Here's a thread to discuss exits where there are no local exit destinations, for one reason or another.
Here's an extreme example (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9536141,-97.2599708,3a,48.7y,217.48h,87.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBu3NumoPT52aMzFH9bz9RQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in rural North Dakota. But this also occurs quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1530125,-77.5378822,3a,75y,47.51h,84.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soybCWatBaYGR4eDbfHOrsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) frequently (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1530125,-77.5378822,3a,75y,47.51h,84.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soybCWatBaYGR4eDbfHOrsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in suburban areas (at least around here), where a road name is used, but no destination. This tends to irk me in suburban areas :banghead: (but not urban areas/city centers, where this works perfectly fine (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1418005,-77.5908516,3a,75y,256.81h,94.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxHpfFxSi5-ZYl8jY8GInzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for city streets).
What are your thoughts on this? When faced with a choice of road name or a destination on a guide sign, which one would you prefer be included? Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3531108,-76.7459432,3a,75y,179.22h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOrT64FQFPLwINg8M_DkUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? How important is a destination on advance notice signs for exits, and how does this vary from a rural area to an urban one?
Here's a Michigan example, this is on US-23 at Grand Blanc Road. I don't know if they are directing you to Grand Blanc and Rankin (which is part of Mundy Township and not even a village) or Grand Blanc Road which is the name of the road at the exit but this sign is lacking the Road part so I'm assuming they mean this exit goes to Grand Blanc and Rankin.
This is on the SB side https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9203392,-83.7263144,3a,75y,187.27h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stK0mWmGvGbU2ARj-ty1X9w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This is on the NB side
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9092829,-83.7258496,3a,75y,25.75h,86.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svMKlYluHE203GNC3HylV9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
In cities and suburban areas, the road name is infinitely more helpful than a destination city. If you put destination cities only on a BGS in a metropolitan area, the next question most drivers will ask is “What street is this exit going to dump me on?” Also, most suburban areas are made up of several cities that have grown together into one big metropolis, and often times the city you just exited the freeway in isn’t the same one your destination is in. And most people don’t really care about knowing exactly where each individual suburb city is, just the general area within the larger metro.
In rural areas, or when there’s only 1 to 3 exits for a particular town, I prefer the city name. The name of the road isn’t going to be all that helpful, especially because it’s usually something generic like “Main Street”.
As for exits with no destination at all, the Utah standard was to label those as “Ranch Exit”, usually with a blue “no services” label. I’m not sure if that’s still done, but there are plenty of old Ranch Exit signs still standing.
I like how Maryland does it with the SR number and street name along with the cities.
Z981
This one on I-696 has M-1 which is Woodward Avenue and also has the Detroit Zoo on it which is on the NW corner of the I-696 and Woodward interchange.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4761354,-83.1233218,3a,75y,298.85h,87.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1elQ5BqQp9zfDAmytMF0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This is just a strange exit to me, it has an on ramp as soon as you get off on both sides before even meeting another street and also has different street names on both sides, the one I showed above is WB I-696 and this one is EB I-696 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4756957,-83.1333961,3a,75y,76.87h,89.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdwxHure-H2quNJenA1I6A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
I am thinking of the "South Boston" exit on the Pike in Boston, which I do not think is that helpful, but probably necessary due to the tunnel heights.
At the other end of the spectrum you have the "Colonie St Columbia St" exit on I-787, which refers to two dinky streets in Albany; should be "Water St." I have brought up my dislike of that exit signage a few times before.
The best practice is somewhere between the two.
ISTHA almost never uses a destination on exits, preferring road name/route numbers.
Here's a few examples with just the route number (as an extreme):
IL-47 at I-88 (https://goo.gl/maps/BpJ1pHTiNiF2).
IL-53 at I-88 (https://goo.gl/maps/ZQid6P6EKG32).
They do; however, put a listing of destinations from the exit on a separate sign:
North Avenue (IL-64) at I-355 (https://goo.gl/maps/P3PoFRHLJS12).
IL-59 at I-88 (https://goo.gl/maps/ndYJWtEh7sH2).
