Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

[tolbs17]

Should overhead signs have NORTH, EAST, WEST, and SOUTH directionals on them? Because the left sign lacks it and it's relatively new.

https://goo.gl/maps/CExBazdKNJrJnxyb8

[plain]

This is pretty ugly IMO...


Seen on US 79 in Round Rock, TX:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5245619,-97.6336539,3a,15y,275.62h,89.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sihM76agZkLgcMALbiXkyEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It would probably be fine if not for the inexplicably capitalized "SIGNAL".

Almost reminds me of this BGS in South Hill, VA that instructs motorists to "TURN RT 1/4 MILE" if they want to use US 58 BUS

https://maps.app.goo.gl/D98qCAzyVp2mzwnXA

[ethanhopkin14]

This US-61 shield!   

[wanderer2575]

Should overhead signs have NORTH, EAST, WEST, and SOUTH directionals on them? Because the left sign lacks it and it's relatively new.

https://goo.gl/maps/CExBazdKNJrJnxyb8

It's common that pull-through signs don't have cardinal directions because there is only one choice -- the direction in which you're already heading.  It makes sense for the US-421 signs to have a cardinal direction because there was a different exit for its other direction at exit 212A.

Here's another example on the same sign in Novi, MI.  There is a different exit for northbound M-5 in this interchange, so it makes sense that this sign specifies the cardinal direction for this exit.  But there is only one direction choice for I-696.  I would prefer to see a cardinal direction shown for each route, but I understand why it wasn't done that way.

[Tom958]

I'm not gonna bother with uploading a photo because absolutely no one reacted to my previous posts about this, but I'm gonna post about it again because I'm in shock about what I saw today.

This afternoon, I returned to the GA 316-Harbins Road interchange, mainly to see if there were any more MS 316 shields in addition to the one I found last time (there were!). I also had another look at the westbound 316 approach to the interchange, the one shown in the photo. Now the new ramp to Sugarloaf Parkway is open, so my previous objection to having the wrong side of the split arrow covered up is no longer operative. However, the cover is now gone... and so is the straight-ahead arm of the arrow! Either they removed it, or there was nothing under that cover.

After I posted the post I linked above, I emailed my contact at GDOT and included a link to it (I'm under the impression that nonmembers can read posts, though they can't post themselves). I never heard back and I don't know if he or anyone else at GDOT read it, but this'll be the second time I've complained to GDOT about an incorrect APL and they responded by making it worse. WTF?

[jakeroot]

^^^
I'm not sure why they didn't make the Harbins Road exit a separate sign panel with its own right arrow, and then have the Sugarloaf Pkwy exit signed as part of the through movement, with a straight/right arrow. In the past when I have mocked up my own signs, that's usually how I differentiated splits that otherwise would have been difficult to sign with a single panel.

If the FHWA has a rule requiring a single panel for the entire assembly, that rule needs to be dropped.

[formulanone]

I'm not gonna bother with uploading a photo because absolutely no one reacted to my previous posts about this, but I'm gonna post about it again because I'm in shock about what I saw today.

This afternoon, I returned to the GA 316-Harbins Road interchange, mainly to see if there were any more MS 316 shields in addition to the one I found last time (there were!). I also had another look at the westbound 316 approach to the interchange, the one shown in the photo. Now the new ramp to Sugarloaf Parkway is open, so my previous objection to having the wrong side of the split arrow covered up is no longer operative. However, the cover is now gone... and so is the straight-ahead arm of the arrow! Either they removed it, or there was nothing under that cover.

It seems that at least once a year, Georgia post some weird exit-only arrow that's in the wrong place. I'm not a fan of the huge APL signs, but if you're going to make your own alternative, at least do it correctly!

[Tom958]

^^^
I'm not sure why they didn't make the Harbins Road exit a separate sign panel with its own right arrow, and then have the Sugarloaf Pkwy exit signed as part of the through movement, with a straight/right arrow. In the past when I have mocked up my own signs, that's usually how I differentiated splits that otherwise would have been difficult to sign with a single panel.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would you make Harbins Road a separate sign panel when Sugarloaf traffic uses the same ramp? Do you mean something like this?

