There is a small handbook now produced to show how to go on, but in English only.
I wonder if it would make much difference even if it came with a free babelfish? You can probably be fairly confident that direct, permanent staff will read it, but casual labour and other visitors are unlikely to.
Surely the crossing (any crossing) should be designed in a clear, legible way? With road crossings that most people are familiar with, the gate opening or closing is equal to being allowed or not allowed to cross. Breaking that simple principle seems odd. What was the reasoning behind it?
I would agree that signage should be clear and concise, and there you have a problem. Even if it were clear and concise regular users can become lax because they use it every day, occasional users sometimes find the word "No" difficult to understand if they come on the phone.
I am afraid after nearly fifty years of dealing with the public face to face you think you have seen it all, and then somebody produces something that nobody has ever thought of. They never fail to amaze, but that POGO crossing still needs a lot of work on it yet, and probably tailored to each location.
That little handbook is a good product by the way, lots of pictures as well for those whose first language may not be English. I have done leafleting campaigns stood at crossings giving these sorts of things away and the resistance is quite high. I really don't know what the answer is.
Click on the map to explore geographics