The interchanges with destinations listed on the big green signs are much fewer, and are as follows:
I-88
US-30, Rock Falls (other side is IDOT maintained)
IL-26, Dixon
IL-251, Rochelle
Annie Glidden Road, DeKalb (both are on the sign)
IL-56, Sugar Grove (it's a freeway)
I-355, Northwest Suburbs/Joliet
I-294, Milwaukee/Indiana
I-290, Rockford/Chicago
I-355
I-80, Iowa/Indiana
I-55, St Louis/Chicago
I-88, Aurora/Chicago
I-290, Rockford/Chicago
I-94/294
I-94/IL-394, Chicago/Danville/Indiana
I-80, Iowa
I-55, St Louis/Chicago
I-88, Aurora
I-290, Rockford/Chicago
I-90, Rockford/Chicago
I-190, O'Hare
I-94/294 split, Chicago/Indiana
I-90
I-190, O'Hare
I-294, Milwaukee/Indiana
I-290/IL-53, Northwest Suburbs/Chicago/West Suburbs
IL-47, Woodstock/Huntley/Elburn
US-20, Marengo/Hampshire
I-39/US-51, Bloomington
IL-390
I-290, Rockford/Chicago/TO I-355 Joliet
And that's it.
There are at least two exits for US 60 along I-64 in Kentucky that have no town or community listed as a destination. One is between Winchester and Mt. Sterling, and the other is just inside Boyd County.
The interesting thing about the first one of those two examples is that a new exit was built on the Mountain Parkway. It's Exit 10 for KY 974 in the eastern end of Clarkk County. Instead of just a route marker or some local community destination, such as Goffs Corner, Winchester and Mt. Sterling are listed on the exit. No one in their right mind is going to use that exit to get to either of those towns.
Unless they've added something lately, Exit 53 on I22 in Alabama has nothing but the 'Exit 53' signs in the gores. In GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/NzBhyPyF2mL2) the overpass itself is labelled as AL102.
Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
As for exits with no destination at all, the Utah standard was to label those as "Ranch Exit" , usually with a blue "no services" label. I'm not sure if that's still done, but there are plenty of old Ranch Exit signs still standing.
Utah had been giving f9rmal names to former Ranch Exits about 5 years ago -- at least on the I-70/US 6 overlap.
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3531108,-76.7459432,3a,75y,179.22h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOrT64FQFPLwINg8M_DkUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
In cities and suburban areas, the road name is infinitely more helpful than a destination city. If you put destination cities only on a BGS in a metropolitan area, the next question most drivers will ask is “What street is this exit going to dump me on?” Also, most suburban areas are made up of several cities that have grown together into one big metropolis, and often times the city you just exited the freeway in isn’t the same one your destination is in. And most people don’t really care about knowing exactly where each individual suburb city is, just the general area within the larger metro.
In rural areas, or when there’s only 1 to 3 exits for a particular town, I prefer the city name. The name of the road isn’t going to be all that helpful, especially because it’s usually something generic like “Main Street”.
As for exits with no destination at all, the Utah standard was to label those as “Ranch Exit”, usually with a blue “no services” label. I’m not sure if that’s still done, but there are plenty of old Ranch Exit signs still standing.
In New Jersey along the Garden State Parkway they sign Exits 143 A, B, and C with control destinations rather than city street names. All three exits serve a part of Irvington, NJ ( a very urban township next to Newark) yet only Exit 143C is signed Irvington and Exit 143B is Maplewood while Exit 143A is Hillside.
It does not confuse people as the one for Irvington goes directly to the downtown area which by rule of thumb is where signs are to be directing motorists to.
If it were Florida Exit 143C would be signed for Madison Avenue/ Springfield Avenue and 143B for Lyons Avenue West while 143A gets Lyons Avenue East.
In Texas I saw along I-35 north of Laredo, names (not roads) given to the interchange signed on the guides as that. I am guessing that TexDOT signs the name into the log books or the state legislates it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3531108,-76.7459432,3a,75y,179.22h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOrT64FQFPLwINg8M_DkUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
Which is in my personal opinion very silly that it's disallowed.