Initially, the problem was that they covered the wrong arm of the split arrow and directed Sugarloaf traffic to a ramp that was closed and away from the temporary ramp that was open. Now the problem is that they removed one arm of the split arrow, probably at considerable expense, and created a noncompliant Frankensign that shows the mainline as having only one lane instead of two. Having a  separate panel for Harbins Road would be irrelevant at best.

If the FHWA has a rule requiring a single panel for the entire assembly, that rule needs to be dropped.

As active in this stuff as you are, you should be fairly conversant with the rules. Besides, I pointed out in my earlier post that there is an MUTCD-compliant way of signing this condition, and it was used recently on GA 316 a few miles west of Harbins. Why not just use that?

[Tom958]

It seems that at least once a year, Georgia post some weird exit-only arrow that's in the wrong place. I'm not a fan of the huge APL signs, but if you're going to make your own alternative, at least do it correctly!

I know, right? The other weird thing is that some things they do come across as policy decisions that, while wrong, were at least carefully considered. Others, such as this, have to be the result of assigning a not-that-difficult task to people who have no more idea what they're doing than most laypeople. There's no way that the task of BGS design in Georgia is so Herculean that there's no way a competent person could be assigned to the task. So, why don't they do it?

[jakeroot]

^^^
I'm not sure why they didn't make the Harbins Road exit a separate sign panel with its own right arrow, and then have the Sugarloaf Pkwy exit signed as part of the through movement, with a straight/right arrow. In the past when I have mocked up my own signs, that's usually how I differentiated splits that otherwise would have been difficult to sign with a single panel.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would you make Harbins Road a separate sign panel when Sugarloaf traffic uses the same ramp? Do you mean something like this?

Initially, the problem was that they covered the wrong arm of the split arrow and directed Sugarloaf traffic to a ramp that was closed and away from the temporary ramp that was open. Now the problem is that they removed one arm of the split arrow, probably at considerable expense, and created a noncompliant Frankensign that shows the mainline as having only one lane instead of two. Having a  separate panel for Harbins Road would be irrelevant at best.

I think I may have misunderstood the split. Do both lanes go to Harbins Road with only the left lane going to Sugarloaf Pkwy? I thought only the right lane went to Harbins Road, and only the left lane went to Sugarloaf Pkwy.

If the FHWA has a rule requiring a single panel for the entire assembly, that rule needs to be dropped.

As active in this stuff as you are, you should be fairly conversant with the rules. Besides, I pointed out in my earlier post that there is an MUTCD-compliant way of signing this condition, and it was used recently on GA 316 a few miles west of Harbins. Why not just use that?

That point was based on my potential misunderstanding of the split, so I will hold further comment on this until I understand the exit better.

[Tom958]

I think I may have misunderstood the split. Do both lanes go to Harbins Road with only the left lane going to Sugarloaf Pkwy? I thought only the right lane went to Harbins Road, and only the left lane went to Sugarloaf Pkwy.

Yes: both to Harbins, and the left splits to serve Sugarloaf as well.

When I took the photo, the new Sugarloaf ramp wasn't open yet and Sugarloaf was served by a temporary ramp direct from the mainline in the vicinity of the bridge (I'm not sure exactly where, but there was a reasonable weaving stretch along the CD between the two interchanges). Thus, it would've been a great idea to cover the curved part of the split arrow and possibly the "Sugarloaf Pkwy" legend on the APL until the new ramp was open so as to avoid misleading drivers bound for Sugarloaf into taking the Harbins ramp.

Now there's one straight arrow for 29-316, a curved arrow for Sugarloaf, and another curved arrow for Harbins. The idea of using a split arrow to clarify how the option lane works has been discarded along with the idea of having one arrow per lane.

If we were on Facebook, I'd illustrate this reply with that gif of a space dog floating in zero gravity and captioned, "I have no idea what I'm doing."

[jakeroot]

I appreciate the additional information, thank you. I think your suggestion of the MUTCD-compliant method (second half of reply #7034) makes the most sense.

If we were on Facebook, I'd illustrate this reply with that gif of a space dog floating in zero gravity and captioned, "I have no idea what I'm doing."

I gotcha

[tolbs17]

Where the fuck is the US-70 shield?

This sign doesn't have it - https://goo.gl/maps/xrMAKVDvDYjgTaBq6

But this one does? https://goo.gl/maps/5Jq4z2bjgSFabx4n6

[Tom958]

Sorry for the late reply, but now I'm glad I waited...

I appreciate the additional information, thank you. I think your suggestion of the MUTCD-compliant method (second half of reply #7034) makes the most sense.

Ironically, it'd be more feasible to use a unisign with a divider line on a conventional sign like that, with less constraint on the placement of the legends.

Today I got a response from my contact at GDOT. He said that the matter was under discussion between the district office and Gwinnett County, which indeed has lead role in the project, and they'd follow up with me presently. His tone was pleasant and cordial, and I replied that I was optimistic that the matter would be resolved satisfactorily. I'm not, though. I think they'll restore the missing straight-ahead arm of the split arrow and maybe-just-maybe remove the misplaced divider line. We'll see, I guess.

[tolbs17]

Funny how there's still the old sign to the left and the newer one to the right

https://goo.gl/maps/48nKp85hbsiN26rMA

[JayhawkCO]

Drove by this one yesterday and didn't remember noticing it before.  Huge CO58 sign with a relatively itty-bitty West sign.

[noelbotevera]

Kearny Villa Road, from the same people who brought you Woodhaven Road.

(Yes, a freeway is a type of road but I'm talking colloquialisms here.)

[LilianaUwU]

Kearny Villa Road, from the same people who brought you Woodhaven Road.

(Yes, a freeway is a type of road but I'm talking colloquialisms here.)

Isn't that the original freeway through there (former US 395)?

[noelbotevera]

Kearny Villa Road, from the same people who brought you Woodhaven Road.

(Yes, a freeway is a type of road but I'm talking colloquialisms here.)

Isn't that the original freeway through there (former US 395)?

I dunno. Looked like a normal sign for an odd road, though.

[Occidental Tourist]

Kearny Villa Road, from the same people who brought you Woodhaven Road.

(Yes, a freeway is a type of road but I'm talking colloquialisms here.)

Isn't that the original freeway through there (former US 395)?

I dunno. Looked like a normal sign for an odd road, though.

It was part of the old 395 Freeway and was bypassed when they built I-15.

[ClassicHasClass]

Actually, that was also I-15, at least for awhile. I-15 took over the 1965 US 395 freeway alignment and bypassed itself in 1982 (see the M postmiles on the section of I-15 through Miramar Way, and there are still surviving I-15 postmiles on Kearny Villa: http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/395/old/u3/#img_30 ). It is now a city street; I suspect these signs were Caltrans-erected as part of the relinquishment.

[Bruce]

A permanent-ish "COVID-19 testing" sign on a signal wire. Madison Street in Seattle:

[Scott5114]

Getting one step closer to the future I envisioned in Fictional Highways:

There is a bit of levity on the forum when OkDOT posts signs throughout the state pointing people to "karonisviris testing" sites.

[tolbs17]

I feel like the older sign was better because it was all capitalized. Now they replaced it with the one that has no flashing lights and is in lowercase letters. Not a huge fan of that.

https://goo.gl/maps/FGgdRfK34C9DoV2j8

[chays]

This intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/rL14BQ7ZWAsaHNGB9) near Portland, IA, has some strange miniature signs attached to regular signage. There are several yellow diamonds with arrows and what appears to be a miniature stop sign (can only see from the rear). There is also a similar yellow diamond with an arrow across the street. These have been here for years it seems, and this appears to be the only intersection. Anyone seen anything like this before?