
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Order of destinations on non primary Direction Signs</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775016</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:13:05 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:24:57 GMT</pubDate>
<copyright>Copyright &#xA9; 2024 Institute of Highway Engineers</copyright>
<atom:link href="https://members.theihe.org/forums/topic_rss.asp?group=214541&amp;id=1775016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<item>
<title>Order of destinations on non primary Direction Signs</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775016</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775016</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Hi folks,

I'm looking for a bit of guidance regarding the order of destinations on Direction Signs. 
LTN 1/94 para 4.1.2(c) says "Place name destinations, generally in the order of furthest first". Does "first" mean the top of the sign?
Para 4.1.3 then says "Where two or more destinations from the same category are indicated along the same route then the furthest destination will generally be at the top". 

I am currently redesigning the signs in the attached screenshot, and as you can see from the image, the closest destination is at the top. I've had a look around the area and in other council areas the closest destination is more often at the top.

Can anyone advise which is correct or if there is other guidance I'm missing?]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:42:47 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775019</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775019</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The honest answer is not everybody reads the guidance.<br /><br />However, "logically" you'd think nearest destination would be listed at the top of the sign and then in ascending order as is done on route confirmation signs. This isn't the case.<br /><br />We really need that proper chapter of TSM dedicated to direction signs, but it appears not to be forthcoming due to other pressures. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:55:37 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775020</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775020</guid>
<description><![CDATA[In general, anywhere that mileages are listed on directional signs, such as you've shown, the mileages run from smallest (Closest destination) at the top down to largest at the bottom.<br /><br />TSM Ch.7 is your friend here as there a section about this.<br /><br />On Advance Direction Signs, it's slightly different, but for the signs you've shown, I'd be working smallest mileage to largest from top to bottom of the sign plate. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:01:27 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775021</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775021</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I'm not regularly involved in sign design, but I've always understood that the furthest destination goes at the top, as LTN 1/94 says, which is the way it's generally done around here. Whether that's logical or not, I wouldn't like to say! I'm not aware of any other guidance.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:02:58 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775026</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775026</guid>
<description><![CDATA[J Hawke's reply got me wondering whether I'd missed something, so I went and looked up TSM Ch. 7 and it contains examples showing both ways, so I guess you can take your choice!<br /><br />However, section 14.2.3 says, "Generally, for pedestrian signs, the stacking order of destinations is nearest first." <br /><br />]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:18:43 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775029</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775029</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I think LTN 1/94 saying "furthest first" is talking about trunk/primary routes where a large proportion of the traffic is long-distance, and it's helpful to follow a consistent target destination always at the top.<br /><br />For local roads and tourist signs, nearest first is more common. Anything with mileages needs to be nearest first, as stated above, and traditional fingerposts have always done that too.<br /><br />The most important thing is for authorities to be consistent regarding their policy.<br /><br />Great to have so many sensible responses so quickly!]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:24:57 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
