Single Panel signs or "unisigns"

[paulthemapguy]

Here's a good Rhode Island example.  I can deal with them unless they start using rogue fonts...that's when things get ugly.
https://goo.gl/maps/jyTdGmY6BWT2

[Pete from Boston]

They may be different items, but up here they have the same name.  No amount of arguing is going to change that fact.

[1995hoo]

Northbound on New Hampshire Avenue NW in DC between 20 Street and Dupont Circle. This isn't on Street View yet. Picture taken this afternoon.

[ekt8750]

Philly loves their unisigns. You can find them all over the city in various forms although this one with the green backdrop is the most common:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9744877,-75.194897,3a,17.9y,37.39h,87.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soeTEeuquIncSLm2zJrvAmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

This one's rare in that it actually acknowledges a pair of surface level US highways that go through the city, something that doesn't happen often.

[freebrickproductions]

This thing is a unisign:
Ugly, Erroneous Shield by freebrickproductions, on Flickr

[mrsman]

Northbound on New Hampshire Avenue NW in DC between 20 Street and Dupont Circle. This isn't on Street View yet. Picture taken this afternoon.

This seems odd.  IIRC, the current routing of US 29 through DC is Whitehurst Fwy - K Street-11 Street-RI Ave-6th-Florida-Georgia.  This sign would seem to support an old routing of US 29 via Whitehurst Fwy - K Street - NH Ave - 16th - Alaska - Georgia.

[Takumi]

The first reassurance shield on VA 145 westbound is a unisign. The distance sign wasn't there when I checked it out last week.
https://goo.gl/maps/N6jX613VjhG2

[SignGeek101]

The first reassurance shield on VA 145 westbound is a unisign. The distance sign wasn't there when I checked it out last week.
https://goo.gl/maps/N6jX613VjhG2

There's one just behind the streetview car:

https://goo.gl/maps/o6GP4282K342

[1995hoo]

Northbound on New Hampshire Avenue NW in DC between 20 Street and Dupont Circle. This isn't on Street View yet. Picture taken this afternoon.

This seems odd.  IIRC, the current routing of US 29 through DC is Whitehurst Fwy - K Street-11 Street-RI Ave-6th-Florida-Georgia.  This sign would seem to support an old routing of US 29 via Whitehurst Fwy - K Street - NH Ave - 16th - Alaska - Georgia.

Yeah, I thought instead of "North" it should say "To." Setting that aside, on the whole it's one of the better-looking unisigns I've seen.

[jbnv]

I've seen them a few times in Louisiana in construction signage (see below). I think I've seen a unisign in normal signage somewhere, but have no idea where.



Texas has some small green signs for JUNCTION and TO, but I wouldn't call those unisigns.

[Zeffy]

Setting that aside, on the whole it's one of the better-looking unisigns I've seen.

I personally like that design a lot - everything flows together nicely all within a single sign panel.

[Takumi]

Richmond is (in)famous for its unique unisigns.


In true Richmond fashion, this VA 33 shield should be US 33.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Richmond is (in)famous for its unique unisigns.


In true Richmond fashion, this VA 33 shield should be US 33.

Hilariously, there was a WEST US 33/WEST US 250 unisign above this one, but when both of them were blown down in a thunderstorm, Richmond only replaced the incorrect one.

[jakeroot]

WSDOT-style reassurance marker for a duplex, in typical unisign fashion:

[jay8g]

Blue background unisign? I'm hoping it's temporary. (And, yes, it is still there; I just saw it today.)

[PurdueBill]

Blue background unisign? I'm hoping it's temporary. (And, yes, it is still there; I just saw it today.)

I've heard the excuse for that kind of thing before as "separate NORTH, shield, and arrow signs (if any) would all be blue, so this should be blue", which isn't correct--but the unisign thing enables it.  Got to be careful with unisigns when they leave an opening like this.

[JCinSummerfield]

I've heard the excuse for that kind of thing before as "separate NORTH, shield, and arrow signs (if any) would all be blue, so this should be blue", which isn't correct

Since interstate shields have always been cutouts, I don't know how you can call any color background incorrect.  That being said, blue wouldn't have been my first choice.

[jeffandnicole]

Blue background unisign? I'm hoping it's temporary. (And, yes, it is still there; I just saw it today.)

I've heard the excuse for that kind of thing before as "separate NORTH, shield, and arrow signs (if any) would all be blue, so this should be blue", which isn't correct--but the unisign thing enables it.  Got to be careful with unisigns when they leave an opening like this.

What's the regulation or standard regarding unisign background colors?

[PurdueBill]

Blue background unisign? I'm hoping it's temporary. (And, yes, it is still there; I just saw it today.)

I've heard the excuse for that kind of thing before as "separate NORTH, shield, and arrow signs (if any) would all be blue, so this should be blue", which isn't correct--but the unisign thing enables it.  Got to be careful with unisigns when they leave an opening like this.

What's the regulation or standard regarding unisign background colors?

There probably isn't--couldn't find one in any MUTCD. Which means that it should probably default to what appearance it would have if it were separate signs (like the US 29 one above, very nicely done imo) or if it were a guide sign (i.e., not a blue background behind a blue I-shield).

[jeffandnicole]

Blue background unisign? I'm hoping it's temporary. (And, yes, it is still there; I just saw it today.)

I've heard the excuse for that kind of thing before as "separate NORTH, shield, and arrow signs (if any) would all be blue, so this should be blue", which isn't correct--but the unisign thing enables it.  Got to be careful with unisigns when they leave an opening like this.

What's the regulation or standard regarding unisign background colors?

There probably isn't--couldn't find one in any MUTCD. Which means that it could probably default to what appearance it would have if it were separate signs (like the US 29 one above, very nicely done imo) or if it were a guide sign (i.e., not a blue background behind a blue I-shield).

Well, that's my point.  Here's a US 29 sign on a guide sign...which means it could have a green background, not a black background. https://goo.gl/maps/afiL9woc6UU2

Since there isn't any standard or guidance on unisigns, how can a blue background not be correct, when you provided conflicting answers to the US 29 sign, where both a black background matching the color of the sign and a green guidesign background could both be correct?

[PurdueBill]

Blue background unisign? I'm hoping it's temporary. (And, yes, it is still there; I just saw it today.)

I've heard the excuse for that kind of thing before as "separate NORTH, shield, and arrow signs (if any) would all be blue, so this should be blue", which isn't correct--but the unisign thing enables it.  Got to be careful with unisigns when they leave an opening like this.

What's the regulation or standard regarding unisign background colors?

There probably isn't--couldn't find one in any MUTCD. Which means that it could probably default to what appearance it would have if it were separate signs (like the US 29 one above, very nicely done imo) or if it were a guide sign (i.e., not a blue background behind a blue I-shield).

Well, that's my point.  Here's a US 29 sign on a guide sign...which means it could have a green background, not a black background. https://goo.gl/maps/afiL9woc6UU2

Since there isn't any standard or guidance on unisigns, how can a blue background not be correct, when you provided conflicting answers to the US 29 sign, where both a black background matching the color of the sign and a green guidesign background could both be correct?

It is hard to verbalize, but the "unisign" being one piece begs for it either to depict what three separate signs would look like, or else look like a guide sign with proper colors.  A guide sign like the I-5 one wouldn't have a blue background. 

I guess maybe the way to describe what it should be is if you sliced the unisign into parts to make individual signs, would they appear as proper signs standing alone?  The DC US 29 one would.  The I-5 with blue background wouldn't.  (A RIDOT-style white backround would be better than the blue, especially to make the shield visible.)

Somewhere in a photo on Steve's site there is an example of such--if I could ever remember what route/state/page it was on.

[cl94]

There are quite a few of these and similar ones for other routes scattered around Columbus. I'm assuming they were all put up by the city, as I doubt ODOT would post a unisign.

[hbelkins]

ODOT uses a lot of unisigns at intersections, with the route marker, direction and destination all in one panel.

[PurdueBill]

ODOT uses a lot of unisigns at intersections, with the route marker, direction and destination all in one panel.

The Columbus ones look more like a Maryland-type unisign, though, with depictions of direction plate, shield, and arrow on a black background.  Usual ODOT unisign fare is the type with the direction and arrow on the same side, with shield usually 3-digit width whether it needs to be or not (probably so they can have just two templates for these; one for US and one for state shields).


From Steve's I-70 WB, US 52, US 52, US 127, and OH 3 pages respectively.  The US 202 one was an error that was corrected eventually, although they should have sold it to Delaware or Massachusetts or something.

[paulthemapguy]

The weird thing about these Ohio unisigns, though, is that the shield in the middle is always an extra-wide one (36x24).  Obviously there's no reason you need an extra-wide sign for a single digit number like 3 haha