http://cmap.m-plex.com/maps/centerma...s&rg=eure&mv=0
__________________
Map your cumulative highway travel in Europe and North America
Now includes the motorway and expressway systems of over 20 European countries
Clinched Highway Mapping
http://cmap.m-plex.com/

Last edited by treichard; March 24th, 2012 at 07:11 AM. Reason: format
treichard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2012, 12:03 PM   #348
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Nice

I assume this would make the E-system the second longest numbered highway system in the world? (After the U.S. Highway system that exceeds a quarter of a million kilometers).
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 03:53 AM   #349
Glodenox
Registered User
 
Glodenox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Zemst, BE
Posts: 1,794
Likes (Received): 655

The E404 is not very likely to ever be built indeed. The two bridges that were already built for it were even demolished last year.
__________________
Copyright remains mine for all images I post that are hosted at tomputtemans.com, unless captioned otherwise.
Glodenox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 11:03 PM   #350
aswnl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: near Amsterdam (NL)
Posts: 932
Likes (Received): 84

The UK doesn't sign E-routes. So why haven't you excluded the UK ?
aswnl no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 12:39 AM   #351
Uppsala
Registered User
 
Uppsala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Uppsala, S, Europe
Posts: 654
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by aswnl View Post
The UK doesn't sign E-routes. So why haven't you excluded the UK ?
I think they should include the UK because the E-roads in the UK exist even if they are not signed. And for example E13 are only going in the UK. Its going fron London to Doncaster. And all parts of E13 is a motorway
Uppsala no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 03:27 AM   #352
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,550

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uppsala View Post
I think they should include the UK because the E-roads in the UK exist even if they are not signed. And for example E13 are only going in the UK. Its going fron London to Doncaster. And all parts of E13 is a motorway
That is why we included them. All E roads in the log are mapped, with the above-quoted exceptions, all signed E roads are mapped (so the E7 along the A65 in France, which is signed, but not in the log). The exceptions are (as far as we know) unsigned new additions to the log in countries that sign E roads well, and the E404, which clearly hasn't, and won't, be built.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 10:06 AM   #353
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 127

The UK has not ratified the Geneva Convention and is unlikely to do so in the near future. That means effectively that the E-routes named in the UK are extraterritorial. As if the Dutch decided to expand their A12 to Vienna and then tried to have the German and Austrian parts of that route counted in their motorway statistics.

So yes, you can calculate the length of the E-numbering system on paper and then you have to include the UK as it was included on paper. But the are very good cases to make for a focus on routes actually signposted. Deviating from paper to include an additional part of E7 and not deviating from paper to add all of Britain is only a nice thing to do if it's bragging rights that you're after. In other words if you want criteria that will help you to get as many kilometers in your system as possible.
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 09:43 PM   #354
treichard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 0

Another of the conclusions from our study is that the actual implementation of the E road system on highway signs or pavement markings is quite messy.

There is the single document (UNECE AGR, a route log of E roads) that is supposed to define the E road system to the precision level of city-city connections for the participating nations, and then there are 46 or more different versions of compliance with the system. They range from

- signing all the log's routes (many countries)
- signing none of the log's routes (UK and others)
- signing some of them while not signing the others (Belgium and others)
- signing routes not in the log (France)
- signing routes with a different number than prescribed by the log (Italy)
- signing a route so that it doesn't connect to the same-numbered route on the other side of a border (probably these issues get resolved on one side faster than the other)
- signing dual paths or extra branches of the routes (France, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, others)
- signing a path different than what the log dictates (Croatia and others)
- not having a highway that connects a pair of prescribed cities (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan)
- erroneous(?) signing of a route (many places)
- conflicting signs concerning a route path (many places)
- signing status or route path simply not determinable without going there in person (widespread)
- approved but not yet implemented (signed) changes (several places)

The first few reasons show why a strict adherence to the UNECE log isn't the best way to describe the Int'l E Road system that actually exists. In reality, the various countries choose to deviate from the log while agreeing to it. They don't propose to amend the log to their liking often enough to keep it representing the reality they create.

The last few reasons make a strict adherence to the "status of signing" impossible to determine without unreasonable effort. In these cases, the log is the best although imperfect source.

So it is not practical to strictly assume the log is correct nor to count only signed routes. The reality is much messier than either method. It was a huge headache to sift through the numerous inconsistencies in E road paths and end points to deduce a path or end point that is most likely to be correct.