But then, that's coming from me who grew up in Ontario and is used to practically always seeing Street Names + Control Cities as is the case in Ontario.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3531108,-76.7459432,3a,75y,179.22h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOrT64FQFPLwINg8M_DkUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
[citation needed] (I'm interested in the wording.)
But if that is indeed the case, it's extremely foolish. I really like Maryland's implementation.
I thought it was discouraged rather than banned? In any case, I agree it's foolish. Come to think of it, though, part of me wonders if such was a reaction to NY's boxed street names.
Signs on I-95 (MA 128) northbound in Newton for Exit 21 say only Grove Street, and do not include a town name.
I'm a fan of New York's boxed street names. They treat street names as if they are route markers.
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3531108,-76.7459432,3a,75y,179.22h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOrT64FQFPLwINg8M_DkUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
[citation needed] (I'm interested in the wording.)
But if that is indeed the case, it's extremely foolish. I really like Maryland's implementation.
It's paragraph 2E.10.01, which is guidance.
Quote
No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.
On the whole, I don't think this guidance is foolish. On the whole, quite the opposite, in that I think that the town name is usually irrelevant once you get to the street-name level.
In PA, when reaching an area with multiple exits, there is usually a sign, showing the town name, and up to the three next exits, like (might not be exactly right):
Williamsport Exits
-----------------------
Maynard St 2
Hepburn St 2 3/4
Market St 3 1/2
That sign repeats itself until all of the town exits have been passed. The exits within that do not have a control city, unless it's a major road where the main control city is only in one direction; then the BGS for that exit will have the local street name for one line, and the other control city; like this in Williamsport:
US 15 SOUTH
Market St
Lewisburg
(with or without a line separating the street from the other city; I've seen both in PA)
I kind of like this approach.
Quote from: vdeane on February 09, 2012, 06:06:46 PMCome to think of it, though, part of me wonders if such was a reaction to NY's boxed street names.
Or maybe vice versa, the boxed street names were an attempt at compliance :-P
Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2018, 08:37:33 PM
I'm a fan of New York's boxed street names. They treat street names as if they are route markers.
I understand the reasoning behind them, but am still glad they're no longer in widespread use, because (1) they're ugly, and (2) a street name has way more text than a route shield, leading to a cluttered look.
Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.
Is that an opinion, or something from the MUTCD?
I don't see a reason why boxed street names should be allowed
only on those road types specifically.
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 09:50:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.
Is that an opinion, or something from the MUTCD?
I don't see a reason why boxed street names should be allowed only on those road types specifically.
That's my opinion. Boxing the street name makes it look like a route shield.
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:53:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 09:50:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.
Is that an opinion, or something from the MUTCD?
I don't see a reason why boxed street names should be allowed only on those road types specifically.
That's my opinion. Boxing the street name makes it look like a route shield.
So you mean
unnumbered freeways, parkways, etc.
I don't object to that, considering the high profile of those type of roadways. Regular streets don't need boxed names though.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 06, 2018, 09:16:48 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3531108,-76.7459432,3a,75y,179.22h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOrT64FQFPLwINg8M_DkUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
[citation needed] (I'm interested in the wording.)
But if that is indeed the case, it's extremely foolish. I really like Maryland's implementation.
It's paragraph 2E.10.01, which is guidance.
Quote
No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.
On the whole, I don't think this guidance is foolish. On the whole, quite the opposite, in that I think that the town name is usually irrelevant once you get to the street-name level.
But what about cases where the freeway itself becomes the municipal boundary. As in the case of Hwy 404, most of the exits in York Region have control cities as Hwy 404 pretty much is the boundary between Richmond Hill and Markham.
The problem I have with the one or the other approach appears to happen in suburban areas. Consider Transit Road in East Amherst, NY. It's a major arterial that's a large commercial strip. Even here in Toronto when you watch Buffalo TV stations you hear about local businesses on Transit Road. However, Transit Road is part of NY-78, and thus the exit from I-90/Thruway signs it only as NY-78 with control cities to Depew and Lockport. Since this appears to be a very important arterial, I don't know why the Thruway Authority for instance would not sign the exit as NY-78 Transit Road.
