Highway signs with NO control cities

[ethanhopkin14]

Agreed.  A freeway obviously goes somewhere.  I can't think of an example where a freeway, even after reaching its destination city, could not be named for some place that it has yet to reach.  That may not be a city, per se, but it can be a neighborhood or a landmark, or yes, the control cities of connecting routes if the freeway ends at an interchange.  Even a cross-street may be acceptable as a control in limited circumstances.

Kinda like this?

[andrepoiy]

I guess for Ontario's logic, the MTO probably think that people travelling within the city already know where they're going, or most trips are local trips, and therefore they don't sign controls within urban areas.

[mrsman]

Agreed.  A freeway obviously goes somewhere.  I can't think of an example where a freeway, even after reaching its destination city, could not be named for some place that it has yet to reach.  That may not be a city, per se, but it can be a neighborhood or a landmark, or yes, the control cities of connecting routes if the freeway ends at an interchange.  Even a cross-street may be acceptable as a control in limited circumstances.

Kinda like this?

That's perfect.  I-37 south leads you to Corpus Christi, and once in Corpus Christi, it leads you to the Bayfront.  As the interstate ends, the roadway continues as a surface street and then ends at the Bayfront.  Definitely serves the purpose of guiding traffic to the water-side.