The UK, or parts of the UK, have used E numbers on their highway ministry web sites referring specifically to highways in the UK.
__________________
Map your cumulative highway travel in Europe and North America
Now includes the motorway and expressway systems of over 20 European countries
Clinched Highway Mapping
http://cmap.m-plex.com/
treichard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2012, 01:24 AM   #355
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,550

There's certainly provision for it in UK sign design manuals, and the reason they aren't is that they are not all on motorways (though that refers to the old system, to which we added a ton of routes in the 1960s). The UK was consulted on the new system, despite having not ratified the treaty, and the routes in the UK aren't just port-to-mainland-Europe to Republic of Ireland links (though really rather sparse compared to similarly densely populated areas of Europe), so it seems like they were intending that the UK signs them.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2012, 09:49 AM   #356
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 127

I once heard (but not from any official source) that it had been the UK's intention to ratify the Geneva Convention and introduce E-routes as soon as all E-routes in Britain would be at motorway standard. Or at least the full backbone of the network, with the routes close to the ferry ports and in the North of Scotland being exempt. I furthermore understood that, in that situation, the underlying M-numbers would disappear completely. So M6 would become E05, M1 would become E13 etc.

Not sure though whether that has ever been the official line and whether it still is. In any event, we're not remotely close to an all-motorway backbone, so nobody needs to bother.
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2012, 12:31 PM   #357
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,550

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
I once heard (but not from any official source) that it had been the UK's intention to ratify the Geneva Convention and introduce E-routes as soon as all E-routes in Britain would be at motorway standard. Or at least the full backbone of the network, with the routes close to the ferry ports and in the North of Scotland being exempt.
That sounds about right, with this being the network (the 1950 network was getting close to being 50% motorway so the UK had to make a load of routes to give them an inset, and kick signing them into the distance).



The 1950 to 1968 network was E1, E2, E5, E8 on the same routes as above. E31 up the M1, A1, A66, A6/M6, A74 to Glasgow. E32 on the A702 (E31 to Edinburgh), E33 on the M45-A45-A452-A5-A34-A50-A57 from Northampton to Liverpool and the E34 along the A5 from Cannock to Holyhead.
Quote:
I furthermore understood that, in that situation, the underlying M-numbers would disappear completely. So M6 would become E05, M1 would become E13 etc.
No, the one example of E road signage in traffic signs manuals have both a national and a E road number. M6 would have become E33, M1 would have become E33 and E106 and the M20 would be E2 and E5.

With planned motorways, Northern Ireland would be covered (M2-M23 route being the E117/E16 and M11 route covering the E118/E01), but there were huge gaps on both the 1968 and 1983 network - even if you take out routes near ports or in the north of Scotland.

That said, I'd suggest that the A12, A14 and A55 that have junction numbers and few flat junctions would count. However the A34 wouldn't. The Highways Agency signs E roads by giving longer distance destinations than they normally would have.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2012, 02:56 PM   #358
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 127

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The one example of E road signage in traffic signs manuals have both a national and a E road number. M6 would have become E33, M1 would have become E33 and E106 and the M20 would be E2 and E5.
That's pre-1975 numbering then, so presumably a rather old example of (anticipated) E-route signage too. Did you find that example on the internet? Care to post a scan?
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2012, 03:57 PM   #359
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,550

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/...hp?f=1&t=23339 <- this topic shows the new system on signs - though I'm not sure it wasn't just created by the user, rather than using a design. Finding old traffic signs manuals is very difficult and I did do a quick search of SABRE, but couldn't find the image (might have been an attached scan from a book, lost in the ether)

The new network, proposed in 1975, but not implemented until '83, was very pruned in the UK (which didn't help motivate the UK to sign them), due to German anger at the 1968 boom where the UK gave itself the above dense network, trolling for an inset on the map. The Germans asked the British civil service if they signed them, which is probably the time when the "when they are all on motorways, we'll sign them" came about.

Certainly when they designed the fonts for roads in the early 60s, they had in mind signing E roads - the Motorway font (for road numbers on motorways) consists of the following characters: '0' '1' '2' '3' '4' '5' '6' '7' '8' '9' 'A' 'B' 'E' 'M' '(N)' '(S)' '(E)' '(W)' '&' '(' ')' '/' '(NE)' '(SE)' '(NW)' '(SW)' ','
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2012, 03:48 PM   #360
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 127

It remains a bit of a mystery to me why the UK ever pushed for that inset on the map. I can see the merit in showing the rest of Europe how dense the UK motorway network was and how crucial the UK was for the European infrastructure network, but an inset on a map of E-routes is just beyond me. It's not the type of map that is going to be used by the whole world or so, likely more by people in parts of the infrastructure world only...

Looking at the E-routes that got designated during this 'inset' age, I'm not too shocked. The density is comparable to what you see just across the Channel, in the densely populated areas of the Benelux, Northern France and Germany. It would all have been fairly easy to reconcile with the 1975 grid. Those blue and pink routes on the map above that are not in the current grid would have ended up with three-digit numbers, which kind of tracks similar roads across the Channel.
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium