No signage for common freeway & interchange names
This is something discouraged (prohibited?) in the national MUTCD, and some agencies (such as Caltrans) are moving away from with new/revised signs. Ultimately, more and more people nowadays use highway numbers over highway names.
Last time I read the relevant sections, it was allowed under fairly limited conditions. In Columbus, that allowance is used to post a few "memorial" designations that nobody ever uses. Besides those memorial signs, I have not seen any signed freeway names in Columbus for as long as I've been paying attention to such things -- nearly 20 years. Yet, the traffic reports consistently refer to freeway segments and interchanges by names that aren't signed. Signing these common names (not
the memorial names) would be of some benefit to visitors, particularly if nationally-published maps begin displaying the names as well.
Perhaps a topic for another thread, but...
Seriously, freeway and interchange names need to be signed, and they should be the common / traffic-report names, not memorial names. They're not on signs, and they're not on nationally-published maps; I would have to go to Wikipedia or a roadgeek website to find out for example where the Borman, Kennedy, and Eisenhower expressways are in Chicago, and personally, I'm not likely to remember such information unless I see the highways labeled as such on a map or on signage along the applicable freeways. I imagine visitors to Columbus could have similar issues, though our freeway names are a bit more obviously named. Still, our terms "Outerbelt" and "Innerbelt" could confuse some people from the east coast, who might believe these refer to the counter-clockwise and clockwise halves of I-270, respectively; in fact, that would only be one-quarter true. </rant>