There are obvious cases where one should only use street names, but there is that transitional period in between suburbia and rural areas where it's unclear if a street name should be used, or control cities be used. That's why I believe in these cases it should be ok to sign both, as long as control cities and street name are different sizes on the sign. (In Ontario, the street name is always larger than the control city(ies))
Quote from: MisterSG1but there is that transitional period in between suburbia and rural areas where it's unclear if a street name should be used, or control cities be used. That's why I believe in these cases it should be ok to sign both
This is where I think there's a lot of scope for discussion. Which is preferred - street name or city - in outer suburbs/exurban areas, or along developed corridors between two cities?
I tend to favor usage of street names strictly in urban areas, or perhaps in the suburbs for exits to unnumbered roads. We've established that the value of a street name decreases heading away from a city center, while the value of auxiliary destinations increases. There must, however, be a transition zone where
both are valuable enough to be worth posting, at least IMO. This would encompass many beltways and other just-far-enough-from-downtown type roadways.
(I do think a "route number/city/xx miles" best meshes with driver expectations and should be used where possible. But where high volumes of locals tend to use suburban street names, this argument weakens.)
There are some rural exits in Wisconsin that use "North-South" or "East-West" under the highway shield instead of a street name or a city/village name.
On Interstate 90 in Washington, east of North Bend there's an exit signed simply as Exit 38. Google Street View. (https://goo.gl/maps/Qztkrim6vtF2) Part of the problem is that the road it connects to is still called the Sunset Highway (former US 10), and it would get confusing if they signed it that. More recently, an auxiliary sign for a fire training center has augmented this exit. Otherwise state park recreation areas and hiking trails may be found off the exit.
Here's one with a street number, but without an exit number or destination. There's more than a few of these narrow BGSs in Western Washington, since most freeways lack exit numbers (minus the 5 and 405).
WA-167 at S 277th in Kent: https://goo.gl/vPjQhB
(https://i.imgur.com/UBuvodo.png)
Saw this one on GSV for I-81 Exit 38 in Mannsville, New York
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6821529,-76.0724949,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdTq3f8sh4Ifr_nmhgx9nMg!2e0
As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.
Outstate Minnesota has a few interchanges where only route shields are posted with no destinations, usually but not always if it's a redundant route to a destination already posted at another exit.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 07, 2018, 06:13:33 AM
As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.
I-35E has Stillwater listed at the MN-36 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0073223,-93.0894621,3a,75y,356.99h,86.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdY84uCoh62S_eLChSXaB7A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdY84uCoh62S_eLChSXaB7A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D103.399704%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "control cities posted inside the beltway."
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:08:45 PMThere must, however, be a transition zone where both are valuable enough to be worth posting, at least IMO. This would encompass many beltways and other just-far-enough-from-downtown type roadways.
And sure enough, I-285 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8891034,-84.2554467,3a,75y,313.54h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slsw05hYg7dD9rNrezl4-vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) does (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8410837,-84.2477639,3a,75y,2.38h,96.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shYaQ_QDTzufNv8uKSsJORw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) this (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9121045,-84.383765,3a,75y,82.91h,90.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQoXCdB_VfC55MD3FhpdVIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6657549,-84.3451983,3a,75y,63.91h,89.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slFFOwVdA3zmUHhZ1xK-4DQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) lot (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7731082,-84.2345838,3a,75y,322.54h,101.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shSQC44fWf3LlLI3fexPNqA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). All of these examples happen to be numbered routes, but they're always referred to in conversation by street name; at the same time, they also have distinct destinations that are not necessarily the same as the city you're already in (if any).
That said, I do like the Maryland style of posting it, which makes it a little easier to pick out what's what on the sign.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 07, 2018, 03:38:56 AM
Here's one with a street number, but without an exit number or destination. There's more than a few of these narrow BGSs in Western Washington, since most freeways lack exit numbers (minus the 5 and 405).
WA-167 at S 277th in Kent: https://goo.gl/vPjQhB
(https://i.imgur.com/UBuvodo.png)
Not unlike how the Illinois Tollway was until quite recently.
I-355 at 127th Street (https://goo.gl/maps/b5n5QHz4kqy), 2013 - before exit numbers were applied.
Another New England example in Milford, CT:
I-95 interchange with US 1/Exit 39A-B (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2356045,-73.0467931,3a,75y,112.35h,84.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWAFLCrGRLD83MIx8Vj1cbw!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
The previous generation button-copy signage featured the same legends.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on June 06, 2018, 09:25:32 PM
In PA, when reaching an area with multiple exits, there is usually a sign, showing the town name, and up to the three next exits, like (might not be exactly right):
Williamsport Exits
-----------------------
Maynard St 2
Hepburn St 2 3/4
Market St 3 1/2
That sign repeats itself until all of the town exits have been passed. The exits within that do not have a control city, unless it's a major road where the main control city is only in one direction; then the BGS for that exit will have the local street name for one line, and the other control city; like this in Williamsport:
US 15 SOUTH
Market St
Lewisburg
(with or without a line separating the street from the other city; I've seen both in PA)
I kind of like this approach.
Illinois doesn't do any of that. What we get here is a single sign when entering a minor metro area is something like "Bloomington - Next 7 exits." That example I gave I made up, but the signs are in the format "City Y - Next X Exits." These signs really aren't that helpful except for letting drivers know where they're at.
This doesn't happen in Chicago, though, probably because of its size. On top of that, the signs listing the next three exits don't exist at all there, either.
Really, the idea of the preferred format of route number followed by destination makes sense except that not all exits take you to a numbered route (even indirectly, where a TO would make sense next to the shield). Either that or the road name is much more notable than a route number. It makes no sense to disallow street names and cities on the same sign in such cases. I mean how many people could identify even one of these county route numbers? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8427743,-75.1880845,3a,37.5y,53.98h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpJFm4sXZ_J167msDsmcWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 09:41:48 PM
Or maybe vice versa, the boxed street names were an attempt at compliance :-P
Boxed street names predate NY's adoption of the MUTCD, so I don't that would be it.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 06, 2018, 09:16:48 PM
It's paragraph 2E.10.01, which is guidance.
Quote
No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.
On the whole, I don't think this guidance is foolish. On the whole, quite the opposite, in that I think that the town name is usually irrelevant once you get to the street-name level.
Should, not shall, so not completely banned.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2018, 10:17:15 PM
There are obvious cases where one should only use street names, but there is that transitional period in between suburbia and rural areas where it's unclear if a street name should be used, or control cities be used. That's why I believe in these cases it should be ok to sign both, as long as control cities and street name are different sizes on the sign. (In Ontario, the street name is always larger than the control city(ies))
And thus another mystery about MTO's signage is solved.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 07, 2018, 03:44:29 AM
Saw this one on GSV for I-81 Exit 38 in Mannsville, New York
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6821529,-76.0724949,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdTq3f8sh4Ifr_nmhgx9nMg!2e0
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure why that exit even exists.
Exit 191 on I-20 near Oxford, AL has never had a destination on it. It is the secondary way to get to Heflin and the city of Wedowee 20 miles south of here would probably like some recognition.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180607/b8b7090168d9e192e7ad60583badfedc.png)
It is the main way to get into the popular Cheaha State Park but it has it's own sign.
iPhone
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 07, 2018, 07:11:41 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 07, 2018, 06:13:33 AM
As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.
I-35E has Stillwater listed at the MN-36 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0073223,-93.0894621,3a,75y,356.99h,86.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdY84uCoh62S_eLChSXaB7A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdY84uCoh62S_eLChSXaB7A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D103.399704%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "control cities posted inside the beltway."
I meant sloppily that there are no suburbs posted as destinations anywhere inside 494/694. Although now that I think about it, there's North St. Paul posted for MN 36 at I-694 as well.
Indiana is pretty consistent with the usage of just street names alongside route markers (beyond freeways) within the urban parts of the state, namely Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Evansville, Northwest Indiana, Louisville area and Bloomington. Auxiliary signage announcing control cities for various marked highways are also common approaching their respective exit.
Outside of that, control cities are used wherever possible at rural interchanges with street names used only if there is no actual route number.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 07, 2018, 04:02:23 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 07, 2018, 07:11:41 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 07, 2018, 06:13:33 AM
As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.
I-35E has Stillwater listed at the MN-36 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0073223,-93.0894621,3a,75y,356.99h,86.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdY84uCoh62S_eLChSXaB7A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdY84uCoh62S_eLChSXaB7A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D103.399704%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "control cities posted inside the beltway."
I meant sloppily that there are no suburbs posted as destinations anywhere inside 494/694. Although now that I think about it, there's North St. Paul posted for MN 36 at I-694 as well.
Well, Stillwater
is a suburb, technically... (You can drive via I-35W and MN-36 from Minneapolis to Stillwater without ever being outside the corporate limits of a municipality.)
No, but seriously, I figured you meant either one of two things:
1. Cities that are geographically inside the beltway (excluding MSP), that are posted on signs on or inside the beltway.
2. Cities that are generally part of the Greater Metro area, that are posted on signs inside the beltway. (This is what I thought you meant.)
Funnily enough, the I-35E/MN-36 example was the only example I could find in my random GSV searching that fit number 2.
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Here's a thread to discuss exits where there are no local exit destinations, for one reason or another.
Here's an extreme example (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9536141,-97.2599708,3a,48.7y,217.48h,87.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBu3NumoPT52aMzFH9bz9RQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in rural North Dakota. But this also occurs quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1530125,-77.5378822,3a,75y,47.51h,84.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soybCWatBaYGR4eDbfHOrsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) frequently (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1530125,-77.5378822,3a,75y,47.51h,84.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soybCWatBaYGR4eDbfHOrsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in suburban areas (at least around here), where a road name is used, but no destination. This tends to irk me in suburban areas :banghead: (but not urban areas/city centers, where this works perfectly fine (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1418005,-77.5908516,3a,75y,256.81h,94.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxHpfFxSi5-ZYl8jY8GInzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for city streets).
What are your thoughts on this? When faced with a choice of road name or a destination on a guide sign, which one would you prefer be included? Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3531108,-76.7459432,3a,75y,179.22h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOrT64FQFPLwINg8M_DkUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? How important is a destination on advance notice signs for exits, and how does this vary from a rural area to an urban one?
It seems normal in California to post the name of a road (which might be a highway number) and to put a city on it if it is the principle exit for the city or if a nearby city has a similarly named road. There will be some advance advisory green signs for roads that tend to parallel the freeway (such as "Stevens Creek Blvd" on I-280 in Santa Clara County and Sepulveda Blvd on I-405).
I-90 in South Dakota has several exits that are Exit ### with no destination or road name.
Did anyone bring up "Home on the Range" in North Dakota on I-94? Now there's a strange little place.
The exit (https://goo.gl/maps/Veg4uR8Ktgy) to the would-be Schuylkill Parkway on US 202 at the end of the Dannehower Bridge is completely unsigned except for the gore sign, which has a single PA 23 trailblazer shield slapped on top of it. The exit points to the stub, but makes a "temporary" U-turn around toward Bridgeport, so logically any full-size BGSes installed would list PA 23 and a destination of Bridgeport and/or 4th Street.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2018, 08:18:56 AM
Did anyone bring up "Home on the Range" in North Dakota on I-94? Now there's a strange little place.
Do the deer and the antelope play there?
Exit 325 on I-65 just lists the destination as Thompson Road:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4071529,-86.8980153,3a,18.5y,28.56h,87.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh1_FgfYEoEoM71QUiBh8rw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's technically for Hartselle (There are signs that state "Hartselle - Next 3 Exits" around the city, IIRC), but doesn't list it as such.
Also, here in Huntsville, most of the exits on the freeways in town just list local streets as their destination.
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 08, 2018, 11:41:08 AM
The exit (https://goo.gl/maps/Veg4uR8Ktgy) to the would-be Schuylkill Parkway on US 202 at the end of the Dannehower Bridge is completely unsigned except for the gore sign, which has a single PA 23 trailblazer shield slapped on top of it. The exit points to the stub, but makes a "temporary" U-turn around toward Bridgeport, so logically any full-size BGSes installed would list PA 23 and a destination of Bridgeport and/or 4th Street.
I'll go one further. The US 322/Bethel Rd. interchange in Aston (Delaware County), PA has no signage whatsoever in either direction (along 322)... except for this "homemade"
WEST 322 trailblazer sign with an MA-like shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8429126,-75.4136564,3a,75y,143.35h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXE13tmlTb30X-vqJjY01XQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Quite a few in North Carolina, mostly off of US Highways within cities. Some reason they don't always number the exits.
Once upon a time (maybe up to 10 years ago) this sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1444579,-77.1913929,3a,40y,320.15h,91.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swkg0efPSEswl-YaMVGxm4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) would have fit the the topic. They added the top sign "Tuscarora" when they did an overall sign refresh west of New Bern to prepare for the new NC-43 connector and US-17 Bypass exits.
Virginia has a few of these floating around, mostly in rural areas - the signs generally list a route number (most of these are secondary (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5727819,-80.743526,3a,75y,9.25h,94.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTutRJT1aGUDEGNmRoM_cmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) routes, although there are a few primary (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7218265,-77.5317957,3a,75y,70.02h,86.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKwphLoZi_5Bh2mb-I-PdKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.765229,-77.4803833,3a,75y,75.84h,89.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl_pn_UxeBoBBNYhMMFrFsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656https://www.google.com/maps/@36.765229,-77.4803833,3a,75y,75.84h,89.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl_pn_UxeBoBBNYhMMFrFsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with no destination or street name.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 07, 2018, 03:38:56 AM
Here's one with a street number, but without an exit number or destination. There's more than a few of these narrow BGSs in Western Washington, since most freeways lack exit numbers (minus the 5 and 405).
Keyword: "most"
And yet, exits on SR 14 in Vancouver and SR 16 in Tacoma are fully numbered. And also the first exit on SR 3 north of the junction with 16 at Gorst.
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on June 14, 2018, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 07, 2018, 03:38:56 AM
Here's one with a street number, but without an exit number or destination. There's more than a few of these narrow BGSs in Western Washington, since most freeways lack exit numbers (minus the 5 and 405).
Keyword: "most"
And yet, exits on SR 14 in Vancouver and SR 16 in Tacoma are fully numbered. And also the first exit on SR 3 north of the junction with 16 at Gorst.
Yeah, I don't really know what WSDOT is trying to do with exit numbers. They had a great opportunity to number 520 and 167 in their rebuilt sections, but still nothing.
While this might not be completely on topic there is an exit somewhere in North Carolina called the Haw River. Very odd using a river as a control city.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 14, 2018, 05:23:16 PM
While this might not be completely on topic there is an exit somewhere in North Carolina called the Haw River. Very odd using a river as a control city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haw_River,_North_Carolina
Quote from: dvferyance on June 14, 2018, 05:23:16 PM
While this might not be completely on topic there is an exit somewhere in North Carolina called the Haw River. Very odd using a river as a control city.
NJ has a South River. :bigass:
Quote from: jemacedo9 on June 06, 2018, 09:25:32 PM
In PA, when reaching an area with multiple exits, there is usually a sign, showing the town name, and up to the three next exits, like (might not be exactly right):
Williamsport Exits
-----------------------
Maynard St 2
Hepburn St 2 3/4
Market St 3 1/2
That sign repeats itself until all of the town exits have been passed. The exits within that do not have a control city, unless it's a major road where the main control city is only in one direction; then the BGS for that exit will have the local street name for one line, and the other control city; like this in Williamsport:
US 15 SOUTH
Market St
Lewisburg
(with or without a line separating the street from the other city; I've seen both in PA)
I kind of like this approach.
I-81 had it in Dunmore. It was a cloverleaf with one direction for Blakely Street and the other for Throop. Blakely Street mainly was saying that the SB direction was for Scranton (as Scranton has multiple exits where Throop has only one.
I think since US 6 was added to the nearby interchange the signs were changed though.