Erroneous road signs

[hotdogPi]

Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So what's exactly wrong with the new sign?

It's tiny, leaving most of the gantry exposed behind it.

[myosh_tino]

Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So what's exactly wrong with the new sign?

It's tiny, leaving most of the gantry exposed behind it.

If I'm not mistaken, overhead guide signs were placed on the gantries like that in the Las Vegas area so the lighting fixture would not obscure the bottom part of the sign.  When I first saw it, I thought it looked rather ugly because California mounts their signs flush to the bottom of the truss, but it does make sense to me now, especially if the light fixture blocks an arrow or a distance message.

Anyways, I don't consider this to be erroneous.  It may not be aesthetically pleasing but I understand why NDOT did it.

[thenetwork]

^ Aren't most of the overhead signs in Vegas lit from the top of the sign pointing down?

[3web]

^ Aren't most of the overhead signs in Vegas lit from the top of the sign pointing down?

Nope, they're lit from the bottom.
Also, sorry for not being clear enough. It looks erroneous to me because of the way that the arrow is above the exit only tab and not inside of it. To me, it looks erroneous, but I guess that's just my opinion.

[roadfro]

Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So what's exactly wrong with the new sign?

It's tiny, leaving most of the gantry exposed behind it.

If I'm not mistaken, overhead guide signs were placed on the gantries like that in the Las Vegas area so the lighting fixture would not obscure the bottom part of the sign.  When I first saw it, I thought it looked rather ugly because California mounts their signs flush to the bottom of the truss, but it does make sense to me now, especially if the light fixture blocks an arrow or a distance message.

Anyways, I don't consider this to be erroneous.  It may not be aesthetically pleasing but I understand why NDOT did it.

Also, sorry for not being clear enough. It looks erroneous to me because of the way that the arrow is above the exit only tab and not inside of it. To me, it looks erroneous, but I guess that's just my opinion.

Yeah, definitely not erroneous. But poor design quality for NDOT... (They could have gone with "Eastern Ave" on the top line, and put the "exit only" plaque with black on yellow arrow on the bottom line).

That stretch of freeway now has some of the oldest freeway signs in Las Vegas, many of which were faded and peeling years ago. So I'm actually glad NDOT has replaced the sign, bad design notwithstanding.

^ Aren't most of the overhead signs in Vegas lit from the top of the sign pointing down?

No. The only signs lit from overhead in the Vegas area are along I-215 southern beltway approaching the I-15, McCarran Airport and Warm Springs Road interchanges, and original freeway signs on the McCarran Airport Connector. Overhead lit signs are limited to only those sign structures dating from the original construction of I-215 (some signs may have been replaced with conventional lighting or had lighting removed in subsequent projects), which was a project completed under the purview of Clark County and not NDOT.

NDOT as a rule does not install signs lit from overhead. The only such installations I'm aware of are in Reno-Sparks, which were installed with new signs as part of the I-80 rebuild a few years ago. These are limited to the huge APLs (headlights wouldn't light the entire signs) or a few signs installed on curves (headlights don't light these signs sufficiently for long enough); most signs from this project are unlit.

[TravelingBethelite]

Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure this is a goof:



Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

[myosh_tino]

Also, sorry for not being clear enough. It looks erroneous to me because of the way that the arrow is above the exit only tab and not inside of it. To me, it looks erroneous, but I guess that's just my opinion.

Placing an arrow above the exit-only plaque is somewhat common here in California...











All of the above photos are courtesy of the AARoads Gallery taken on northbound I-280 through San Jose and Cupertino.  The last sign (Wolfe Road exit) was recently replaced with a reflective one that keeps the same layout but includes an exit "tab".

[machias]

Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure this is a goof:



Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

[TravelingBethelite]

Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure this is a goof:



Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.

[jakeroot]

Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure this is a goof:

http://i.imgur.com/TlN9Ey2.jpg

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.

That's a design error.

Erroneous signs have incorrect information on them.

[hotdogPi]

Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure this is a goof:

http://i.imgur.com/TlN9Ey2.jpg

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.

That's a design error.

Erroneous signs have incorrect information on them.

It is erroneous. The sign says it is MA 51, ME 51, or possibly CT 51 or WV 51. It is none of those.

[machias]

Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure this is a goof:

http://i.imgur.com/TlN9Ey2.jpg

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.

That's a design error.

Erroneous signs have incorrect information on them.

It is erroneous. The sign says it is MA 51, ME 51, or possibly CT 51 or WV 51. It is none of those.

While I agree that it is the wrong state route marker and I hope that folks driving in Oklahoma are smart enough to figure out that the message conveyed is "SR 51", I doubt that there is enough confusion generated by this sign to create a safety issue. Honestly, aside from the erroneous route marker, I find the sign to be incredibly well-designed. The exit tab is slightly off center instead of right justified but other than that it's a well done sign. Aside from the route marker.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Found this on Google Maps. Located at TN 385 and Interstate 269 interchange heading south:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0336704,-89.6402844,3a,15y,206.68h,98.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKldFfNO3_-doDHHwBeNEPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What's wrong with this sign?
1. The "L" is tilted DOWN
2. APL is too squished on one side

EDIT: On the same road, APL is too squished on one side, except a half-mile back:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0391913,-89.6383092,3a,37.5y,181.35h,98.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVgZLpCagRB9P6sjFvH7cIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[roadfro]

Found this on Google Maps. Located at TN 385 and Interstate 269 interchange heading south:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0336704,-89.6402844,3a,15y,206.68h,98.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKldFfNO3_-doDHHwBeNEPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What's wrong with this sign?
1. The "L" is tilted DOWN
2. APL is too squished on one side

EDIT: On the same road, APL is too squished on one side, except a half-mile back:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0391913,-89.6383092,3a,37.5y,181.35h,98.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVgZLpCagRB9P6sjFvH7cIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Another issue with these is that they used the wrong split arrow.

It's interesting that they squished the line, arrows and text to the exiting side of the panel. They had the space to spread that out, which would've fixed the arrow spacing issue.

[jay8g]

The street is NE Campus _Pkwy.

It is not Campus _{Pk Way}.

It is definitely not Campus Park _Wy.

[theline]

Does this count as erroneous or just a bad installation? Reassurance marker along the Chicago Skyway: https://goo.gl/maps/UPcYeU2S5Gv.

I-90 is on the Skyway and the route leads to I-94.

[thenetwork]

From what has been said in previous threads, technically I-90 is not on the Chicago Skyway, as the Skyway itself is not up to interstate standards.  A lot of it has to do with insufficient narrow shoulders and the big bridge over the Calumet River, IIRC.  So most installations along and near the Skyway should read TO I-90 (& 94) like the photo above.

[Rothman]

From what has been said in previous threads, technically I-90 is not on the Chicago Skyway, as the Skyway itself is not up to interstate standards.

Hm.  There are lots of old sections of signed interstates that are still interstates despite not being up to standard.

Reminds me of the section of I-278 in NYC that was not eligible for the now-defunct Interstate Maintenance fund source (yet is eligible for NHPP, which IM was folded into).  Just because it wasn't eligible for IM due to a legislative quirk doesn't mean it wasn't considered part of the Interstate Highway System.

[Rothman]

Also looks like the Skyway is part of FHWA's interstate route log? Looks like it matches the length of I-90 through Illinois including the Skyway?

[amroad17]

As was mentioned before in our forum (and from thenetwork above), at one time I-90 was not officially on the Chicago Skyway.  It was supposedly determined that I-90 should never have been signed on it.  That is why TO banners were added above the WEST I-90 (and EAST I-90) signs.  However, in the last few years, it is now understood that the Skyway is a part of I-90.

[paulthemapguy]

The Skyway was acquired by a private entity in 2005, and they inexplicably decided they didn't want the I-90 designation on their road.  They took down all the I-90 signs, then because of public dissent put up "TO I-90" signs in their place.  Then a few years after that, the I-90 signs came back, presumably because the powers that be found it appalling that the Skyway Concession Company would want to create a discontinuity in the longest coast-to-coast Interstate in the country.  Someone at FHWA or AASHTO must have said "Hah!  Bless your heart.  No."  And I'm glad they did.

[hbelkins]

The Skyway was acquired by a private entity in 2005, and they inexplicably decided they didn't want the I-90 designation on their road.  They took down all the I-90 signs, then because of public dissent put up "TO I-90" signs in their place.  Then a few years after that, the I-90 signs came back, presumably because the powers that be found it appalling that the Skyway Concession Company would want to create a discontinuity in the longest coast-to-coast Interstate in the country.  Someone at FHWA or AASHTO must have said "Hah!  Bless your heart.  No."  And I'm glad they did.

Make I-90 a coast-to-coast interstate!!!!

Oh, wait...

[kkt]

The Skyway was acquired by a private entity in 2005, and they inexplicably decided they didn't want the I-90 designation on their road.  They took down all the I-90 signs, then because of public dissent put up "TO I-90" signs in their place.  Then a few years after that, the I-90 signs came back, presumably because the powers that be found it appalling that the Skyway Concession Company would want to create a discontinuity in the longest coast-to-coast Interstate in the country.  Someone at FHWA or AASHTO must have said "Hah!  Bless your heart.  No."  And I'm glad they did.

Make I-90 a coast-to-coast interstate!!!!

Oh, wait...

[theline]

Well that was educational! I had no idea what I would learn by noticing that TO I-90 sign on the Skyway. Thanks for the all info, guys. 

[cjk374]

20161217_142915 by Jess Kilgore, on Flickr

Only possible if you are Dr. Who travelling in the TARDIS.